I was challenged the other day by a representative of a unnamed brewing corporation. They claimed that my columns were biased against the big brewers and that I was providing distorted and misleading information about them. Specifically they took offense at how I frame some of their so-called craft-y or pseudo-craft offerings. As it turns out their claims of my factual distortions were more about hair-splitting and word nuances than actual, you know, factual problems. But the crux of their critique was not the details of the facts but my criticisms of how they conduct their business at times.

My primary response is simply that I am tasked in my columns (and choose to here at onbeer.org) with offering knowledgeable opinion about all matters beer and that is exactly what I do. Whether the subjects of my views are pleased with what I say is a different matter altogether. I endeavour to be even-handed, open and fair, but that is not the same as refusing to take a stand. I have and always will take a position on a matter of importance to craft beer.

I find the timing of the critique quite fortuitous actually, as it came just a few days before my latest Beer 101 column was published (you can find that column here). The column, which was actually penned well before said criticism came my way, emerges from the recent spate of corporate buy-outs of independent craft breweries – Mill Street being the latest Canadian example. It uses these mergers as a springboard to discuss the question of whether size matters in terms of craft beer.

The main focus of the piece is actually not the corporate brewers but the independent craft breweries that have grown quite large – the Sierra Nevadas, Samuel Adams and New Belgiums of the world. Here in Canada we might include Big Rock, Steam Whistle, and/or McAuslan on that list. Can a brewery become too big to be considered a craft brewer?

Many answer yes. Others disagree. It is an age-old argument that will likely never be fully resolved.

Similarly what are we to do with craft breweries gobbled up by the corporate brewers? Do we strip them of their craft credentials because the profits now flow to a corporate HQ somewhere in the world (usually not Canada, by the way)? Are Goose Island, Elysian, Lagunitas and so on sell-outs? Similarly should we be besmirching Unibroue, Mill Street, Granville Island and Creemore Springs?

My answer to both sets of questions is clear – and familiar to regular readers of this site. How we view the status of the corporatized breweries and the over-sized independent breweries should be determined exclusively by their approach to the beer. For me craft beer is not a category or a label. It is an approach to brewing, one that elevates quality and craftmanship in the beer and demands integrity, honestly and openness in marketing and sales. Craft beer is a principle.

Which makes the task of determining what is craft deceptively easy. Size doesn’t matter. Ownership doesn’t matter. It is what in the bottle/can that counts. Obviously we will all reach different conclusions about specific breweries, but at least that is a debate grounded in agreed-upon assumptions.

The column also highlights – for me anyway – the flaw in the logic of the corporate representative who chastized me. They interpreted my critiques as a criticism of the big brewers. Actually they are a criticism of practices that violate craft beer principles. Don’t engage in those practices and you won’t be criticized.