Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday October 28 2015, @10:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the blue-loon dept.

It turns out you can hide an entire brewery (or not even have a brewery) and pretend to produce a craft beer, advertise it as such, and it's not even against the law. For years, Blue Moon Brewing Co. has been passing off its beers as "microbrews", or "craft beers", while curiously building market share beyond what a craft brewery could actually produce. The catch is that Blue Moon is semi-secret brand of MillerCoors LLC. CourtHouseNews reports:

Evan Parent, who describes himself as a "beer aficionado," began buying Blue Moon beer in 2011, but stopped in about mid-2012 when he discovered it is made by MillerCoors LLC, which owns widely recognizable labels such as Coors, Miller High Life, Milwaukee's Best and Hamms.

Parent started a class action law suit against MillerCoors in San Diego state court, claiming deceptive practices and misrepresentation in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; untrue and misleading advertising in violation of California's false advertising law; and unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices in violation of California's unfair competition law.

Under craft-brewing principles [as defined by the Brewers Association], brewers cannot produce more the 6 million barrels of beer annually, must be less than 25 percent owned by a non-craft brewer and must brew beer using only traditional or innovative brewing ingredients. In comparison, MillerCoors makes about 76 million barrels of beer per year, according to Parent who says the company charges "up to 50 percent more for Blue moon" based on its bogus craft-beer status. He also claims the company "goes to great lengths to disassociate Blue Moon beer from the MillerCoors name" by stating on Blue Moon packaging that it is brewed by Blue Moon Brewing Co.

MillerCoors managed to get the case moved to federal court, and the judge handed MillerCoors a slam dunk win on all counts. MillerCoors found specific loopholes in California law that allowed them to produce beer under "fictitious names" if they just register those names on the official "fictitious names" registry. The plaintiff has 30 days to amend the complaint after the judge's final order.


takyon: MillerCoors LLC is a joint venture between SABMiller and Molson Coors Brewing Company that was created in 2007 and approved by U.S. antitrust regulators in 2008. It has been described as a challenger to Anheuser-Busch. However, SABMiller recently agreed to be purchased by Anheuser-Busch InBev for $106 billion. MillerCoors may be dismantled by regulators and some brands could be divested.

Previously: Congress May Lower Beer Taxes, Sam Adams Could Cease to be "Craft Beer"

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by OwMyBrain on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:47PM

    by OwMyBrain (5044) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @02:47PM (#255604)

    Parent who says the company charges "up to 50 percent more for Blue moon" based on its bogus craft-beer status.

    This Evan Parent guy sound like kind of an idiot. Of course Blue Moon costs more than Coors/Miller because it actually has a proper amount of barely (and probably wheat because of its style). Typical light American lagers are so cheap because they use less barely and make up the difference with rice. It's what gives them their characteristic lack of flavor. As far as I'm concerned Blue Moon is reasonably priced for a beer of its quality. So what if its brewer also makes some cheap, shitty beers? False advertising sucks, but it's so ubiquitous I'm surprised anyone still believes anything marketing materials say. Who is this this Evan guy? What are his credentials? Oh, he's a self-appointed beer aficionado. Bored now.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:17PM (#255662)

    barely any barley :-D

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:36PM (#255671)

    > so cheap because they use less barley and make up the difference with rice

    Would you believe me if I told you that budweiser actually pay more per kilo for their rice than their barley? Handy hint - you should do, as that information comes from the brewer himself (independently via two consultants who are both considered highly respected in their field.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:48PM (#255716)

      You are correct. Using rice and corn is not an industrial attempt at cheapening the product, it is there because of the product. The light lager is defined by its light color and light taste. You don't get that using all malt. You need the corn/rice to lighten the body, and in the case of corn, perhaps add a subtle flavor.

      Historically, there are a couple of reasons that corn/rice were used. The first is that 6-row barley grows very very well in North America and it yields 6 times the barley kernels as Continental 2-row, so it is considerably cheaper to grow per acre. It also contains more enzymes and proteins than 2-row. To deal with those extra enzymes, you add non-barley starches that they can convert to sugar. This page [morebeer.com] has all the nitty-gritty on the differences between the two barley cultivars, but the short answer is that those German immigrants had to figure out how to work with the 6-row barley grown in the US.

      The other big reason for the corn/rice is the consumer demand for light body beers. In the 19th century when Pilsner Urquell and other pale lagers swept the world, consumer demand was for light lagers. Adding flavor neutral sugars from corn and rice allowed those beers to be brewed. That was done all over the world, not just in the US (but it was essentially required practice in the US because they were using 6-row barley).

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 29 2015, @10:15AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 29 2015, @10:15AM (#255951) Homepage
        Very informative, but not quite right on the historical issue. Barley was not native to the US, and the earliest beers were brewed with wheat and what we'd now consider adjuncts (such as corn).
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @01:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @01:54PM (#256453)

          Sorry, I was only referring historically to the brewing industry set up in the 19th century with the multiple waves of German immigrants. The Germans had to figure out how to deal with the barley that was available to them.

  • (Score: 1) by Moof123 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:55PM

    by Moof123 (5927) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:55PM (#255742)

    I prefer the little guys for the sake of supporting the little guy, but we should also be supporting the big guys if and when they wake up and start making good beer. Similarly Sierra Nevada got bought up years ago, and is still excellent. Shock Top is another that is a fake micro brewer. I will still drink those in a heart beat if the alternative is Coors, Bud Light, or similar awfulness.

  • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:32PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:32PM (#255759)
    Blue Moon isn't made with barley, it's made with wheat.
    --
    I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 1) by OwMyBrain on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:48PM

      by OwMyBrain (5044) on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:48PM (#256007)

      Actually wheat beers are made with both wheat and barely. If I remember correctly, it's because wheat alone doesn't have enough of the enzymes to break down starches into sugar. Barely malt is also high in the nutrients that allow the yeast to prosper.

      • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:18PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:18PM (#256180)
        Most are, and Blue Moon is probably 60/40 or 70/30 wheat to barley (and, I believe, it includes some rice), but you can certainly make wheat beer without barley at all. The problem with wheat alone is NOT the starches, it's the proteins. That's why most wheat beers are naturally cloudy (even when using a clarifier like Clarity Ferm. Weiss yeasts are perfectly capable of fermenting the sugars derived from malted (or even raw) wheat, you don't need to mix in barley sugars to achieve that. If necessary, you can add some diammonium phosphate as a nutrient - again, you don't need barley.
        --
        I am a crackpot