Holiday hours for buying booze in Toronto

24
Dec/09
0

So Christmas is tomorrow, New Years is around the corner and you still need to buy more booze. Obviously, you can’t get anything tomorrow or on New Years Day (for those of who like to extend the party a day or two) and The Beer Hunter’s not much help because of holiday hours.

With that in mind, I thought I’d find out whens and wheres of buying booze in TO for the next week and share it with y’all.

LCBO

No stores will be open on Boxing Day but Dec. 27th will see most stores open from noon till 5pm. Monday to Thursday will also see regular hours of operation but on Thursday, New Years Eve, all stores will close at 6pm. You’re best off hitting up your local store and avoiding the downtown core.

The Beer Store

They’re closed Boxing Day but all stores that normally open on Sundays will do so on Dec. 27th. Just be sure to get there before 5pm. Monday to Wednesday will also see regular hours of operation in effect but they will close on New Year’s Eve at 6pm so don’t leave the party-stocking till the last minute. Better yet, don’t shop at The Beer Store.

Mill St.

There were no holiday hours specified but the retail store is usually open from 11am till 9pm on Saturday. Sunday to Tuesday, it’s 11am till 6pm. Wednesday and Thursday, it’s open from 11am till 8pm. I’d phone ahead.

Steam Whistle

It’s business as usual except on Christmas Day and New Years Day. Boxing Day, they’ll be open from 11am till 6pm.  Sunday (the 27th) they close at 5pm and from Monday to Thursday (New Years Eve), they’re open from noon till 6pm.

Amsterdam

Their website says holiday hours are 11am till 9pm  so I’m going to assume they’ll be open Boxing Day, at least until 6pm. Monday through Thursday sees them at normal hours of operation which is 11am till 11pm. Call ahead just to be safe.

Wine Rack

Gotta love a store that stays open till 11pm! Despite the lack of decent selection beggars can’t be choosers and I’vewritten about some decent options before so if you’re stuck, hit one up and make do. They should be open from Boxing Day till New Year’s Eve and most of the downtown locations are open till 10pm or 11pm. Check before you head out though.

Vineyards Estate Wines

While there are no holiday hours posted anywhere, it’s a safe bet that if the Loblaws, Metro or Sobey’s they’re in is open, they will be too. They’re generally closed by 6pm.

Should the Ontario government sell the LCBO?

24
Dec/09
3

I was quite surprised to read in The Globe and Mail that the Liberal government has hired two banks to look into selling the LCBO and other Crown assets to cover this year’s deficit.

After all, wasn’t this brought up before by Mike Harris et al. (and Ernie Eves before him?) and dismissed when the government realized that selling valuable assets to raise money may help cover their deficit now won’t do much for balancing the budget the next year?

But leaving aside whether it’s smart for the Liberals to divest themselves of one of their best and brightest cash cows, which is best for the citizens of Ontario; sale or no sale?

Judging from the comments on the G&M article, a lot of people are confused as to whether this would be a good thing and while I’m not an unabashed fan of the LCBO, I’m also not about to jump on the privatization bandwagon unless I’m sure that it would really benefit us.

So let’s look at the three of the biggest points being raised and see whether they have any merit or not.

Booze would be cheaper.

Really? That would be nice but most consumers don’t realize is that there In the US, each state has its own laws concerning the distribution and sale of alcohol. Some places are cheaper than others but I still have fond memories of brown-bagging tall-boys in NYC; I went to quite a few variety stores and prices ranged from $1.25 to$2.50 for a Coors Light which is not that radically different but you obviously pay more for the “convenience”. A case of mass-market, domestic beer that costs $36 in Ontario typically costs $22 in Quebec and about $18 in New Jersey.

The reason it’s generally cheaper down in the States has everything to do with taxes. Here in Canada, we pay a 26.5% tax on alcohol which includes a 5.75% liquor mark-up fee. In the US, the percentage of taxes applied to alcohol varies from state to state but they’re nowhere near as high.

I’d be the last person to suggest we get rid of the taxes that pay for our health care system (amongst other things) but I do think the mark-up is ridiculous. Still even if the LCBO were sold and the mark-up was removed, we wouldn’t be looking at the same price levels they have in the States; we would probably be a lot closer to Alberta or Quebec. (Strangely enough, spirits are cheaper in Alberta but wine and beer aren’t. Wine and beer are cheaper in Quebec thanks to provincial subsidies that favor local products.)

And there’s no guarantee the mark-up would disappear. If anything, it’s unlikely it would go anywhere since pricing is regulated by the government to ensure socially-responsible consumption of alcohol which, along with store hours, is one of the primary methods they employ to prevent us from degenerating into a bunch of booze-soaked rummies (so we’re told).

Worse yet, if the entire company was sold and allowed to continue as a monopoly except in private hands, we’d have yet another Beer Store on our hands and you only have to look at Hydro One and the telecom companies to see where that gets the consumer.

Looking at the graph above (snatched from the LCBO website) it’s clear that the LCBO controls too much of market to allow it operate as a second private monopoly, answerable to no one but its stockholders.

The selection would be greater.

Yes and no. While the opportunity for specialists to open shops catering to niche markets is greater, there’d be just as many people carrying the same mass-market swill we see everywhere. With the exception of the bigger stores, most LCBOs only stock what they know consumers in their area will be likely to buy. Most private operations wouldn’t be any different.

One big concern is that while the bigger cities in Ontario would probably have no worse selection than they do now, many smaller towns in outlying areas would see their stores close with no guarantee of any replacement.

The sale of alcohol needs to be controlled.

Deciding who buys booze and when they can buy it is an age-old concern. Some people say there’s no harm in having convenience stores sell beer and wine while others argue that public drunkenness and under-age drinking will become bigger problems.

I’ve always argued that kids should be exposed to alcohol sooner rather than later (presumably limiting all of that surreptitious, binge drinking) but as that’s generally an unpopular opinion to have, I’d also like to point out that those same stores seem to do a pretty good job of preventing kids from smoking too.

Fact is, people will do what they want to do and the best results have always come from education and integration, not prohibition. The laws we already have in place will take care of the egregious offenders; why persecute anyone else?

Despite my beefs with the LCBO, I’ve come to realize that the provincial government is responsible for nearly all of ‘em… the insane mark-up, lack of inter-provincial distribution (where the hell are my Quebec beers and my BC wines?) and inconvenient store hours.

Selling the LCBO doesn’t change any of that.

The powers that be will still regulate the fuck out of whomever’s selling us our booze and unless they decide private operators to cater to niche consumers, we’ll be looking at another monopoly. We don’t need another Beer Store.

What we do need is a reexamination of the liquor laws and regulations that have their background in Ontario’s Scottish-Protestant roots and adjusting them to fit a society that, over the past decade, has become a lot more conscious of when and how they drink, what they want to buy and where they buy it from.

(And a little store downtown selling me limited-release tequila, absinthe and bitters would be nice too.)

NY Times list of dos and don’ts illustrates divide between guests and service industry

15
Nov/09
3

Currently making the rounds on Twitter is an article from The New York Times by Bruce Buschel, the main thrust of which is a list consisting of 100 dos and don’ts for restaurant staff. The response has been equally vitriolic and congratulatory, and it seems to be split fairly evenly between industry types and guests, respectively.

The former tend to take issue with Buschel for not understanding how much shit they put up with while the latter seem more than happy to share their dining-out horror stories. To be sure, there are plenty of commentators who occupy the middle ground on a sliding scale and I would lump myself in with them but I think the heated response to this article points to the frustration both sides feel towards each other which is just as much about a lack of respect and understanding as it is about different standards of service.

While I’m all about taking Buschel to task for his “modest” list (not to mention his lack of experience in the industry) he does raise some good points. Rules are good but what’s often missing from a strict interpretation of said guidelines is giving the server the necessary leeway to tweak them as befits each situation.

With that in mind, I’m going to go through Buschel’s list, point by point, and offer my take. (I’m also going to do my best to refrain from incriminating myself re: my current place of employment but I might slip up from time to time. Anyone who’s ever worked in a restaurant knows the difference between not giving a shit and mindlessly following the company line; sometimes you gotta work with what you have.)

Wine tastes better when we think it will

17
Sep/09
0

winePicture yourself buying wine. You’re going up and down the aisles, scoping out the different vintages from countries around the world. Maybe you’ve read an article or two online about some really fantastic red or maybe you’ve gotten a vague recommendation from a friend; you kind of know what you want but not really.

Then you see it. It’s got a really funny, clever name and an aesthetically-pleasing label. Robert Parker’s given it a 92 and an anonymous LCBO staff-member has weighed in with his two cents, praising it for its taste and price-range. Everything about this wine screams you; the image you have of yourself and what you and your friends would be drinking as they all compliment you on your uncanny ability to find the perfect wine for any given situation.

And so you buy it. You take it home, open it up and after taking an appreciative sniff, pour yourself a glass. My god, you think to yourself, I’ve done it again. This tastes really good. You may even be right but you’re probably not conscious of how everything you went through leading up this point may have influenced your perception of the wine’s flavor profile.

A study by Michael Siegrist, a professor at the Institute for Environmental Decisions, and his post-doc, Marie-Eve Cousin from ETH Zurich, put forward a hypothesis that people are influenced by information they receive about a wine before they taste it and this affects their sensory experience of said wine.

“The analysis of the test results revealed that the test people who had been given the ratings with 92 or 72 points before the tasting rated the wine differently to those who weren’t given the Parker rating until afterwards. In the first two groups, the test people who had been given negative information rated the wine considerably worse than those who proceeded on the assumption that the wine was good. Those who knew beforehand that the wine had been given 92 Parker Points also found the wine better than those who only discovered the rating after they had tried the wine.

The information not only influences the sense of taste, but also how deep we are prepared to dig into our wallets: again, the test people with negative advance information were prepared to pay the least.”

Of course we respect those we perceive to be experts, particularly when we feel we might be out of our depth as so many people do with wine. I’d like to extend this to include labels. Indeed, another study by Cornell University found that people given the same wine alternatively packaged as both from California and North Dakota rated the California label as being of higher quality and enjoyed it better on the whole.

While both studies have their flaws, I believe they reveal an essential truth: people often buy their wine on a hunch and they like to have cursory bits of information that back up their choice, whether it’s a nice label, a recommendation or established point of origin.

For myself, the first thing that catches my eye is the label. If I like it, I’ll probably pick up the bottle and see what varietal it is, what year it was produced and where it came from. Mentally, I’ll attempt to cross-reference this with my memories of other wines consumed in the past that may overlap but more often than not, I’ll look at the price tag and take a chance. More often than not, I don’t end up hating the wine. Sometimes, if I’m really lucky, I really love it and that’s the bottle I’ll come back for.

Do you find yourself falling in love with labels like I do or do you really do your homework?

(Photo taken from smcgee’s Flickr Photostream.)

Tagged as:

Fuzion in the top four at LCBO

24
Apr/09
0

fuzionYou may or may not have read about it but Beppi Crosariol over at the Globe and Mail wrote about the overwhelming popularity of Fuzion with consumers at the LCBO.

Apparently, it’s the number four product sold at everyone’s favorite provincial monopoly (right behind Heineken, Corona and Smirnoff vodka) What’s interesting to me is how a wine from Argentina, with no advertising and plenty of approving worth-of-mouth, has bumped Bacardi from the fourth spot to play the field with those perpetually-popular big boys of booze.

Corona spent a total of $30 million on print advertising alone last year. Heineken spent $50 million launching Heineken Premium Light (a fuckin’ light beer of all things…). I would imagine Smirnoff spends less (being a Canadian company and not having quite the global dominance of the first two brands) but it probably throws way more money into its advertising than Zuccardi does.

What then, can account for the love people have for Fuzion, the little wine that could? Beppi (I don’t know him but it’s kind of fun to call him that, try it) noted that some folks accused him of fanning the flames of its popularity with his approval of the affordable red that delivers a big taste for its price.

While Mr. Crosariol may have fueled the fire roaring under Fuzion, he didn’t spark it. Toronto Life, NOW Magazine, the National Post and the Toronto Star all reported on the phenomenon but to truly understand what’s going on here, we should look to Malcolm Gladwell and his classifaction of the stages of societal adoption of new ideas/products/etc. known as the diffusion model.

You have the Innovators, the visionaries who prize revolutionary change and will take risks to try out whatever’s new and interesting. The Early Adopters come next. They watch the innovators, evaluate what they do and join in.

Because of the Internet and greater saturation of writing on wine, approval of Fuzion was able to quickly spread in tandem with more personal methods of recommendation. These early adopters congregate on forums like Chowhound and the innovators, those who pay attention to these forums, in turn write and talk about this information through their own channels which is then filtered into the consciousness of the majority. This is where Beppi and Co come in.

They’re followed by the Early and Late Majorities; those people who while they may not have their finger on what cool kids are doing pay attention to the media and other critics.  With this media attention, you can bet the Laggards, those of us who value tradition and the tried-tested-and-true, will finally start paying attention and the next six months will either see them adopt it as a red wine standard (a la Yellowtail) or pass on it as a fad.

There are a couple of factors that will definitely affect whether this adoption takes place. While the change from the 2007 varietal to the 2008 went unnoticed by many, a sharp dip in quality could leave a bad flavor in some people’s mouths and result in a drop in sales.

Also, raising the price could lead to Fuzion competing with a higher quality of wine, at least in some people’s eyes and also result in a drop in its popularity. A similar thing (albeit on a much smaller scale) happened with Les Jamelles, a winery from France. Beloved by merchants and restaurateurs alike, it quickly became must-have by-the-glass option for those looking for that magical Old World median between price and quality. However, increased demand led to a lack of availabilty and was quickly followed by a rise in price. While it still has a good reputation (it’s merlot and sauvignon blanc are both very fine) it’s been replaced by The Next Thing on many a wine list.

Mind you, Les Jamelle’s merlot was never available at the LCBO and they never had to deal with fickle consumers. A change in cost could drastically affect Fuzion’s market share, particularly because one of the wine’s chief selling points is its $7.45 ticket price. While adding a couple of dollars may not seem like a big deal, a shopper at the LCBO may pass on a more expensive Fuzion, particularly if they remember reading about how it used to cost less or worse, they remember buying it for less. On overcrowded wine shelves with the LCBO carefully tracking its process, a severe enough dip in sales could mark Fuzion for eventual delisting.

Another good example is Bohemian, secretly brewed by Molson. The go-to beer for those of us looking to throw cheap parties, art gallery-openings and what-have-you, it was sold for an unbelievable $26 a case! Not only that but it tasted better than all of the other discount brands out there.  There were plenty of times I’d go to The Beer Store looking to get a couple of cases only to find that they were sold out.

When the price was raised to $28, suddenly Bohemian became way less appealing. It began to compete with beers that were, quite frankly, much better and while I don’t have any hard numbers to back me up, I don’t see Bohemian at many parties I go to and I bet you anything they don’t sell half as much as they used to.

The appeal of Fuzion goes beyond its attractive price point and has quite a bit to do with society’s perceived learning curve when it comes to appreciating wine. Many people simply don’t know what wine they should by. Its taken forever to get beyond simple denotations of “red” and “white” and now we find folks talking about “liking chardonnays” or “hating pinot”.

These people are intimidated by wine. They don’t have a McDonald’s equivalent of beer (say Heineken) from which to base their expectations on. Imagine someone coming along and saying there’s a terrific, cheap wine out there that works pretty well with lots of different food and can be consumed rather casually? I would hazard a guess that that would be quite a relief for your average joe staring at twenty-odd bottles in front of him.

Also, there’s the self-fulfilling pride “the expert” can take in recommending a sure thing plucked from the depths of relative obscurity. This person becomes, at least temporarily, cool. They know about what’s going on, even if its tangential knowledge, and unlike beer or liquor, having a working knowledge of wine is something that’s generally considered to be an admirable skill.

Even those of who know some things still can appreciate a good recommendation. I was introduced to Fuzion through my neighbor Jacqueline Rendell, who brought over a bottle one day. She in turn had been given a few bottles from a friend of hers who really liked them. I ended up buying half-a-dozen bottles of my own over the winter and I mentioned Fuzion in my post about the best, cheap booze in Ontario. Several people who read this blog have subsequently told me that they now stock their home with Fuzion on a regular basis and we only have to go back to Beppi to see that this is a personal example of what’s happening all over Ontario and Quebec.

As knowledge of Fuzion reaches its “tipping point”, this will have less of an impact but for now, Fuzion’s cool image will undoubtedly benefit from the advice of whomever we turn to for wine info and its price will only sweeten the deal.

Facebook & Google sell booze ads to raise funds.

27
Feb/09
0

YouTube Preview Image
The Telegraph recently posted an article about how some companies such as Facebook and Google, the NBA and American television companies are relaxing their restrictions on alcohol advertising in order to generate new streams of revenue.

This is apparently a big deal although I fail to see why as long as they’re not misleading and they don’t market it to minors. Facebook tends to skew to an older crowd anyway although I’d wager it’s a pretty tight demographic (18-25?) that’s likely to install any applications offered by the likes of Anheuser-Busch or Bacardi.

Apparently, most of these apps offer allow users to win contests that get them into sponsored parties. I wouldn’t know because the Bacardi Mojito Party was unavailable to me (likely due to it being restricted to American users) and Miller’s Today I’m Toasting was under construction. In fact, none of the applications that have been developed were available which leads me to wonder if they’re specifically targeted at an American and not Canadian audience because we get to legally drink two years before they do?

The only application I’ve seen anyone use is Booze Mail, a particularly stupid bit of code that allows you to send drinks to your friend’s walls which is just as retarded as those gifts that get exchanged. Two apps I find much more appealing are Bottlenotes and RateBeer, both of which allow like-minded users to rate and talk about wine and beer they like (or dislike), respectively.

This doesn’t really help us Canadians, with our limited options for purchasing alcohol, and I’d be surprised the LCBO hasn’t jumped on this marketing opportunity except that I’d bet anything that they’re a) too cheap and b) far too old-fashioned. It’s too bad because an app that tracks new product releases with links built into their website allowing people to find what stores carry them and then contact those stores seems like a natural to me… Or maybe not but I don’t think I’m the only one who finds the LCBO website irritating.

But moving on, what about television? We’ve all seen our fair share of beer ads, ranging from stupid to offensive, but how is this regulated in Canada? The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a code that specifically deals with what can be broadcast and what cannot. Here are some highlights.

“Commercial messages for alcoholic beverages shall not:

(a) attempt to influence non-drinkers of any age to drink or to purchase alcoholic beverages;

(b) be directed at persons under the legal drinking age, associate any such product with youth or youth symbols, or portray persons under the legal drinking age or persons who could reasonably be mistaken for such persons in a context where any such product is being shown or promoted;

(e) attempt to establish the product as a status symbol, a necessity for the enjoyment of life or an escape from life’s problems, or attempt to establish that consumption of the product should take precedence over other activities;

(f) imply directly or indirectly that social acceptance, social status, personal success, or business or athletic achievement may be acquired, enhanced or reinforced through consumption of the product;

(g) imply directly or indirectly that the presence or consumption of alcohol is, in any way, essential to the enjoyment of an activity or an event;

(k) use imperative language to urge people to purchase or consume the product;

(n) contain inducements to prefer an alcoholic beverage because of its higher alcohol content;

(o) refer to the feeling and effect caused by alcohol consumption or show or convey the impression, by behaviour or comportment, that the people depicted in the message are under the influence of alcohol;

(q) contain scenes in which any such product is consumed, or that give the impression, visually or in sound, that it is being or has been consumed.”

Now, far be it from me to be a negative fuckin’ nancy but don’t they regularly break (e), (f), (g) and (q)? Doesn’t the Molson ad I just linked to fit the bill? How about this one? There are good ads out there.  Arrogant Bastard Ale released this campaign that pretty much made fun of mainstream beer drinkers and companies they support that release “outrageously conniving, intentionally misleading, blatantly masturbatory and fallacious ad campaigns.”

ale

I don’t know about you but I’ll take that their brand of arrogance over what the other guys are offering any day; even if it treads dangerously into that extreme, stressed graphic style I find distasteful. At least it has some credibility.

We’re way past the days when Anheuser-Busch et al. could lay any claim to putting out a “premium product” and in a way, their advertising is a perfect example of that. They can’t really claim to have the best-tasting beer but they sure as hell can sex it up.

So what’s my point with all of this? I guess I’m saying that I’m in favor of allowing spirits advertisers back into mainstream media and I’d argue that having those ads play during prime time television and be printed in newspapers isn’t going to raise a nation of underage binge-drinkers.

No, we have the stupid neo-prohibitionistic notion that children must be protected at all costs from the dangers of alcohol to thank for that. These ads will bring in important revenue and if the product is good, I see no harm in it. However, I have one proviso and it’s a biggie.

The ads should deal directly with the quality of the product. They should make you want to drink it because, goddammit, it’s the best product of its kind and you’d be a fool not to. The ads can be funny, serious or clever as long as they’re honest. Maybe I’m asking too much but I don’t think so. I’d like to see both advertising and it’s retarded cousin, Facebook apps, up their  game and start treating consumers with a little respect.

They can be the cooler, older brother if they want to.

The battle to educate consumers on the content of their alcohol

9
Feb/09
0

Over at bevlog, they’re asking what readers think of a ongoing proposal by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to change the labels of all beer, wine and spirits by including “Servings Facts” information on each and every bottle.

monavie_nutritionBasically, it would indicate “typical serving size, number of servings per container, calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat”. It would also be divided into two sections, ingredients and alcohol facts.

Even though this is an initiative proposed by the TTB of the USA and doesn’t effect Canada (at least initially), I’m generally in favor of more information being released to consumers to help them make decisions about the products they want to purchase.

First and foremost, the “alcohol by volume” percentage which is already printed on the label is supplemented by a box informing you of the “fl oz of alcohol” per serving. Despite some comments declaring that this might be mathematically confusing for consumers, I think it’s a fairly important piece of information to be including on the product, especially when you think about how most people don’t know how much alcohol is in individual servings of whatever they’re consuming and this can vary from product to product.

Sure, there will be lots of people who won’t give a damn but a conscientious person who wants to monitor their intake because they have to drive will be able to measure that a whole lot better or refuse a drink that would put them over the legal limit.

The other boxes don’t really matter so much although I suppose some people monitor their calorie intake closely enough that a drink will make some difference and it could be argued that people don’t pay enough attention to the empty calories they consume through drinks, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. The one exclusion that really catches my attention is the lack of any information concerning the amount of sugar in a product.

Surely this is a rather large oversight; sweeter drinks are often cheaper, mask the taste of alcohol and include more nasty congeners, the by-products of fermentation which are toxic and, along with dehydration, are largely responsible for hangovers. (On an unrelated note, I was surprised to find that bourbon drinkers like me are especially at risk; our favorite tipple contains thirty times as many congeners as vodka.)

Criticism of the proposed regulation has come from at least two different groups; another post on bevlog that featured Bluemont Vinery’s opposition from the viewpoint of a small business and a PDF posted on a government site by Wine America, a national association of wineries. Both of them are opposed because they claim adhering to these standards would result in untenable costs to smaller producers and lead to general consumer confusion due to excess labelling. They go on to state that because there is little variation in alcohol content and carbohydrates of most wines, there is no point in releasing this information and since most people already know how much they can generally handle, telling them how much pure alcohol is in a serving would also be unhelpful.

I call bullshit. I’m generally in favor of labeling for most food and drink. Most people now appreciate being able to determine the nutritional content of products they purchase at the grocery store and I would imagine they would feel the same about alcohol. Hell, I’d go further and add regulate the spread of GMOs as well as the food we’re served in restaurants but that’s another issue. As for the cost, I don’t see why it couldn’t be passed on in part to the consumers if this is something that people are truly interested in.

I’m well aware that regulations often favor the big guys like Diageo who have the money to spend on laboratory testing and label redesigns but I don’t see why both the American and Canadian (when the time comes) governments couldn’t subsidize the little guys with grants and tax breaks.

Bevlog also linked to a video of former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop talking about why adding this information to labels is important and although it’s rather dry, I agree with them; this video deserves some attention as well.

Madison Beer Review put together a great post talking about this issue and they presented several things I didn’t know at the time of writing this: one of the biggies is that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the group who originally petitioned the TTB to change these regulations has been accused of having a “neo-prohibitionist” stance by many “beer supporters” and is of the opinion that alcohol is ruining America. I don’t doubt that their voice would be moderated by the presence of health organizations and industry lobbyists but it’s still something to consider.

However, both sides have some explaining to do. It’s also pointed out that while the Beer Institute “objects to publishing alcohol content” because said content “in most beers is in a very narrow range” this is hardly true when one considers the beer “can range from less than 4% ABV (alcohol by volume) to over 20% ABV”. As we move away from the the narrower definitions of beer that its members (who include Anheuser-Busch InBev, MillerCoors and Heineken) generally espouse, it makes sense to include this information on the label without it hurting the same folks whose products warrant its inclusion.

Also, as Madison Beer Review notes, it’s hardly realistic to reduce serving portions proportionally in terms of the ABV-2 oz for a 20% ABV brew is just silly-it would make sense to consider how beers with a higher ABV are meant to be shared and incorporate that information onto the label somehow.

In the end, I agree with them. Full disclosure of ingredients would be a nice step and would also tie in nicely with the trend to more natural, healthy products. After all, I’d take a St. Peter’s Organic English Ale over a Smirnoff Ice cooler any day.