Home of the BrewNosers

I'd be curious to hear some people's opinions (ideally informed, i.e., do we have lawyers on the board?). Keith's is in no way an IPA by any formal definition. People have noted that they have been marketing themselves as such since before the current resurgence of the style in North America, and are therefore grandfathered in. However, from the release of the Oland's archives last year we know that they beer they currently market has little resemblance to the beer they used to brew (an actual IPA). This raises the question, is Keith's marketing itself as an IPA, and specifically an IPA that is true to its original recipe (e.g., "for more than 185 years [... holds] true to its time-honoured recipe, steeped in tradition" or "Even as times change, Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale proudly remains the same") in violation of Canadian rules on misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices?

Thoughts?

Jason

P.s. Molson seems to have succeeded in whitewashing history. The Pinhey article does not seem to be on the Coast server anymore, which seems to indicate they succeeded in getting it deleted (as he had expressed concern they would). It is a available here: http://www.bartowel.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5235

I am thinking of making a complaint to the Competition Bureau, under both the Competition Act and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, just to see what their response is.

The points I would make are:
1) Their use of 'IPA' on packaging and in advertisements is misleading given consumer expectations of what that term means, as well as technical definitions of the style's traits.
2) That their description of ingredients implies that malted barley and hops are the sole ingredients used in producing their wort (go here: http://www.keiths.ca/index.html and then click on "his beer'), when in reality adjuncts are used in large quantities.
3) That their advertising strongly implies or outright states that they use a "traditional" recipe that has remained unchanged for over 100 years (e.g., "At Alexander Keith's we follow the recipes first developed by the great brewmaster to the absolute letter"), when in fact the recipe has been altered in all important respects during that time.
And...
4) That InBev has gone to considerable lengths, i.e., threatening legal action to have articles removed from the Internet, to deprive to public of information that would challenge their misleading assertions (i.e., the deception is intentional).

jason.loxton wrote:I am thinking of making a complaint to the Competition Bureau, under both the Competition Act and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, just to see what their response is.

The points I would make are:
1) Their use of 'IPA' on packaging and in advertisements is misleading given consumer expectations of what that term means, as well as technical definitions of the style's traits.
2) That their description of ingredients implies that malted barley and hops are the sole ingredients used in producing their wort (go here: http://www.keiths.ca/index.html and then click on "his beer'), when in reality adjuncts are used in large quantities.
3) That their advertising strongly implies or outright states that they use a "traditional" recipe that has remained unchanged for over 100 years (e.g., "At Alexander Keith's we follow the recipes first developed by the great brewmaster to the absolute letter"), when in fact the recipe has been altered in all important respects during that time.
And...
4) That InBev has gone to considerable lengths, i.e., threatening legal action to have articles removed from the Internet, to deprive to public of information that would challenge their misleading assertions (i.e., the deception is intentional).

Well more power to ya! I for one hate that they are permitted to call it an IPA.

The only time I had any dealings with an entity that had powers over labeling was with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during my time at the Pump House. They informed us that the beer must be called 'beer', 'ale' or 'stout', not beer and ale both as was the case with Cadian Cream Ale where in the fine print it was a 5% ABV beer but the actual name called it 'ale'. They continued on to say the 'made with blueberries' must be removed from the Blueberry Ale packaging since it is made with an extract. And that I had to submit all my recipes to them for review so they could see what grains I used in what amounts, and that if wheat, corn, oats etc where used in large enough quantity they'd need to be listed in the ingredients. They never did say what that quantity was nor did I submit any recipes to them during my time there. They didn't seem to be in a big hurry for the brewery to get all new labeling or anything, stating it was going to take a few years to have every brewery and imported beer labeled to meet their standards. Ahahhahaha. This in 2009 for crap sakes, beer, ale or stout. I almost fell over. I attempted to explain that 'beer' didn't mean 'lager' and that 'stout' is ale but they weren't listening. I don't believe they will ever succeed in getting this done, there has to be entity that supersedes that sort of outdated uneducated crap for god sakes. Oh, and they also looked at my brewhouse worksheet for the beer I was brewing one day and told me I wasn't following my recipe since I had scratched out the 450kg pale malt and wrote in 460kg, and that I always had to follow my recipe.

jason.loxton wrote:I am thinking of making a complaint to the Competition Bureau,
...
3) That their advertising strongly implies or outright states that they use a "traditional" recipe that has remained unchanged for over 100 years (e.g., "At Alexander Keith's we follow the recipes first developed by the great brewmaster to the absolute letter"), when in fact the recipe has been altered in all important respects during that time.
And...
4) That InBev has gone to considerable lengths, i.e., threatening legal action to have articles removed from the Internet, to deprive to public of information that would challenge their misleading assertions (i.e., the deception is intentional).

Go for it. I think you'll have some trouble with point 3, though - I don't think Craig, Robert or Nash managed to actually find a recipe for "India Pale Ale". So you're behind the 8-ball trying to say that they've changed the recipe when nobody can find the original recipe. We need to find out when Keith's was first sold as "IPA".

Point 4 rather depends on point 3. If there are no recipes for "India Pale Ale" in the archive, restricting access to the archive isn't hiding the roots of "IPA".

Is there anything out that can define what and IPA is by law? I know there are style guidelines and historical reference but none of that would hold up in court would it?

LiverDance wrote:Is there anything out that can define what and IPA is by law? I know there are style guidelines and historical reference but none of that would hold up in court would it?

And this is exactly why it's not a good idea. The powers that be don't understand beer styles, so they'd end up deferring to popular opinion. In Canada popular opinion - i.e. the opinion of the masses - would sway towards Keith's defining what an IPA is. Let's not forget that the LCBO once refused a private order of Cantillon because of "volatile acidity" - in other words, it was sour - and the CFIA banned Cantillon Kriek because cherries aren't on the list of allowed ingredients in beer. This is why there should never be a campaign to have a standard definition of what a particular style is. Nash's IPAs were penalized at last years Canadian Brewing Awards by BJCP judges because they were too highly hopped to be IPAs and the judges felt they should have been IIPAs. So if Greg wants to brew a 7%, 90 IBU IPA, do you really want him to not be able to use the term IPA on the label because the definition of IPA limits IBUs to 50 to 75?

On point number 1 though, you might want to check out Robert Pattison's blog, Shut up about Barclay Perkins: http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/ While Keith's is not what most of us would view as an IPA, nor does it match with the original IPAs, there is sufficient evidence of changes in IPAs in England through the late 19th and early 20th century that give Keith's some leeway. Many were brewed to a lower strength and with less hops as rationing around wartimes took place. So even if the original IPAs were strong a bitter, there is a reasonable historical case that weaker and lower abv IPAs are acceptable. And Keith's isn't the only one out there - Greene King IPA is only 5% and not that hoppy. Granite Brewery's IPA is only 5%. McEwan's IPA is only 4.6% and possibly less bitter and more pale than Keith's is.

On point number 2, "when in reality adjuncts are used in large quantities" - how do you know? As Derek pointed out, the recipes in the archives that included corn sugar weren't labelled IPA. Any time the brewmaster has invited people like Craig in for a new beer launch, they say it's all malt. The flaws that I'm aware of in Keith's aren't the result of adjunct use but of poor fermentation. So this one would be tough to prove.

On the bright side, the shift in what people view as IPA is going to make Keith's change the name sooner than later. As they expand into the US, I have no doubt that Keith's IPA will very soon become Keith's Blond Ale or some such nonsense. It may not change here, but eventually they'll tire of the question why it doesn't have the same name here as in the US.

BobbyOK wrote:So even if the original IPAs were strong a bitter, there is a reasonable historical case that weaker and lower abv IPAs are acceptable. And Keith's isn't the only one out there - Greene King IPA is only 5% and not that hoppy.

Greene King certainly isn't hoppy - I wouldn't call it an IPA, either, but at least it means Keith's has other examples they can point to. Deuchars, which is hoppy, is only 3.5%.

My IPA is only 5% and quite hoppy I try never to brew over 5% because I like to actually be able to drink it! Two of Greg's tend to leave me wobbly. Not that I've ever let that stop me, come to think of it.

I was only half listening, but last night on the 6pm CBC news, I believe they said that production of Keith's is soon to be halted in NS and will be brewed in London, ON instead. If I'm not mistaken, they are already brewing it out in BC also (or at least were talking about it). Can they really still call it the 'pride of Nova Scotia' after that? Frankly, anyone that proud of it right now? I was offered a free Keith's last week at one of the Canada Game's concerts and after drinking 1/4 of the bottle, I had enough. Tastes even worse than I remember!

Jayme wrote:I was only half listening, but last night on the 6pm CBC news, I believe they said that production of Keith's is soon to be halted in NS and will be brewed in London, ON instead. If I'm not mistaken, they are already brewing it out in BC also (or at least were talking about it). Can they really still call it the 'pride of Nova Scotia' after that? Frankly, anyone that proud of it right now? I was offered a free Keith's last week at one of the Canada Game's concerts and after drinking 1/4 of the bottle, I had enough. Tastes even worse than I remember!

Here is a thread about the job cuts/move to brewing in Ontario.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=105

I never caught the clip on the news last night, but I heard they announced the Olands brewery was getting a face lift.

Jimmy wrote: I never caught the clip on the news last night, but I heard they announced the Olands brewery was getting a face lift.

Yes that's right, so that they can brew more Bud... They mentioned the job cuts as well.

Yeah, that move was announced before Christmas (as anything that costs jobs seems to be). The claim is that since Keith's is now a national brand, they need to brew it elsewhere to keep transportation costs (and CO2 emissions, bless their stony little hearts!) down, but - given that the Maritimes is always going to be the main market for Keith's, and they're increasing Bud production here - it seems much more likely that they're really just trying to kill the brand; replacing it with a fermented rice beverage.

This should not surprise anyone, but I emailed Keith's and they confirmed that they use corn as an adjunct. Surprisingly, they forget to mention its presence in any of their advertisments or brewing process explanations (all of which are written to imply malt is exclusively used to produce sugars in the wort).

That little nugget could get your case rolling... as it conflicts with #2 on your original list.

jason.loxton wrote:This should not surprise anyone, but I emailed Keith's and they confirmed that they use corn as an adjunct. Surprisingly, they forget to mention its presence in any of their advertisments or brewing process explanations (all of which are written to imply malt is exclusively used to produce sugars in the wort).

Surprises me they admitted it so easily, but you're right, it doesn't surprise me that they use it.

BobbyOK wrote:

jason.loxton wrote:This should not surprise anyone, but I emailed Keith's and they confirmed that they use corn as an adjunct. Surprisingly, they forget to mention its presence in any of their advertisments or brewing process explanations (all of which are written to imply malt is exclusively used to produce sugars in the wort).

Surprises me they admitted it so easily, but you're right, it doesn't surprise me that they use it.

They'd have to admit it. What if I had a corn allergy and drank their beer and got sick? I don't know how likely/probable it is, but still. AFAIK you have to tell people what's in your stuff, hence the recent labeling controversy. Personally, I think beer should be exempt if the following two conditions are met: 1. It follows the Reinheitsgebot (Bavarian Purity Law of 1516 ie water, barley, and hops (technically yeast too, but Leeuwenhoek/Pasteur hadn't discovered it yet)) and 2. anything other than that is in the label. Garrison does this, if you check their site out: "None of our beer contains wheat unless duly noted in the name." So raspberry wheat should contain water, barley, hops, wheat, and raspberry. Anything else should be prominent on the label.

Anyway, that's a bit of a segue, but Keith's does have to reveal what's in their beer. Just not the quantity/mixture.

benwedge wrote:

BobbyOK wrote:

jason.loxton wrote:This should not surprise anyone, but I emailed Keith's and they confirmed that they use corn as an adjunct. Surprisingly, they forget to mention its presence in any of their advertisments or brewing process explanations (all of which are written to imply malt is exclusively used to produce sugars in the wort).

Surprises me they admitted it so easily, but you're right, it doesn't surprise me that they use it.

They'd have to admit it. What if I had a corn allergy and drank their beer and got sick? I don't know how likely/probable it is, but still. AFAIK you have to tell people what's in your stuff, hence the recent labeling controversy. Personally, I think beer should be exempt if the following two conditions are met: 1. It follows the Reinheitsgebot (Bavarian Purity Law of 1516 ie water, barley, and hops (technically yeast too, but Leeuwenhoek/Pasteur hadn't discovered it yet)) and 2. anything other than that is in the label. Garrison does this, if you check their site out: "None of our beer contains wheat unless duly noted in the name." So raspberry wheat should contain water, barley, hops, wheat, and raspberry. Anything else should be prominent on the label.

Anyway, that's a bit of a segue, but Keith's does have to reveal what's in their beer. Just not the quantity/mixture.

If that were really true, everyone would have their ingredients on the label. They don't. I agree that they should, but they don't.

BobbyOK wrote:If that were really true, everyone would have their ingredients on the label. They don't. I agree that they should, but they don't.

They're not required to list beer ingredients on the label, and were granted an exemption for the new rules, hence the controversy in some circles. I'm pretty sure if I call them they have to tell me what's in it though, but like I said the amount would be secret.

benwedge wrote:Bavarian Purity Law of 1516 ie water, barley, and hops (technically yeast too, but Leeuwenhoek/Pasteur hadn't discovered it yet)

I believe that the effect of yeast was attributed to God. Maybe that's why Belgian beers are so good.

I'll never forget the pretty, blond tour guide at Granville Island who claimed that they follow the Bavarian Purity Law and then explained it as best she could. She then added "and then we add more ingredients to make our beer even better".

"We follow the Bavarian Purity Law and then we add more ingredients to make our beer even better" may be the best brewery slogan EVER

benwedge wrote:

BobbyOK wrote:If that were really true, everyone would have their ingredients on the label. They don't. I agree that they should, but they don't.

They're not required to list beer ingredients on the label, and were granted an exemption for the new rules, hence the controversy in some circles. I'm pretty sure if I call them they have to tell me what's in it though, but like I said the amount would be secret.

Exactly. This discussion got me interested enough to go and look at the Food and Drug Regulations (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C.R.C.-c. ... l_B-gb:l_2), and what you can get away with in a beer, without labeling, is scary. But even if they're not legally required to tell you what's in it when you ask, I think their liability lawyers would have told them they'd better. Imagine what it would cost if you refused to confirm or deny presence of an allergen, and someone _who had asked_ had an anaphylactic reaction.