I keep reading about SAB Miller’s new line of “Craft Lite” beers. It’s driving me nuts. The Brookston Beer Bulletin has a good post reviewing the beers and some of what’s been said before on the subject. This new Craft Lite bullshit is SAB Miller doing the same thing that corporate America did to the various radical 60s movements, punk rock, etcetera, etcetera. They are throwing money at a marketing scheme in an attempt to own a concept (craft beer) that grew organically in the underground, away from the screaming billboards and Superbowl commercials, because they’ve seen that a lot of people are hearing about craft beer and checking it out. Of course, if you’ve just heard the term craft beer, maybe a Coor’s Blue Moon Wit will be a revelation to your palate, and if you are typical, you’ll stop there, never discovering the joy of a full-flavored wit (a pretty light flavored beer to begin with), and certainly never experiencing a beer as extreme and well-crafted as, say, a Stone Pale.
One thing in that Brookston post kind of bothered me (the first part of the following quote is from an interview with a suit at SAB Miller; the second is Mr. Brooks’ reaction):
All-malt is at the core of how “craft” brewers define their products. Would you say you disagree? First, it’s important to note that these are not intended to be craft beers and are not targeted at craft drinkers. These are craft-style light beers. Additionally, “all malt” is one, but not the only, criteria that defines craft beer. The Brewers Association describes craft as beers brewed with a traditional process using malted and specialty grains, hops, water and yeast to deliver the aroma, taste and appearance characteristics not typically found in mainstream beers. That’s what we’re delivering — a unique consumer taste experience not typically found in light beers and consistent with craft-style beer.
Hmm, maybe I’m mis-reading that but it sounds like Manuele is suggesting that a brewery could skirt one of the requirements for being considered a craft brewer and still be one. But my understanding of the three-prong definition of a craft brewer (see below) is that all three criteria must be met. Anything less, and you’re not a craft brewer (at least by the BA definition). He interprets the definition of what qualifies as a craft beer as something with flavors “not typically found in mainstream beers” and then suggests that the new craft-style light beers could qualify because they provide a “unique consumer taste experience not typically found in light beers and consistent with craft-style beer.” That’s a pretty tortured bit of logic, I must say. He’s defining by using the negative, saying that since it’s not this, it must be that. Not so fast. Just because something tastes different or isn’t as typical (assuming that point can even be conceded) doesn’t make it something else.
I could make an apple pie with no apples, substituting Ritz crackers, and it might taste something like an apple pie. But I don’t think anyone would let me get away with still calling it an authentic apple pie, because it’s missing a key element of apple pie, namely apples. Likewise, craft beer that isn’t all-malt really isn’t. The only exception to not using all-malt ingredients and having the brew still considered a craft beer is if they “use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor.” And while Manuele claims they used “wheat and corn for taste, lightness and refreshment” (perhaps trying to combine them), who doesn’t believe that while the wheat may impart taste and refreshment, the corn is only there for lightness.
I agree, of course, with his basic premise, but the OCD apprentice brewer in me got all puffed up and pissy about one niggling point. My problem with that statement is, actually, adjuncts like sugar are often used to lighten beer. According at least to my understanding from copious field tests, and also Brew Like a Monk, that’s the point of adding sugar to, say, a trippel. The sugar adds alcohol content while keeping the color light and the body a bit lighter, which goes a long way to explaining why a lot of 8-9+% Belgian beers are so damned drinkable. Compare an all-malt barleywine or imperial stout to a Belgian style beer of just as high ABV brewed with sugar added.
This whole issue drives me to despair. The truth is, Miller adds adjuncts to keep flavor down. That’s why Miller beers are boring as all get out. I will happily escort by the elbow down to Speisekammer any macro beer drinker and buy said heretic a god damned Weltenburger Helles. Now there is an ultralight, ultra flavorful all-malt lager done right.
I guess that’s a subtle point. You add sugar to a high-ABV beer to keep it from being syrupy. You add sugar to a low-ABV beer to keep it from being tasty.
But back to the despair. I despair because the good guys never win these debates in any meaningful manner. It’s part of the essential workings of this here world of illusion. Truth is, SAB Miller will redefine craft beer the way Epitaph/Fat Wreck redefined punk rock into the Epifat monstrosity, and good beer (in the US) will continue to be made in small quantities by relatively underground breweries, consumed by “beer snobs”. You can’t stop the embracing and extension.
