Does Size Matter?

In a rare show of common sense and with an unprecedented sensitivity to consumer wants and desires, the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch sent out a memo, dated April 27, 2011, announcing that they had increased the single serving size for draft beer in BC to up to 24 oz (680ml), eliminating the ridiculous conflict that existed between the old serving maximum of 500ml and the Federal Weights and Measures Act which dictated that if a pint of beer was served in Canada, it must measure 20 oz, or 568ml, in direct violation of the old BC serving size standard.

"Concerns have been expressed that the previous serving size rules did not allow for serving a pint of draft beer," the memo noted, so the LCLB, in what must have been a momentary lapse of reason, actually changed one of their arbitrary, nonsensical, antiquated laws and did a solid for the beer consumers of British Columbia. 

The 20 oz pint is now legal in BC
but still hard to find at least where craft
beer is sold

Hallelujah, rejoice, the pints of my youth could now be brought back from near extinction.

Now I know this is not exactly breaking news, but I have decided to chip in my $0.25 about the desire of some to bring the pint back to its proper place of prominence in BC so I figured I should give the BC LCLB props for actually paving the way for the return of the 20 ounce beer. Anyone who knows me knows I waste no time pointing out the LCLB's faults so it is only fair they get their due when it is warranted.

For whatever reasons (read profits for bar & restaurant owners), the "sleeve", which is basically the bottom half of a martini shaker in glass form, has become the glassware of choice for beers in this province over the past 15 years or so. These glasses can hold between 12 and 16 oz, depending on the flare of the glass, thickness to the glass and thickness of the false bottom and if filled to the brim, which they often are not. If memory serves me right and it often doesn't these days,  the sleeve became popular in Victoria about 15 years ago and the plague spread from there. At least that's what we say here in Vancouver. I am fairly certain that whoever the first person was to come up with the idea of serving a beer in a sleeve, if identified, would have been the most hated man in BC, in some circles, until Gordon Campbell came along with the HST.

Now I may have been asleep at the switch, but I cannot remember for the life of me any crusade by the BC LCLB, or anyone else for that matter, save my ex-wife, to eradicate the pint here in BC and shrink beer serving sizes. I worked in several bars and drank in even more and never heard of an establishment serving beers in pint glasses getting on the wrong side of the LCLB. The move to sleeves seemed to me, at the time, to be a cash grab by business owners who shrank their serving sizes by 20% and more, while charging roughly the same price and advertising falsely that they were still serving the full measure. It wasn't until a public uproar about sleeves being passed off as pints that sleeves began to be called sleeves, although you can still find places that try to pass them off as pints. Now it has become the norm and, for the most part, a sleeve is a sleeve, or is it due to the lack of standardization of size for this made up measure.

Since becoming president of CAMRA Vancouver this past May, probably what I have heard most from folks after, "can you change CAMRA into something more than a beer appreciation club," is the request to try to bring back to 20 oz pint here in BC.

It seems there is a segment of the local beer drinking population who dearly miss their friend the 20 oz pint and want the choice of being able to order one when they desire.

A noble cause, to say the least, but one that no one seems to want to lead. Sure, many, like those who come up to me to ask why CAMRA is not dealing with this issue, complain about the problem, but what are they doing to make their voices heard by those who have control to make the changes they so desire - the owners and managers of bars, lounges, clubs, pubs, restaurants.

For me, it is not the size of the beer that matters most. I personally do miss drinking from pint glasses but wonder, in today's craft beer world, if many beers offered are probably better off not served in full 20 oz glasses due to their high alcohol content. Most of the world I have visited and I have covered a fair bit of this planet, do not serve beer in pints. This tradition comes from the UK and Ireland mostly, where traditionally beers have been lower in alcohol, between 3.5-5 % ABV. Here in BC when pint glasses ruled, beer was a standard 5%, with a very few nosing up slightly higher. Now, in craft beer bars and restaurants, many of the beers are 7% and above, with more than a few weighing in at 9% and higher.

Tulip style glass popular with
many Belgian beers both
bottled and draft

As well, like with wines, many beer styles are now being served in specially designed glasses that enhance the tastes and aromas of those particular styles. This is just catching on here in North America, but in places like Belgium it is an essential part of the beer tasting experience.



What I feel is more of an issue than whether I sip my IPA from a 20 oz or a 12 oz glass is that the glass of beer I am paying for is not short poured or falsely represented. If I am paying for a sleeve of X beer, I want a sleeve of X beer, not 90-95% of a sleeve of X beer, especially with the prices we pay for good beer in this city. And I want to know ahead of time how much that sleeve holds. If it is a 12 oz sleeve, I want to know so I can make my decision as to whether the beer is over-priced or not. If an establishment offers "pints" of beer, I expect a full, 20 oz pint of beer, not a 90% full 20 oz pint, or a 17.5 oz pint, which, although it does not exist (no pint measures 17.5 oz in Canada), you see advertised at some establishments or a sleeve.

Now to me, that is something worth fighting for.

In 2008, CAMRA UK launched their Full Pint Campaign, where CAMRA representatives presented a petition, signed by 23,361, addressed to the British Prime Minister, to his residence at 10 Downing Street. The petition, which collected signatures over an 18-month period at CAMRA beer festivals and through an on-line site, urged the Prime Minister, "to take notice of the 23,361 people who have signed this petition calling for an end to short beer measures." It went on to point out that, "(i)t is unlawful for consumers to be short measured when buying petrol and it should be unlawful for consumers to be short measured when buying a pint of beer." 

Yes, it should be illegal. So should false advertising like stating you are selling a pint and serving a sleeve, or taking a mainstream, macro-lager and calling it an IPA.

To me, clear advertising as to what you are ordering is essential. And then it is just as essential for businesses to deliver on their promise and serve the measure they promised to serve. If a bar wants to sell a 12 oz sleeve, then state that and fill those sleeves to the 12 oz mark. At least consumers know ahead of time what they are ordering.

But if size really does matter to enough consumers who feel passionate about the right to have their favourite beer served in a full, 20 oz pint glass then they need to make their voices heard. They need to convince business owners that it is in their best interests to offer 20 oz pints. CAMRA BC, or more locally, CAMRA Vancouver could be the vehicle to help carry this cause forward, but they cannot do it on their own. Campaigns need organizers. Campaigns need supporters. Campaigns need action plans. What campaigns don't need are people criticizing others for not taking action while they sit back and wait for changes to happen.

There needs to be an organized plan of attack on how to convince those who serve the beers to do so in the vessels we wish to drink from, or at least give us that option. Maybe a petition, like the one in the UK, presented to bar and restaurant owners might persuade them to offer up the pint option at their establishment. There is always the option of frequenting only places that serve the 20 oz pints, but I don't see too many craft beer lovers boycotting The Alibi Room, St Augustine's, or the like, to prove a point. I know I won't.


So, if this is an important issue for you out there and you have any ideas of what to do, drop me an email at pres@camravancouver.ca  with your suggestions and let them know how you'd like to help out. Although, for me personally, the size of the glass isn't the major issue, I can certainly understand the desire to see the 20 oz pint glass  make a come back and as president of CAMRA Vancouver, I would be willing to get a campaign going to try to make that happen.

And maybe while we are at it, we can make sure those 20 oz glasses get filled with the full 20 oz of beer promised.

Reports and Ramblings From Beer-Addled Mind #2

CAMRA YVR Engaging Members and Getting Busy

CAMRA YVR's new executive made good on their promise to become more active and get their members more involved, holding their first Policy and Advocacy Meeting at the Alibi Room Tuesday evening. Many of the usual suspects were in attendance and the downstairs room of the Alibi was full, with approximately 40 people showing up to take part. It was also encouraging to see some new faces in the crowd as well with a cross-section of people from all different segments of the beer community represented. CAMRA YVR president, Martin Williams, kept things on point by sticking to the agenda set out and moving the conversation forward, when necessary, to keep the meeting from stalling and losing shape.
From my point of view, I felt there was some good discussion and and it was interesting to hear the points of view from the different concerned parties. I know that personally I sometimes simplify issues and look at them purely from a consumer point of view, so it was very informative to hear from brewers, pub and brewery owners, distributors and retailers and understand a little more the issues they face in regards to the regulations, laws and restrictions that are in place in this province. It was also encouraging to see the meeting not digress into a simple bitch session and that those in the crowd were more than willing to get involved with many taking on the task of doing some research on specific issues in order to report back to CAMRA, in three weeks time, so that the issues can be revisited and action strategies formed, based on facts and not just emotion, at the next meeting April 5th.

There was some interesting comments and debate about the tied house issue and the proposed changes being considered by the provincial government to deregulate, or outright abolish, tied house laws. I have made my opinions about the tied houses quite well known, telling anyone who will listen that I am against the government relaxing the regulations in place to allow tied houses and inducements to exist. Some voiced similar concerns to mine, but there were some in favour of allowing tied houses, or at least allow for some relaxing of the regulations.
Mission Springs Brewing Company were represented and are directly effected by the current tied house rules which prohibits them from selling their Mission Springs beers in the Billy Miner Pub, which has ownership ties to the brewery. This is a prime example of how the laws in place are hobbling those they are meant to protect. It is also a prime example of how complicated some of the challenges are that those involved in the beer industry have to face. Another strong proponent of deregulating tied houses was Adam Henderson, owner-operator of Raincity Brands, a local importer of beer, who has laid out his arguements for allowing tied houses on his website. Other topics touched upon and discussed were liquor distribution problems, home brewing laws and the always anger-evoking liquor taxation.

From my point of view, there seemed to be some genuine interest by those in attendance to actually do more than talk but whether the meeting inspires them to follow through, do the research, organize and campaign is yet to been seen. If there is a failure to convert this talk into action, the blame certainly will not fall on CAMRA YVR and their executive, who are doing what they can to engage members and get them involved. Williams and his executive are pointing the horses in the direction of the water, now it is up to those horses to take action and drink. When talking to Martin, over countless pints, about the issues that concern us here in BC, related to the craft beer industry, he has always stated that CAMRA is merely a vehicle that needs to be fueled, guided and moved forward by the will of its membership and not just directed and lead by the executive. I am not sure what the other BC chapters of CAMRA are doing to campaign and effect change but if they are not holding similar meetings on a regular basis to organize, they may want to keep an eye on what CAMRA YVR are up to. It should the the goal of CAMRA BC to form cohesive, organized campaigns that are consistent province-wide, activating all members from all chapters together, to form one, unified voice that can speak intelligently and hopefully be heard by those who have the power to make the changes to our laws and regulations.
If you have an interest in trying to effect change in our antiquated and overbearing liquor laws, stay tuned to the CAMRA Vancouver website for confirmation of the location for the next meeting, which, if it is possible will be held at the Alibi Room once again. If you have specific issues you wish to address, or have particular skills and the motivation to get involved, this is your chance to be heard. And if you are not already CAMRA member, buck up your $25/year and get involved.

More on Tied Houses

One of the most interesting things I took away from the CAMRA YVR Policy and Advocacy Meeting was that there appears to be some changes coming soon in regards to the tied house regulations. According to the information shared, there is at least one liquor inspector out there who is reporting that there is room to interpret the tied house regulations that would allow, for instance, a microbrewery to sell their products at a pub or restaurant, off-site, that has ownership connections to the brewery. From what I understood, the word was that as long as there was equal representation of independent products, read beers from other breweries not "tied" to the establishment, offered at the same prices and promoted in the same manner as the "tied" beers, it would be okay to sell the "tied" beers.
I did not get into any in-depth conversation about this as there was a meeting in progress, but if I understood correctly, and this is the case, it may be that the government has made their decision as to which option will be chosen from the three proposed in the LCLB's Consultation Paper, dated January, 2011. I have not seen any official announcement in regards to any decisions, nor has anyone else I have spoken to, but the whole "consultation" process and the hushed nature of the proposed rule changes had a certain reek about it and it is my opinion that the government had already been lobbied and had made their decision, at least in part and was not basing their reasons for the proposed changes on "public safety" but more so on big business wants and needs. Whatever the case, it seems, as far as I am concerned, something wicked this way comes and we are about to see some very substantial changes made to the landscape of the local beer market. Some changes will benefit certain small breweries who do have a financial stake in other restaurants and bars, and I see that as a positive, but total deregulation, in regards to allowing tied houses and the allowance of inducements, may have a very negative impact on the local, craft beer industry here in BC, where it is just starting to flourish and make substantial inroads into the beer market.
One more note I find interesting...in England, where tied houses have been allowed and where big, multi-national breweries, including Labatt, have been allowed to buy up chains of pubs and restrict the beers offered in those pubs to just their beers, one MP, Martin Horwood, has introduced to the Tied Public Houses (Code of Conduct) Bill to the legislature, for debate. The proposed changes to the laws that would require that publicans running tied houses be allowed to sell "guest" beers, instead of being restricted and dictated to by their big brewery owners. Click on the Tied Houses link to see the story reported by Jon Howard, March , 2011, on the CAMRA UK website. I wonder if the government here in BC has bothered to talk to their UK brethren to see what the allowing of tied houses has done to the beer industry in regards to fair competition and restriction of consumer choices, in the UK.

A Challenge to all Lower Mainland Beer Bloggers - How Well do You Know Your Beers?

Vancouver's Legacy Liquor Store, located at 1633 Manitoba St, in the infamous Olympic Village, has recently announced they will hold The Knockdown, Drag Out Beer Quiz and Blind Taste Test, to be held April 13, 2011, at Legacy. The contest, which will cost $25 to enter, is being organized by Legacy's Chris Bonnallie and will consist of 25 questions, related to beer, followed by blind taste tests involving eight beers. The blind testing will ask contestants to name the style of beer, country of origin and the actual brand name of the beer. The person accumulating the most points, one given for each correct response, will receive a $200 gift certificate for Legacy.
Now, I know I rattle on about craft beer as if I am some kind of expert, but in reality, I just love good beer, love to write and have no fear about offering my opinion. But here, I am ready to put my money where my mouth is, enter the contest and really see what I know about beer. I suspect I will make an ass out of myself, which some, including myself, will find amusing. But what I would like to do is put out a challenge to all beer bloggers to join me in the contest, perhaps making a small side wager with the winner taking all, which they are free to donate to charity or buy a round of beer for the gang. And of course they will have the bragging rights over the rest of us brave enough to show!
Tickets for the event, which can accommodate up to 40 people, go on sale Monday, March 14, at Legacy and is open to all. I really hope to see some familiar faces out there as this event sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

Tied House and Trade Practice Changes: Opening Pandora's Box?

A very important deadline recently came and went, a deadline that may soon have a major impact on the craft beer industry and I wonder how many that will be potentially impacted were aware.
Proposed changes to legislation regarding tied houses and trade practices, by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB), here in British Columbia, have been presented and the deadline for feedback about the proposed changes was February 15, 2011. In June of 2010, legislation was passed here in BC paving the way for amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act in regards to trade practice laws and tied houses. Basically, the government is looking to deregulate the liquor industry in regards to tied houses and trade practices and this scares the Hell out of me!
Let me explain...
In January of this year, the LCLB issued a Consultation Paper, posting it on its website and apparently sending it to a "number of liquor related organizations" outlining the three different options for proposed changes in both areas, asking for feedback. The purpose of the paper was so that the LCLB could hear from those who may be impacted by the changes, consider all arguments, for each option outlined, so they could make an informed decision about how to shape and draft the new legislation before presenting it to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
For those who aren't familiar with the terms tied houses and trade practices, and I have to admit, I really wasn't up to speed until very recently, let me try to explain. According to the LCLB Consultation Paper a "tied house is an establishment that has an association, financial or otherwise, with a liquor manufacturer or its agent that is likely to lead to its products being favoured." In other words tied houses are pubs and restaurants that are linked directly to the producers of the alcohol, who would profit directly from the sale of their alcohol to the public and who could restrict the sale of products produced by their competitors. Examples of a "tied houses" would be Molson House and Heineken House, which were given special exemptions to exist during the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Trade practices laws are those that restrict and prohibit "commercial interactions between liquor suppliers and licensed establishments including restrictions on promoting specific manufacturers and their products in exchange for benefits provided by the supplier" (LCLB Consulation Paper, p.2).These trade practice restrictions and prohibitions help stop producers of alcohol from basically bribing licensed establishments by offering freebies to them in exchange for exclusive or preferred sales deals. You have to look no further than Rogers Arena and BC Place where the larger breweries have secured exclusive deals by offering financial inducements.

Now I have purposely oversimplified these concepts as they are complex, convoluted and quite frankly, I have trouble wrapping my wee brain around them completely, especially if I am drinking and blogging (no 0.5 % alcohol limit to content with here!). Tied houses have been outlawed in British Columbia since the 1950s when the Liquor Act was changed to prohibit tied houses and the offering of inducements by liquor producers and distributors to licensees. The changes to the law were originally brought in the protect the consumer and smaller breweries as the larger breweries were buying up pubs and featuring only their products, freezing out the smaller breweries and limiting consumer choices. These laws and regulations attempted to stop those breweries with deep pockets, such as Molson and Labatt from basically cornering the market by controlling what the pubs sold, often at low prices to induce overconsumption. In the 1950s there were far fewer pubs and clubs, approximately 600 according to the LCLB Consultation Paper, and no licensed restaurants in the province, therefore it was much easier to consolidate and dominate the market. Today, the LDLB states there are more than 9000 licensed establishments, therefore it is much more difficult to dominate.
Over the years, some of these laws have been tweaked to allow for establishments like brewpubs and wineries to sell their products at the same sight they are produced. As well, the trade practice regulations have been relaxed so that liquor producers can supply licensees, for free, with such things as umbrellas, t-shirts, coasters, glassware, etc with their logos on them. The proposed changes will further relax, or completely eliminate these restrictions and prohibitions, depending on what option they pass into law.
It has taken years in this province to loosen the grip the major breweries had on the beer market to allow smaller craft breweries to survive and thrive. Despite the laws, the practice of inducements has been alive and well, with breweries having deeper pockets offering kickbacks, i.e. a free keg for every ten kegs (or less) purchased, or offering to pay for improvements to a pub or restaurant in exchange for an "exclusive" or "preferred" sales deal. I have seen this first hand when working in the industry. Local breweries have fought tooth and nail to carve out their place in the market and it took until the past few years for them to gain a a small share of the market even with all these restrictions is place. In the BC Liquor Distribution Branch (BCLDB) December 2010 Quarterly Report, it was reported that breweries that produced less than 150,000 hectolitres of beer had an increase of 7.65% in draft sales and 40.12% in bottled sales compared to the same quarter last year while breweries with production of more than 150,000 had a drop in sales by 7.71% for draft and 8.6% for bottled beers. To me, this indicates that more and more people are being turned on to craft beer here in BC. Despite the fact that craft beer is more expensive, it is gaining in popularity and slowly gaining a larger market share. But if my math is correct - there is more than a good chance it isn't...please see drinking and blogging comment above - despite the reported gains in the BCLDB Quarterly Report, the breweries with less than 150,000 hectolitres still only had approximately 13% of the BC market.
The proposed changes, as I mentioned, have been presented in three options. For tied houses the options are: complete deregulation; permit tied houses but limit the number of tied houses that a person/company can hold; permit tied houses with "public interest restrictions" such as rules that the LCLB would enforce and if breeched by a tied house, their license to be a tied house would be revoked. In relation to trade practices the options are: complete deregulation, anything goes; reduce of eliminate "most" trade practice restrictions; allow sponsorship agreements between licensees and liquor producers, but not allowing complete exclusivity deals to be made. These are simplifications of the proposal and for a more detailed explanation, please see the Consultation Paper by clicking the link above.

So why the Hell am I rattling on about this, you may be asking yourselves? Well, I am somewhat suspicious about why the government is looking to deregulate and wondering just how such huge proposed changes to the liquor laws have gone basically unreported and unnoticed, even by those who will be impacted. I believe that consumer advocacy groups like CAMRA BC, the press and bloggers like myself have a duty to critically look at these types of changes and question whether they really are in the favour of the consumer and whether they promote the growth of the local craft beer industry. If we get the word out there, make informed decisions about the issues and make our voices heard loud and clear, we can effect positive change. 

How often do changes to liquor laws, in this province of over regulation, go unreported? Hardly ever. Who is lobbying for these changes and why? Is it that the big breweries are getting slightly nervous that their complete stranglehold on the beer market has been reduced to just a half-Nelson? The LCLB is claiming that they allocate a "significant" amount of their resources to investigating cases of tied houses and the breaching of trade practice laws and enforcing the existing laws and they claim these resources could be better allocated to protect the "public safety" by monitoring over-serving alcohol, over-crowding licensed establishments and serving alcohol to minors. In my opinion, we are already over-protected and we have too many liquor inspectors running around giving out seemingly arbitrary fines and warnings to establishments, enforcing liquor laws that are ancient and out of date such as the "audience participation" regulations and the ever contentious issue of how much alcohol are you allowed to drink when out for a meal in a restaurant. 

When I look at these proposals, especially in regards to the LCLB's rationalization for them, it again has me really wondering what they are trying to accomplish and why. The first proposal in each area could open Pandora's Box and allow, once again, the deep-pocketed, national breweries to squeeze out their smaller competition by buying up chains of pubs and restaurants and exclusively selling their products. It might sound like I am Chicken Little running around screaming, "the sky is falling" but think about what the market was like just 25 years ago! And think about all the progress the craft beer trade has made and look at what a small percentage of the actual beer market they have. In my opinion, we need to fight hard against anything that allows tied houses just to limit the possibility of  the bigger breweries throwing their financial weight around more than they already are. They are greedy coproations with a seemingly endless hunger for more money with no regard for the consumer. It happened in the UK and it can happen here. The practice did not completely eradicate the smaller, local breweries there, but it did reduce their ability to survive in some cases, limited greatly their ability to sell their product unless they sold a controlling interest to the larger breweries. And it did greatly limit the consumers choices in regards to what they could drink and where. Do we want to even allow for that possibility to happen here? I would think if you are a craft beer lover and wish existing local breweries thrive and see more local breweries come into existence, you would want more regulations put on in place to encourage the local craft beer scene not the hinder it.
The second option in both areas again would allow for the ownership of a limited number of tied houses and allow sponsorship deals to exist again and opens the door for the larger breweries to impose their financial might to buy a bigger share of the market. What is a logical number of tied houses to allow? How will this be enforced as many larger breweries own a number of smaller breweries and there could be room for manipulation and abuse of the regulations by companies setting up complicated and convoluted ownership schemes. This option, along with the third, will require that the LCLB still allocate significant amount of resources to ensure that the laws are being followed. Does this not contradict directly their rationalization for changing and deregulating?

Now, I know that in some cases the tied house rules have hurt the craft beer and wine industry here in BC. A prime example is Lighthouse Brewery when the owner of brewery was not allowed to sell his beer to a restaurant he co-owned with three others due to the tied house rules. Would it not make more sense to look at these case-by-case to see what the relationship is and the intent of the relationship. Surely a local brewery wanting to sell its own beer in a restaurant that has ties to the brewery is not some plot to squeeze out competition and limit consumers in their choices.
If any of this strikes a cord with you and you have any concerns about the proposed tied house changes, please let your voices be heard. If you are not already a member of CAMRA, you should join and help consolidate our voice. This is exactly why groups such as CAMRA BC are meant to exist. Let's actively campaign to fight off the big national breweries and promote and support our local craft breweries so that they can thrive. Let's stop politicians from passing laws that could potentially send us back towards the Dark Age of Beer here in BC when you only had to order "a pint"...didn't matter what you ordered because it all tasted the same. Let's campaign to be given the chance to drink the beers we want, where we want and how we want them to be served.