Craft with a Capital "C", Part 2

A few weeks ago I offered some much-belated opinion on the Brewers’ Association’s attempt to draw a line around craft beer, basically naming who’s in & who’s out.  I tried to make it clear that I understand the BA’s need to make this distinction & see the value in doing so.  On the other hand, I think how they chose to draw the line is what so many reacted negatively toward in the first place, & I take some issues with the criteria myself.  I get that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but parts of this manifesto left me scratching my head.

“An American craft brewer is small…”  That makes sense.  Years ago, “microbrewery” & “microbrew” were the prevailing nomenclatures for small brewers making something off the beaten path.  However, the term “microbrewer” had a specific volume attached, to the tune of 15,000 barrels per year or less.  Safe to say most of the well-known & “definitive” craft brewers do not fit this scale.  Dogfish Head is not a microbrewery, nor are Stone, Troegs, Allagash, Southern Tier, or many, many other purveyors of some damn fine beer.  The BA’s ceiling for craft brewers used to be 2 million barrels annually, until about 3 years when it raised that ceiling to 6 million.  It was no secret that this change was to accommodate Boston Beer Company’s expanding production, & many cried ‘foul’ at what they saw as a cynical move to keep this power player in the BA’s camp.  Sam Adams still has a ways to go to reach the 6 million barrel mark, & even this titan accounts for a mere 1% of American beer sales.  Still, if this specific figure were eliminated as a defining feature, I doubt you’d find any craft beer drinker in America who’d call Sam Adams ‘small’.  Same goes for many of the well-established craft brewers out there, despite being dwarfed by the big internationals.  That being said, there are still plenty of smaller (at least relative to the big boys), old school regional brewers a la Yuengling & Straub that fall well below this line, too, but don’t qualify as craft brewers.  Just like the square/rectangle relationship, all craft brewers are small, but not all small brewers are craft.

“…independent…”  This makes sense to me.  The BA seeks to represent breweries that don’t have the financial & political clout of the big boys.  But, the definition states that “Less than 25% of the craft brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.”  Why not 0%?  Why not go for complete independence?  I’m not sure who’s aided by this loophole, but it seems to me the most glaring ideological inconsistency in the definition.

“…and traditional.”  This part strikes me as just downright arrogant.  By the BA’s definition, “traditional” means that a craft brewer produces an all-malt flagship (read: no rice or corn adjuncts used in their biggest seller) or uses adjuncts to “enhance rather than lighten flavor”.  This prevents the afore-mentioned Yuengling & Straub from inclusion, as both use adjuncts in their lagers, as well as plenty of brewers that have been making lager this way since way before the recent craft era.  Corn & rice have misunderstood &, consequently, vilified places in the history of American beer – I’m tempted to go off on a tangent on this topic, but will save it for another post.  But regardless of their demonization, adjuncts are more “traditional” & have a longer history in American beer than, say, Cascade hops.  Sure, adjunct-based beers are far from perfect, but if craft brewers are all about innovation (as is stated further in the BA’s manifesto), then don’t also hang your hat on the hook of tradition.  And claiming all-malt as traditional ignores the much longer history & evolution of beer worldwide; is a slippery slope toward a modern Reinheitsgebot, the high water mark of brewing restriction.

So yeah, it’s seldom as simple as this-side-or-that.  I still say the BA’s absolutely in the right for trying to defend the borders & reputation of craft, & since the days of “microbrewers” is all but over, there needs to be some clear definition somewhere.  Just seems that the current definition has a way to go before it’s watertight.  It’s certainly served to piss off plenty of folks who were left out in the cold, or who thought the line was too hard.  Just some thoughts, the pros & cons.  Here at The House, we’re happy to let the drinker make up their own mind.  As always, drink what you love, but think when you drink.