This morning my plan was to publish the latest in my series of new brewery profiles (I am trying to catch up with the wave). But then I read Jason van Rassel’s thoughtful piece about the state of brewing in Alberta (you can read it here). It got me thinking – which is exactly what it should do.

So with apologies to the brewery whose profile I am bumping (don’t worry, it’ll come soon…), I want to take a bit of time to reflect upon some of the things he argues in the post. Van Rassel talks specifically about Alberta, but I think his comments apply equally well to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who are also witnessing a craft brewery explosion. And as my beat is the prairies as a whole, I want to extend my response to all three provinces.

First, I agree with him wholeheartedly that not all beer produced on the prairies makes the grade. While there are many excellent and even more satisfyingly good beer being produced out here, there are also those beer that simply do not meet the minimums of quality. Infections, off-flavours and generally unappetizing characteristics do appear, and I do find myself wondering how that happens.

But this is not a prairie problem. Nor is it a sign of “growing pains”. I remember being at the Craft Brewers Conference in the U.S. a few years back and coming across a witbier being served at a hospitality event that had a distinct sulfur and vegetal note. And this at the most important craft beer event in the U.S.! It is the nature of the beer industry that there will be great beer as well as under-performers. The under-performers continue to exist because consumers let them. If we don’t buy their product, they won’t be in business very long.

That point is an important one.  Acknowledging that not every prairie beer is a world-beater is not denigrating the entire industry. It is recognizing what is true everywhere. The flipside is also true. Pointing to some of the excellent offerings by prairie breweries does not mean one has their head in the sand regarding the industry’s shortcomings. The fights over whether prairie beer is better or worse than imports is irrelevant, distracting and pointless.

One of van Rassel’s main arguments is that local beer writers, bloggers and commentators (that would include me, obviously), have no obligation to the local breweries to overlook sub-standard product or to blindly support the industry. I agree with him. But he also gently suggests that maybe some of us are too easy on our local producers. He speaks generally, of course, but I know at times such an accusation has been cast my way. That is what got me thinking.

I use my various platforms to advance craft beer in this part of the world, no question. I profile new breweries, highlight beer events and generally try to increase the public’s awareness of craft beer. Scan a month or so of my posts (or listen to my CBC column) and you will find a melange of beer news, beer reviews, analysis of the industry. You will also see a mix of emphasis on local beer and imports. That is intentional. Growing a craft beer culture in western Canada requires a mixture of diverse import selection and vibrant local breweries. I roundly reject the polarizing debate of imports vs. local. It is both unhelpful and inaccurate – most beer fans happily drink both (including local brewers and import reps).

It is equally true that negative reviews are rare in my columns and on this site. That also is intentional, for three reasons. First, one of my editors told me years ago people read reviews to find something they might want to try, not to learn what sucks. That advice has led me to lean towards positive reviews (although I do permit myself to critique cynical efforts by the corporate brewers to hone in on craft once in a while – but only when they deserve it).

Second, I do not see it as my job to tell people what to like or not like. It is my job to help them explore what they do like, understand why they like it and maybe try something new. As a result my reviews are description heavy. I describe what I taste and let the reader decide if those flavours appeal to them. Sure, I allow some commentary on what I might prefer or whether the beer matches what the brewery promises (i.e., fits the style, etc.), but I try not to distract from the description.

Third, harsh and negative is not my style. I am not comfortable playing the role of Statler and Waldorf (for you young folk, google The Muppet Show) hurling insults and barbs from my safe box far above the fray. Who does that help? I think it just makes the insulter look like a jerk. Besides, I always endeavour to remember that breweries are not the Borg. They are made up of real people. In part that is why I like doing the profiles – it puts a human face on the product and give people another reason to get into craft beer.

As a result, an informal policy has emerged for me. If a beer doesn’t meet my standards of quality, I just refuse to write about it. Often my silence is as powerful as any critical comments I could make. (Of course, sometimes my silence is simply because I didn’t have the time/space or simply didn’t get around to writing about it. Funny how it works that way.)

Some people have said to me that I should be more critical with local breweries because it pushes them to be better. I disagree. If it is not my job to tell people what to drink, then neither is it my job to tell breweries what to brew. It is not my job to make the industry “better”. That is the work of consumers.

My self-appointed role is champion of craft beer on the prairies, in whatever form it takes. My function is to educate consumers and attempt to instill some interest and curiousity about craft beer. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing a reader of this site or my other columns can demand of me is this: honesty. I can state unequivocally that every word I write is truthful and faithful to my opinion. If I do say nice things about a beer, it is because I like the beer, not because it is made by so-and-so, or because they offered me a free six-pack, or because it advances some cause.

I realize this post isn’t really a response to van Rassel – mostly because we agree. So maybe consider it a companion piece to his observations.

[edited to correct spelling errors]