Our friends over at Minnesota Beer Activists shared the story earlier, and it’s one that we’ve been following for a week or so. It’s an interesting proposition, but not Here’s the language of H.F. No. 2432.
An exclusive liquor store, with the approval of the commissioner, may be issued an off-sale license by a municipality for off-sale of malt liquor filled at the tap and packaged consistent with the requirement of section 340A.301, subdivision 7, paragraph (b), by the licensee on the licensed premises. The malt liquor must be made available to the licensees in kegs or barrels by a wholesaler or manufacturer and be otherwise not available in Minnesota by can or bottle. All local ordinances and state provisions relating to public health are applicable.
As written, this would allow liquor stores a chance to fill growlers of kegged beer, providing it isn’t already available in Minnesota in a packaged form. So as an example, under the law you could buy a growler of Lucid Camo from your favorite beer store, but Surly Darkness would be a no-go. And with regards to growlers at brewpubs & breweries, this wouldn’t change a thing.
Launching this kind of operation won’t come without its costs, however. Stores will have to adhere to health standards and will need to invest in the proper cleaning systems, growlers and labeling equipment. And then there’s the labor. Don’t expect this in most stores, though the right store could make this pretty awesome.
What do you think? Would you buy a growler at a beer store? Would you be disappointed if the store couldn’t fill a growler of Flat Earth Rode Haring for you? How many beers a year could actually be filled with the language as-is?
I get growlers filled at the fine liquor stores in Hudson, WI. They have some great stuff over there, and like $7 for a fill of Spotted Cow!
Interesting. So under this law, if Minnesota were Wisconsin, you couldn’t get a growler of Spotted Cow, but you could get Furthermore Thermo Refur.
Puzzling that they don’t want to allow ALL beers to be filled on site.
Why is it puzzling? I see it as being closer to being fair for the guys who don’t or can’t bottle and have their beer in a liquor store…..this helps them.
@Beermale of course it helps them, but why should it help ONLY them? Why not allow any brew to be sold in growlers?
You can say that about any law… Some laws help some more than others
I thought we were trying to be fair?
Yeah, it levels the playing field more
Yeah I don’t quite follow the logic for the exclusions.
I thought the same thing, why not all beers? The costs of putting in a growler fill station will most likely limit this to only a handful of liquor stores already. I would think this would be much more appealing to liquor store owners if they had a larger selection of beers to add to their fill stations. Also, what’s the point of limiting it? The more beer out there the better right?
Im only about 7 miles from the Nova, and I have picked up a few growlers there of draft only offerings(Lucette, LB Hop Prop). When they offer beers that are also in can/bottle, the growler is sometimes a cheaper option per ounce, however you then have the commitment of drinking 64oz of beer at once, rather then the convienence of bottles/cans.
This being MN, would this law also require each liquor store to have their own branded growlers, and they would not be able to fill growlers from other breweries/store? That alone would keep me from doing a fill in MN. I dont need anymore growlers in my house.
I would definitely buy growlers from liquor stores. I already pick them up at the bars that sell them. It would be great to have more options. Options are good.
The object of any legislative issue is to get a bill passed — taking into account the considerations of multiple concerns and interests. This is what everyone says they want from government.
In this situation, not allowing every beer to be sold in a growler addresses a manufacturing objection concerning repackaging. Companies spend a ton of money on branding, packaging and quality control. There is a legitimate argument that they do not want anyone else to handle any portion of the “production” process.
Limiting beer options makes sense not just in the sense that it levels playing fields but it also makes economic sense for stores. Why would a store want to keep kegs of let’s say Two Hearted on hand at all times when they usually receive about two dozen or so cases of it every week, it would take up space that would be able to be filled by local keg only brews. Another economic factor is the packaging itself, my guess is that breweries will not be supplying growlers and that cost will be at the stores expense, packaging already bottled beer is redundant and makes little sense even if the beer is limited or rare.
A solution for empty growlers is having a return policy/discount for empties that could be reused by the stores (health code compliance applies of course) which would encourage store loyalty as well as less overhead cost for the stores.
Even if it is draft only offernings, you still run the risk of offending breweries that sell growlers direct(Harriet, Flat Earth, etc). Take Lift Bridge IPA for example- It was somthing like 18 bucks at the brewery, the nova had growlers for 11 bucks.
From talking to the guys at The Nova, they sell a ton of growlers, even of spotted cow, which they have hundreds of cases of on the floor.
@Kapper unfortunately this is not what “everyone wants”. This bill and the specific language was kept secret until just days ago. I would love to sell growlers at the Firkins. We were in fact working on a similar bill until I was told there was already one in session and I should wait to see what the language was.
There are many ways that growler sales could work at a liquor store. I spoke with many people from all aspects of the industry and have many ideas. Limiting growlers sales to beers that don’t come otherwise packaged is not the way to do this. I would love to be able to help small local breweries extent their reach. Who wouldn’t? I would also love to be able to fill fresh growlers of Maharaja, for example. There’s nothing quite like fresh keg beer!
The person who came up with this bill told me during a conversation that the limitations on the kinds of beer we could sell in growlers were only there to stop bars from trying to also sell growlers themselves or maybe even opposing this bill.
I say why not let bars fill and sell growlers? What is the problem with that? The more places selling good beer the more people will be exposed to it. Everyone wins.
I spoke to many small brewery owners who told me they would love to sell kegs to liquor stores for growler fills. One way around the labeling issue would be to have the breweries bring their own growlers for liquor stores to use. There are many possible ways to do this. The problem is, due to the very secretive nature of this bill and the organizations who drafted it the necessary discussion simply has not happened.
Out of fear and a frantic rush to get something, anything, passed this session the drafter has settled for an inferior bill which would make the beer choices for growler fills so limited as to not even be worthwhile. I say kill this bill and let’s have some real discussion with everyone involved. Not just the MLBA members.
Requiring liquor stores to install fill stations and comply with health codes would appeal to very few liquor stores. Having breweries deliver pre-filled growlers would add require the brewer to take a hit due to fuel and having to take time to deliver to accounts.
All these wannabe craft brewers need to realize it takes money to run a brewery, or any business. No funds to put in a bottling line? Get some investors. Look at Fulton. They’re doing it the right away. Start with a quality product and let it take off from there. If we coddle these brewers, we set them up for failure.
Who really benefits from such a bill? A very small minority…
Overrated as growlers are, you should be able to get whatever they want, and FFS drop that stupid label requirement. For that matter, the store should be able to pour by the glass. Talk of a “blurred line” between on/off-sale and the inertia of Minnesota liquor laws is nonsense. Have you ever grabbed a pint at Town Hall, then headed out with a growler? I certainly have.
I love grabbing a meal from a food cart, then washing it down with a brew at Portland bottle shops. It’s not a bar or restaurant, so you can’t buy liquor or food. Get some friends together, take over the tables, throw a potluck, drink their beer/wine/cider, and maybe bring home a sweatshirt (ahem) from your new favorite store. I emphasize *store* because that might even get around food sales rules in Minneapolis and other cities.
@BeerLover It’s a stupid bill, get over it
@Champs Pour by the glass? Liability? Blurred line between on/off-sale? So all liquor stores and bars would be one and the same? Please explain…
Let’s have some fun and try to think of all the beers that a liquor store would be allowed to sell right now if this bill was passed tomorrow. Only beer that is not already packaged in any bottle or can.
I’ll start: Lucid.
What else? The first three or so should be easy…..
Mankato Original.
Bill wrote on February 24th, 2012 at 1:56 pm:
Requiring liquor stores to install fill stations and comply with health codes would appeal to very few liquor stores.
My question is, why is it NOT your responsibility to clean your own Growler ??
@ Cecil, I’ve got no problem forking out the $5000 or so it would cost to get the proper growler cleaning system installed here at the Firkins. It’s not worth it though if I can only sell five different kinds of beers in a growler. Why would anybody do that?
Have we even thought of five beers yet that we could sell? I see we have not. Let’s get back to work on that.
There has to be more than two. Anyone?
What about czar jack, or dark knight?
Oh, wait…
We are putting our money where our mouth is. In an effort to show how just plain ridiculous this language is we are going to have a competition here at the store. Anyone who can guess a beer that we haven’t thought of will get $10 worth of free beer. You must come to the store to participate. Of course you can still play along right here just for fun! Here’s a link to the announcement on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150704158622704&set=a.408452022703.201173.40686662703&type=1&theater
how about centennial dry-hopped summit epa or oak-aged furious? these are not otherwise available in a bottle or can. granted its not the ideal situation, but its a start.
sure, it would be ideal to have consensus up front and go in with a united front. but frankly, coalitions and consensus takes time and is not easy to obtain, especially with groups that dont have the same goals and interests and havent worked together i(or worked against each other) n the past. i lobbied on early childhood issues for 6 years, and when i started there were competing programs and conflicting legislation. 4 years later we had a consensus agenda and met with legislators together. now we have a state office of early learning, a quality rating system ready to role out, a governors council, and $50 million in new federal funding.
the legislative process is frustrating and most change is incremental and takes time. that being said, nothing stops another legislator from introducing the “ideal” bill. or trying to amend the current bill in committee. and continuing to try to reach consensus. its worth it in the end.
Nice, but liquor stores can’t buy either of those beers 😉
Mankota Kolsch and Extra Medium are the only beers I can think of besides those offered by Lucid.
Why would that matter? Am I missing something?
Castle Dangers beers and Dubrue. Surly Mild, Schadenfreude, and the Bender variations come to mind as well.
Eric – The talk is about beers that liquor stores could buy & sell in growlers under the law as stated. Summit & Surly don’t sell those beers in kegs to liquor stores. The latter doesn’t sell any kegs to liquor stores.
340A.301, subdivision 7, paragraph (b) is just the growler statute. I dont think anything in the bill limits what they could sell, aside from beers available in cans and bottles. But maybe I’m wrong?
Good point. Surly kegs aren’t generally available for purchase from a liquor store.
Just to play devil’s advocate, but what if, as a brewer, I don’t want someone repackaging my beer away from my supervision? Am I being unreasonable? We all know who will be blamed if the beer doesn’t taste right.
Also, I’m curious how this adheres to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. I’m required to be able to provide tracing for every ingredient as well as supply chain details. I lose that traceability when it gets repackaged.
All of this being said, I don’t have an opinion either way, just concerns.
Yes, that is correct, Surly does not sell any kegs to any liquor store, so they are off the table. Dave, I completely understand your concerns. When I was planning my bill of similar nature I reached out to many local brewers who also talked about the same thing.
My argument is thus: As a liquor store we carry a low level food license. If we are to be repackaging beer the city will no doubt raise our food license to something more in line with that of a restaurant. This will cost us considerably and will certainly get us a lot more regulation from our respective cities. In addition to all this proper washing and packaging equipment must be used. This is not something that every liquor store will choose to do, it is simply too difficult and not worthwhile unless that liquor store already sells large amounts of craft beer and understands not only the product but also the market.
In a nutshell, I believe that the few liquor stores that would like to take advantage of growler sales would place very high standards on the operation not only because of city regulation but also because it will be the liquor store that gets blamed if there is anything wrong with the purchased growler of beer.
It could be argued that you actually take far more risk right now selling kegs to bars who may or may not clean their tap lines as often as they should.
As for the tracking issue, this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be discussed. I would be very surprised if this issue has even been thought about let alone talked about.
Nobody at our store has come up with a viable choice for beers either other than the 5 or so that we thought of. This bill clearly needs more discussion.
Are we really going to submit a bill for just five beers?
I have a list of 15 viable beer choices here in front of me. Not a lot by any means, and I certainly don’t believe limiting growler sales to beers not otherwise available via package form is a good idea.
the keg issue is confusing. i read it that the beer that will be put into growlers must come from a keg or barrel. obviously surly (or whomever) would have to start selling kegs to liquor stores if they wanted to take advantage of this.
hopefully these issues will be raised at a hearing!
@Duke, let’s see them mate! I’ll be amazed if you actually have 15. Remember these are beers that are available to stores, for example the Flat Earth infused beers are not available to stores. It has to be something that liquor stores actually can purchase. No Surly, no Bourbon County ect.
@ Alvey. Beer not currently available in package form that can be bought in Mn. Lucid Air and Camo, at least four beers from Lift Bridge (tomorrow right?), Dubrue has a couple and around three from Castle Danger (MSP doesn’t encompass the whole state). Flat Earth Extra Medium and four from a brewery I shall not name, yet. Will your contest continue tomorrow haha?
Nice! So for me here in the Twin Cities we have Camo and Air. We have lift bridge until they are in bottles again on March 1st. Dubrue and Castle Danger could supply you if you have a liquor store near them but I’m not anywhere near them and they are pretty small. Flat Earth Extra Medium. And then a mystery brewery. So in reality even if we include the mystery brewery I have 7 beers to choose from.
I still can’t understand why anyone would support this bill once they knew just how limited the options were.
We need to get rid of that language. It needs to be opened up to more than 7 or 8 beers.
Alvey- I wish you luck, but I can’t wrap my head around how the tracing issue would be addressed. If I have to recall a product, the only way I know what product to recall is by using the codes that I as a brewer have put on a package. It’s a real issue, and one that is often dismissed (and seldom enforced, I might add). Yet, it remains a Federal mandate. The FDA can walk into my brewery tomorrow with a bottle of beer, and I have 24 hours to provide *complete* tracing information–where I got the ingredients, who delivered them, where the product went, who transported it. In the end, the brewery is held accountable for their product. If something happens and I can’t trace the lot numbers, I have to recall *everything.* Every product. That is a frightening prospect, and not many breweries would survive that.
I have never seen tracing numbers on growlers from a brewery, am I missing them, or are they missing them?
How does Casanovas deal with this issue? How do liqour stores and bars in New York deal with this? There are other states where growlers and bottles can be filled directly from taps at either stores or bars right now. I’d never even considered these issues. All very interesting.
Alvey, I wouldn’t worry too much about the bill. Seems they never get passed the first time around anyway. I have a feeling you’ll get your chance to do it right. Also, the quickest way to win the heart of a politician is the $$ you can prove will be generated in tax revenue. I still think we’re leap-frogging over the more important issue of just getting liquor stores open on Sundays.
Wow, I like that you guys really want to get our beer in growlers!
For the record I had no idea that this bill existed and we don’t pay Alvey for advertising (although we probably should!). Until we get our growler lic. cleaered with the city, we are draft only. I would love it if you could take our beer home with you, but also share dave’s concerns.
Good thing is that we have submitted our labels for approval and expect to have 22oz’rs of in March!
Am I the only one who doesn’t see the need to talk about this tracing issue? This is obviously not enforced, at least from what I’ve seen. Is this an issue with bars putting kegs on tap? Not that I’m aware of.
The only purpose I can see from this bill is for the authors to say they tried to pass a law helping brewers but nobody wanted to pass it. Therefore it’s just some political BS to make us beer lovers look like ungrateful a-holes who will never be satisfied.
Also, to whoever pointed out that this would be offending the small breweries. Think again, these are the only people this bill would help. It would allow them to get their beers out to more people instead of limiting them to just a small radius around their brewery.
The fact that bills like this come through the pipe is a disgrace. I’d love to know who the actual authors are or who’s behind the authors of this bill. I mean names. We need to expose them and they need to answer to consumers.
Summit oat stout, all lucette offerings and several of the non bottled lb beers would be elibgle as is.
I don’t have much stake in this, as I’m close enough to the border to have the best of both states.
Karl- So a law that you think is seldom enforced I should just ignore? Pretty bold move to tell breweries how to run their businesses.
By the way, I can trace that keg you are talking about. So yes, it was an issue, and yes, we did what we are required to by law.
I apologize, that was my ignorance talking. Still, I don’t understand what the difference would be if you were to send a keg to a liquor store or to a bar. Assuming a well written law on the subject eventually comes through and liquor stores must fill their own growlers, why couldn’t it be their responsibility at that point?