beer news

Post image for Alcohol Regulatory Round-up: August 11th 2011

Alcohol Regulatory Round-up: August 11th 2011

by Michelle Minton on August 12, 2011

in Odds & Ends

Federal: A proposed bill, Brewer’s Employment and Excise Relief Act, would reduce the federal excise taxes for craft brewers in order to help them grow in the hope that they will provide jobs, revenue, and economic stimulus. This is a smart move since craft brewers have had a strong showing in the last five years. According to a recent report from the Brewer’s Association, craft brewers saw a 15% increase in production while big beers like Bud, AB-inBev and MillerCoors have suffered with the rest of the economy. The more government gets out of the way of these businesses the more likely they are to grow, and the bigger and more financially secure they are the more people they can afford to employ.

Alabama: A clear example of how deregulation equals stimulation is occurring in Alabama, a state with a grand total of 6 brewers. It’s not surprising there are so few. But a new law seems likely to encourage a few brewers to give Alabama a try. Thanks in particular to the efforts of grassroots beer-lovers, Free The Hops, which I detailed in an earlier post, Alabama legislators passed the Brewery Modernization Act in May. It was signed by the governor in June, and a few months later new breweries are reportedly making plans to open in the state. While Alabama still has really stupid laws regulating brewing, (like the one that limits brewpubs to historic buildings and counties where brewing occurred before prohibition) the new regulations allow brewers to offer tours, tastings, sell their beer on-premise whether or not they have a restaurant, and it allows brewpubs to sell their beer to wholesalers for retail sales where previously they were limited to selling on-premise.

[click to continue…]

Massachusetts Reverses “Buy Local” Mandate for Brewers

by Michelle Minton on August 11, 2011 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Odds & Ends

Post image for Massachusetts Reverses “Buy Local” Mandate for Brewers

Public Outcry Forces Rule Reversal for Massachusetts Craft Brewers

Despite the recession, one segment of the US market, at least, has been steadily growing. This sector has supplied a constant boon of jobs, tax revenue and craft beer. Yes, I’m talking about beer. While “big beer,” brands like Bud, AB-inBev and MillerCoors, have suffered right along with the rest of the economy,  craft breweries have seen increasing growth in sales and profit. Much of that growth is owed to states deregulating and reforming regulations to make it easier for small breweries to enter and stay in the market. Smart lawmakers around the nation have recognized the potential tax revenue and job creating power of the booming craft beer movement and have encouraged new brewers to open operations in their state.  As a result of this competition for craft breweries, states have been repealing laws that have sat virtually untouched since prohibition. Unfortunately, some states are taking steps in the wrong direction, whether in an attempt to leach money from the burgeoning market or to protect other interests. One example is the attempt made last week by the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission to enact a new licensing requirement on small brewers that would have driven them out of the market. Luckily, the move was quickly reversed in the wake of vocal opposition from around the country.

When the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) announced the requirement that “farmer-brewers” in the state must obtain at least 50% of their ingredients from their farms, it became apparent that such a requirement would have forced most of those brewers to obtain a different kind of license. This license would be far more expensive and make it difficult, or impossible, for small breweries to compete in a market dominated by “big beer.” [click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: June 10, 2011

by Michelle Minton on June 10, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Reporting from around the nation on the ridiculous, the sad, and the sometimes positive news about the state of alcohol regulations.

National: BuyaBeerCompany.com, a website set up by two ad execs hoping to purchase Pabst Brewing Co. with donations from individuals, was shut down by the SEC. Michael Migliozzi and Brian William Flatow were able to find 5 million people who agreed to invest a total of $200 million to purchase the brewery. Apparently, they were supposed to register the public offering with the SEC first. Since the men haven’t actually collected money, the SEC reportedly reached a settlement with the two gentlemen, rather than charging them with violations of federal law.

Alabama: A silly law that requires brewpubs in Alabama to operate within an historic building might be overturned. The House of Representatives passed legislation removing that requirement for brewpubs to obtain licenses. The bill also removes restrictions on brewing and allows the pub owner to sell their product to wholesalers in order to distribute their product beyond the brewpub.

Maryland: The Prince George’s County Board of License Commissioners is considering rule changes that would, among other things, allow county liquor stores to accept call-in deliver orders from residents. Not everyone in the state is happy with the proposed changes.

Ohio: Legislators in Ohio want to raise the cap on how high the alcohol content can be in beer from 12 percent to 18 percent. A provision in the proposed state budget would do just that, to the delight of brewers and craft beer lovers in the state.

[click to continue…]

Wisconsin Proposal Hurts Craft Beer, Protects Big Brewers

by Michelle Minton on June 6, 2011 · 6 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment

In the battle between international brewing giants SABMiller and ABInBev, Wisconsin craft brewers could bear the heaviest burden. On May 31, the state legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approved a measure to be added to the state’s budget proposal which would prevent brewers from owning distributorships and retail licenses in Wisconsin. This means that if you’re a brewer, you can’t also sell alcoholic beverages to customers or retail shops.

The biggest backer of the bill is SABMiller, or as it is known in the US, MillerCoors. They have been pushing the measure, they say, in order to protect the vitality of Wisconsin beer in the face of a hostile invasion from their main national competitor, AB InBev, aka Anheuser-Busch. InBev has reportedly begun a nationwide campaign to purchase distributors in many states, something that MillerCoors says threatens all other brewers’ ability to get their beers in bars and on shelves. That’s the line that MillerCoors is peddling, but craft brewers in Wisconsin say they, and their ever increasing presence in the beer market, is the true target of the proposal.

While the text of the measure has not been made available to the public yet, the proposal would reportedly remove brewers’ current right to own wholesaler and retail licenses. Brewers of less than 300,000 barrels annually will still be able to self-distribute, but current brewers and new wholesalers would be required to have 25 independent retail customers prior to being granted the right to distribute. According to a MillerCoors spokesperson, these new rules would also prevent small brewers from banding together to form their own distributorship. In addition to all of that, the measure would prevent brewers from owning retail licenses, meaning that they could have a brewpub, but they would only be allowed to sell their own product. Breweries that already own retailing outlets would be allowed to retain one.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: May 23, 2011

by Michelle Minton on May 23, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Alabama: Small vineyards in Alabama support a bill that would allow them to self-distribute up to 24,000 barrels a year, allowing them to compete with larger wineries. Under the current law, wineries may only self-distribute their product within 200 feet of the vineyard.

Colorado: As I blogged about last week, on Friday, May 13, Colorado’s Gov. Hickenlooper overturned the alcohol rules that banned some ultra-light beers from restaurants and taverns. While most observers unfamiliar with the many years-long beer battle occurring in the state might think this is a good thing. Unfortunately, those in the state wishing to do away with the low-alcohol beer that grocery stores are forced to sell in lieu of full-strength beer were hoping to use the bar-ban on low alcohol as a bargaining chip to get full-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores. Hickenlooper, a former microbrewer and friend of craft breweries, listened to the constituents who mistakenly believe that full-strength beer in grocery stores would harm craft beer in the state.

Illinois: Craft brewers in Illinois are one step closer to being able to bypass wholesaler/distributors. A state house committee unanimously approved a bill that would allow craft brewers, which it defines as those producing less than 465,000 gallons of beer annually, to distribute up to 7,500 barrels per year themselves without using a wholesaler. Under the proposal, craft brewers are defined as those who manufacture less than 465,000 gallons of beer a year.

Not all members of the craft beer movement in Illinois are happy with the proposal. A spokesman for the Craft Brewers Guild says it doesn’t go far enough for brew pubs that, under the proposal, would need to have or build a separate brewing facility in order to get a permit to self-distribute. They say this is a wasteful hurdle to force brewpubs to overcome.

Another bill to raise the distilled spirits cap from 5,000 to 15,000 was also passed in committee and now both bills will go to before the legislature for a full House vote.

[click to continue…]

Delaware to Erase a Remnant of Prohibition?

by Michelle Minton on May 19, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

On April 6, a remarkable bill was quietly introduced in the Delaware state house. If it passes and is signed into law, House Bill 84 would allow small brewers to deliver their own product to licensed retailers of their beer. This would mean that, for small brewers like Dogfish Head, which is headquartered in Milton, Delaware, they could skip the onerous and expensive middle man (aka as a distributor or wholesaler) that is mandated in most other states. That is if they want to bypass the distributor.

Introduced by Republican Rep. Ruth Briggs King, HB 84 would essentially end the mandatory three-tier system for small brewers in Delaware. As both I and my colleague Angela Logomasini have written, the three-tier system is an archaic remnant of Prohibition. In an attempt to create a safe product and limit corruption in the wake of the mobs that grew up during the alcohol ban, lawmakers attempted to separate production, distribution, and sales of alcohol. The fear was that a large distributor of alcohol who also owned the production could shut out competition. Since the end of prohibition, the mandatory three-tier system has created the very powerful and profitable wholesaler industry. Producers of alcohol must contract a wholesaler who then finds the retail operations that will stock the producer’s products. Sometimes though, this doesn’t work out so well for producers — especially smaller ones — who often find that a wholesaler will do a poor job in distributing their products, perhaps to favor other more popular brands. In a system where they are forced to rely on middlemen to get their products in front of consumers, this sometimes leaves brewers with little or no recourse if their distributor underperforms.

Past attempts to end the three-tier system, or at least make it voluntary, have met with strong opposition from the powerful wholesalers lobby. They believe that if the system was switched to a voluntary basis, they would lose jobs, power, and money. Perhaps they are right. But is that reason enough to perpetuate an archaic, wasteful, and corrupt system?

[click to continue…]

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper Overturns Low-Alcohol Ban

by Michelle Minton on May 18, 2011

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

On Friday the 13th, just before happy hour, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law a bill that reversed the only victory in years for those fighting to get full-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores.

Governor Hickenlooper’s intentions aren’t malicious. A former brewer, Hickenlooper is simply trying to preserve the system that his craft brewing constituents assert creates the best environment for craft beer. That system divides beer into two categories: low-alcohol or 3.2 beer, which grocery stores and convenience stores may sell, and high-alcohol beer, anything above 3.2, which liquor stores, bars, and restaurants may sell.

As I have written before, the craft brewers are mistaken in their assumption that grocery store sales would have a negative impact on craft beer in Colorado. And even the liquor stores, who assert that grocery store sales of beer would put them out of business, could thrive in a liberated market.

Grocery and convenience stores backed by consumers who want cheaper more convenient options have asking year after year for the state to have one definition for beer and to allow beer to be sold, regardless of the alcohol content, in grocery, liquor, and convenience stores, as well as bars and restaurants. Yet, for at least four years running, all the bills introduced in the state legislature to change the beer regulations have been knocked down. Until last year.

Frustrated with yet another failed attempt, proponents of “real beer” in grocery stores had an ally in the state legislature attach an amendment to another bill, which passed, forcing the state to begin enforcing all of its liquor laws to the letter. What this meant, in effect, was that bars, restaurants, and taverns were banned from selling low-alcohol beer. Though the rule had been on the books for a long time, the state had never enforced it.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Fat Tuesday Edition

by Michelle Minton on March 8, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Post image for Alcohol Regulation Roundup: Fat Tuesday Edition

Happy Fat Tuesday, everyone! While you enjoy that frosty alcoholic beverage, enjoy this latest round of alcohol-related regulatory actions throughout the nation:

Colorado: Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is feeling the heat after his office issues an “executive fiat” overturning a law that prevents restaurants and bars from selling low alcohol beer. The bill, which was passed last year, forced the state to abide by the rule already on the books that states only grocery and convenience stores may sell low-alcohol beer. As a result, many light and low-alcohol Irish Stouts were prohibited from being served in bars. The bill was an attempt by grocery and convenience stores to draw attention to the need to do away with the distinction between low and higher alcohol beers and allow all stores to sell full strength beer. Hickenlooper, a former microbrewer, said that his office was involved in the surprise rules issued by the Division of Liquor Enforcement that overturns the ban on low-alcohol beer in restaurants.

The grocers and convenience stores said they were stunned by the abrupt repeal of rules that had taken months to hammer out.

Just a few days after the governor’s move, lawmakers announced that they will hold special hearings today (March 8, 2011) to review his actions.

Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, chairman of the House Economic and Business Development Committee, and Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, chairman of the House Finance Committee, will hold a rare joint hearing of their committees today. Liston said lawmakers want to understand how the rule change occurred and for what purpose.

While Hickenlooper takes his licks, St. Patty’s day revelers will have their Irish Stouts, and the issue of full-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores is likely to return to the legislature.

[click to continue…]

Alcohol Regulation Roundup

by Michelle Minton on December 13, 2010 · 5 comments

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

As alcohol regulations vary state-by-state and constantly shifting here is a quick roundup of booze news from around the states:

In federal news, following the FDA crackdown on alcoholic energy drinks, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued a statement clarifying its role in the regulation of such products.

In Pennsylvania, a state Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of Wegmans grocery store to sell beer at several of its locations throughout Pennsylvania, a notoriously strict alcohol-control state. The ruling found that the state liquor control board was in the right when it issues licenses to the grocery chain to sell beer so long as the store has a restaurant with seating for 30 or more, a food menu, and a minimum of 400 square feet. The Malt Beverage Distributors in the state are, predictably, unhappy with the ruling.

In other “dumb Pennsylvania liquor news” (I weep for my home state), the wine kiosk program gets some undesirable, but well-deserved derision from Wired magazine. Rather than allowing adults to purchase wine in grocery stores, the state has devised a “technological workaround” by placing kiosks in select stores that carry a limited variety of wines for purchase… if you can make past the “kafka-esque security measures”:

Each machine is connected to a state employee in Harrisburg, via video-camera. A customer chooses their wine, swipes their ID, puffs into a breathalyzer and faces the camera. The state employee checks that the ID matches the person and, if they’re not already intoxicated, the person is allowed to buy the wine.

Or you can just do your shopping in Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, or Ohio (whichever border state is closest).

In Texas, there’s talk of raising the excise taxes on beer: 19 cents to 35 cents per gallon of beer. Charles Hodges, CEO of Stop DWI, Inc., is pushing for the tax increase as he believes the additional $4 million a month from beer taxes would plug the holes in the state’s budget.

In Colorado, the newly elected governor, John Hickenlooper, gives those pushing for full-strength beer in grocery stores little hope. Despite the fact that Colorado’s zany liquor laws have resulted in bars and restaurants being banned from selling low-alcohol beer, Hickenlooper indicated he likes the status quo and doesn’t want to legislate “something that the small breweries think will put them at a disadvantage.” But grocery and convenience stores plan on trying again anyway, for a fourth time, to amend the state’s outdated laws and get full-strength beer on their shelves.

Ari and Lin Armstrong have a great piece in the Grand Junction Free Press on why it is finally time for a free beer market in Colorado.

In Illinois, Crain’s Chicago Business released their investigative report that shows big distributors of beer are employing illegal pay-to-play tactics and shutting out craft brews from the Chicago beverage market. In Chicago, like most cities in the U.S., brewers and bar/restaurant owners can’t deal with one another directly; they are forced by law to operate through a middleman called a distributor or wholesaler. The distributor takes on a portfolio of beers and then sells them to bars and restaurants. The revealing study shows why we should abolish the mandatory three-tier system, which requires the use of a distributor and establish the right for breweries, vineyards, and distilleries to directly ship their products.

In Tennessee, regulators are getting wise to the unintended consequence of their out-dated laws that limit the alcohol by volume of beer sold in grocery store to brew under 6.3 percent abv when border-state Georgia allows beer up to 14 percent abv.

In Maryland, wine and beer “enthusiasts” are set to introduce a proposal in several Maryland counties that would overturn a law that prevents patrons of restaurants with liquor licenses from bringing in their own wine. “Corkage,” as it is called, is the fee a customer pays to the restaurant for each bottle consumed by the diners that was not purchased at the restaurant. Corkage proponents want to make it so that even at non-BYOB establishments they can bring their own bottles to the table. The proposal may be considered by the Maryland General Assembly after January 12.

In West Virginia, legislators affirm that increasing alcohol taxes is not on their agenda. According to Delegate-elect Eric Householder, a Republican out of Jefferson County:

We’re back to the point of government taking care of everything for everybody … I have a litmus test … I’ve taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, I’ve put myself out there that I would not raise taxes. So I’m going to have a litmus test. Does this increase taxes? Does this increase government intervention? Is this an expansion of government? If I can answer yes to any one of those, obviously it’s legislation that I would not pass.

In Michigan, despite the un-banning of Sunday sales in the state (kind of), several counties intend to continue disallowing Sunday sales until noon or for the entire day.

Colorado to Ban Light & Low-Calorie Beer in Bars?

by Michelle Minton on December 2, 2010 · 1 comment

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Next year bars and dine-in restaurants in Colorado might be forced by law to stop selling light, low-calorie, and low-alcohol beers.

Any beer under 4% alcohol by volume would technically not be a malt beverage and in Colorado bars and restaurants are only licensed to sell liquor, wine, and malt liquor. While the provision isn’t new the new enforcement of the code may mean that by next year bars may have to stop selling light and low-calorie beers like Amstel, Heineken, Yeungling, Michelob, MGD 64, Bud Select 55, and even some non-light beers like Murphy’s Irish Stout; all of which come in under 4% ABV. At the same time, grocery and convenience stores will continue to sell beers that fall under the 3.2% alcohol by volume threshold.

That number, 3.2% might sound familiar if you’ve followed my coverage of the Colorado beer-in-grocery-store fight that has been raging in the state in recent years. Currently, Colorado grocery stores can sell beer as long as it is less than 3.2% alcohol by volume. In recent years grocery and convenience store owners have made a push, challenging the laws and asking that they be allowed to sell full-strength beer-currently only available in liquor stores, restaurants, and bars. Liquor store lobbyist have been able, thus far, to thwart such attempts and last year, after another failed effort, grocery store owners and their supporters in the legislature amended a bill that would require the liquor laws in the state to be enforced to the letter.

“Either stop selling the product we sell, or let’s stop having this false delineation on beer,” said Jason Hopfer, lobbyist for a group of convenience stores. “Let’s let beer be beer.”

It seems that the grocery and convenience store owners are employing a strategy whereby the customer and bar owners will be as inconvenienced as they are and perhaps they will be incensed enough to call their representatives and vote down the silly state laws.

It might actually work. Parties that have thus stayed away from the debate are suddenly taking an interest:

Pub owner Patrick Schaetzl had this to say:

It’s ridiculous…I don’t understand why the nanny state would (ban beers) when the other stuff is three, four and five times more alcohol by volume. It’s going to hurt a lot of places.
While Pete Meersman, president of the Colorado Restaurant Association said:
“We’re not really involved in this fight,” said “Our members feel like they ought to be able to sell the stuff. “
Patrons, too, are beginning to see their stake in the fight. Two bar patrons interviewed by the Denver Post added:
“In a lot of ways, they’re safer beers to drink,” said Maloney, who sticks to low-alcohol beer when he’s skiing. “It’s really just another way for state government to make things complicated.”
While liquor stores are already drafting bills to cut-off the latest grocery-store strategy, perhaps Coloradans will begin to see what Maloney, Meersman, Schaetzl, and convenience stores see: the state government of Colorado should not be telling business owners and grown adults what drinks they can buy where.

← Previous Entries