Australian drinkers do not need to compromise on freshness despite having to accept different standards for Stone beers than US drinkers, says the brand’s Australian importer.
Johnny Latta from importer ExperienceIT was responding to questions raised by a Brews News survey of seven major inner-city Brisbane retailers that found only one example of Stone being sold younger than the 120 days that the brewery insists on in the United States.
“Australian drinkers do not need to compromise and don’t, but what it should be is a consistent standard in the local market. I am confident that the Stone beers on sale are in most cases as good as any beer on shelf,” he told Australian Brews News by email.
He said the difference in acceptable maximum dates was due to the different markets Stone operated in.
“The message and approach used by many US brewers is geared towards the US market and the market’s rapid rotation and maturity that craft beer has been able to achieve.
“Australia does not have that yet, so is the solution that we stop working with major retailers? Or we stop importing beers?”
Latta said that despite Stone’s clear policy, it was ‘simplified’ to ask whether Australians had to compromise on quality when buying beers sitting warm on shelves longer than this 120-day period.
“The beer we supply to major retailers should all taste great and I am confident it does, we wouldn’t sell it if it didn’t. We also stand by our commitment to quality and if it’s not great we’ll address it with the consumers directly as we do often,” he said.
The issue was raised after Australian Brews News discussed the issue with Stone co-founder Greg Koch on the Beer is a Conversation podcast.
Koch had previously told Brews News that Australia’s distance, lack of domestic refrigerated transport and cost of beer down under were among the reasons for not wanted to export to Australia. In the recent interview, he felt the local market had changed and he wanted to contribute to that.
“If you see the opportunities to help the change and be a part of it and recognize that there are many out there that are doing the right way and doing it in a way that you really respect, in wanting to help change the market, then you say, ‘OK that’s something I’ve got to support’,” Koch said.
The Stone co-founder said that despite extending the Enjoy By dates for the Australian market, the aim was still to sell through local retail according to their US standards
“What we have done in our contractual agreements with Johnny and his team is we say, ‘OK we’re going to ask you to maintain our known code lines’, which are in the 90 to 120 days depending on the exact beer range,” he explained.
“We’re going to ask you to work to maintain the marketplace to those dates regardless of what the enjoy by date says on the can.”
“It’s a method by which we can get into the system but we still do not let go of the goal of having our beer in proper condition.”
The Brews News survey of Brisbane and online retailers found beer older than six months of age is common on major retailer shelves. This is despite Stone’s ‘Commitment to Freshness’.
“One of the greatest tragedies for us is when a beer crafted to showcase these hops is left languishing on a shelf for too long as time erodes all of its botanical qualities,” the Stone website declares.
“Once a beer goes “out of code,” we replace beer that hasn’t sold with fresh beer to ensure that you’re getting the best experience.”
Koch describes the survey findings as ‘problematic’.
Latta points out that few Australian craft brewers put ‘brewed on’ dates on their beers.
“Do we hold Stone to a higher standard than every Australian brewer?” he asked.
“What are we saying about Australian brewers and quality? Is it ok for us to drink a local beer with 110 days or 140 days into the code, but not for Stone beers?”
The issue of Brewed On dates in Australia was covered recently by brewer Steve Henderson.
Of course Stone Brewing, which has literally trademarked ‘arrogant’ in respect to ales, created the standard by which it is now wishes to avoid being judged.
Koch previously told Brews News that stale beer in retail damages the industry as a whole.
“What happens when beer isn’t treated properly by retailers, a consumer – whether they’re experienced or not so experienced – they’re not turned onto the category they’re turned away from the category. So it damages,” he said in the 2010 interview.
“I will say you know direct to you. If you are a retailer who is knowingly selling damaged beer, beer in a way that the brewer would not approve of, you’re hurting the industry and you’re hurting yourself. You’re hurting your customer base.”
You can hear the full discussion on Beer Is a Conversation.
What a load of marketing codswallop. “The Aussie market is different, you don’t demand the 90 – 120 day fresheness, so we don’t give a shit you’ll drink it anyway”. How egregious. If you set a standard in your home market, it is demeaning to all of your consumers in other markets to say you don’t need to follow it in their market. Drink local, drink fresh. And yes, my brewery does put packaged dates on our cans.
Best Before Date
Truth is that Australian brewers are legally required to put a “best before” date on their beers. They are not required to put a “brewed on/packed on” date on their beers. Most date coders only have room for so much text. In the US there is no legal requirement for food product dating on beer. There isn’t even a requirement to put ABV, much less “standard drinks” – note the stickers that some poor bastard has to stick on every imported beer in Australia.
Point being- brewers in the US have a bit more leeway on what batch information they want to put on their beer. In Scotland the use it to print “motherfucker day” on their cans. Why not?
I agree “packed on” makes a lot more sense to the informed drinker than “best before” – which is an arbitrary date mostly dictated by the requirements of large liquor retail chains (rule of thumb is 12 months so there is time to get beer to a DC and out to the retail outlets with enough time before it stops being “best”) Beer drinkers and brewers who really care are are going to have to convince FSANZ to change the law. Perhaps a good initiative for the IBA? Alternatively, every small brewery in Australia will have to start investing in date coders that allow space to print both “best before” and “packed on”, or put something on their labels like “packed 12 months before best before date” – maybe suck up the new printing set-up costs along with the NSW bottle deposit scheme info?
Stone’s “commitment to freshness” indicates a double standard. Why should we in Australia put up with a “120 day old” beer that Stone says they will not sell in the US? If I am going to pay for and drink a particular beer, I want to know that it is going to be fresh (i.e. as close as possible to the flavour the brewer intended).
As for Australian craft brewers not indicating a “brewed on date”, “best before” or “packed on” date, I cannot understand why FSANZ does not enforce this. Consumers need to know this information so that they can make an informed purchase. Surely brewers want their customers to drink their beers when they are at their best. Yes, I understand that even a beer that is within its “best before” may be undrinkable due to the vagaries of storage and transport conditions. However, including “best before” on a label gives us consumers a fighting chance that we will select a beer that still tastes the way the brewer intended. Come on craft brewers, lift your game!