Something Few Beer Can Claim

I have been ruminating on the announcement earlier this week that the beer industry will be exempt from new food labeling rules coming into effect next year. As usual people are quickly lining up on either side of the issue and making black and white arguments. In reality, I think this is a very complex issue.

In brief the federal government is requiring that all food products have clearer labeling regarding allergens (nuts, milk, eggs, etc.) and gluten-related ingredients. The straightforward reasoning is to offer greater clarity for consumers who have allergies or sensitivities, including celiac disease. The beer industry raised a fuss, asking to be exempted from the new rules, claiming it would be a costly burden, especially for smaller breweries with painted bottles. Their request was granted. Consumer advocates are quite displeased.

The need for clear labeling in food products is a slam dunk. Consumers need to know if a product has dairy, nuts or some other allergen in it. I am actually surprised it has taken Canada this long to create more stringent requirements. But should beer be included? I have heard arguments on both sides, and want to work through them a bit.

The “yes” side has a straightforward argument. Beer contains ingredients that can adversely affect the health of a sizeable portion of Canadians. Therefore they have a right to know what is in it. It is an issue of transparency, they argue. Is it, though? I will come back to that.

The “no” side offers a list of arguments:

1. Everyone knows beer contains barley. No one requires a carton of milk to say “contains milk”. People with gluten intolerance know they need to avoid beer, so the argument goes. Well, not so fast. I do a lot of beer education events, and am regularly asked what the ingredients of beer are. There is a sizable portion of the public who are fuzzy on what goes into beer, and whether gluten survives the brewing process (it does). Beer is a manufactured food product, unlike milk, which is simply processed, and thus its ingredients are less transparent to the public.

2. Buyer Beware. Many argue that people with health issues need to take personal responsibility and inform themselves about ingredients before purchasing. This is true – and my experience is most gluten-intolerant consumers are quite diligent and informed. But a anecdote suggests a limit to that logic. I recently had an email exchange with an Onbeer reader who has issues with corn, and looking for corn-free beer. Well, how would he find that out? Not through the label, that is for sure. His case was easily solved via the suggestion of drinking craft beer, but it does raise the issue that if the information is not readily available, personal responsibility doesn’t help.

(I must pause here and note that the new regulations don’t solve the corn problem. My understanding is they don’t require beer to list all of its ingredients, just those identified as allergens and/or glutenous. More on that in a minute.)

3. It will costs millions to relabel bottles. This is the so-called “Mill Street” argument – pointing to craft brewers who have specialized painted bottles which would have to be replaced, at an exorbitant cost. This is factually accurate, although it is the first time in my experience that the corporate brewers have tried to protect the little guys. Which suggests to me the argument might be a bit of a white-wash to hide their real concerns about it. Despite their motivations, the argument is one that cannot be ignored.

4. It would create problems for imported beer. The gist here is that there are hundreds of imported beer that would fail to comply with the new regulations. Canada is such a small market that it is unlikely these companies would be prepared to change their labeling just for us. Again, a valid point, but one that may be overblown. Importers already have the hassle of converting alcohol content and bilingual labeling. I am aware that there are many American breweries who don’t enter the Canadian market because of the hassle. That said, I see little “beer/biere” mini-stickers on imported bottles all the time. I trust an enterprising agent/brewery would be able to find a way to comply with minimal cost implications.

It is also interesting to observe that the wine industry has not been given an exemption. They will be required to identify if their product contains sulphites or if they used shellfish or dairy-based fining agents. Some might reasonably ask why beer is so different than wine?

So where are we? It seems rather absurd to require a “contains gluten” label on beer, and that is the crux of opposition to it. Plus there are some reasonable economic arguments against it. However, I find I cannot let go of the “transparency” argument. Why don’t consumers have a right to know what is in their beer?

And then it dawned on me. The problem here is that the new rules aren’t creating transparency. They are like a highlighter pen – drawing our attention to a handful of baddies while the rest remains cloaked. Transparency would be requiring breweries to list all of their ingredients. Then a consumer could see if the beer had wheat or oats or corn in it. They would also know if any preservatives were used. I know that many craft brewers voluntarily list all ingredients as a way of promoting their all-natural approach. But wouldn’t it be interesting if Molson Canadian or Black Label had to list their ingredients (raising the interesting debate of which would be listed first – barley or corn)?

That is an argument that wins me over. It no longer becomes about particular allergens, but about accountability to the consumer in general. It is not about how self-evident it is that beer contains barley, but how that beer was made in the first place. Rather than warning about gluten, make them come clean on all their ingredients. That changes the story immensely. At least for me.