Whither Brussels White and Brakspear Bitter?

Gedge · Post by **Gedge** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:58 am

These should be along soon, yes?

Illuminatus · Post by **Illuminatus** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:40 pm

One would hope.

Jonah Hex · Post by **Jonah Hex** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:21 am

Well, it also took a long time for the Unibroue Ephemere Apple and St. Peter's Golden Ale to appear in the stores.

At this point, I just going to assume that the Brussels White and Brakspear Bitter are a later shipment ... or the LCBO is sitting on them, waiting for previous summer releases to sell through before stocking the shelves. Or maybe something else, that makes less sense?

But the wait let's me enjoy the other releases, like the Unibroue Ephemere Apple, and decide what I'd like more of when I finally do have a chance to get some Brussels White.

Gedge · Post by **Gedge** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:40 pm

Any word? Still waiting.... semi-patiently.

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:06 am

Brussels White has been in the LCBO warehouse for a month. I finally got an answer as to why yesterday. Even though the brewery goes to great expense to produce a fully compliant Canadian label, apparently the alcohol content is off somewhat (it's bit stronger than declared) so, the LCBO has given us the option to pay $6900 to apply strip labels to 800 cases or to destroy the beer at our expense.

Bobsy · Post by **Bobsy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:11 am

esprit wrote:Brussels White has been in the LCBO warehouse for a month. I finally got an answer as to why yesterday. Even though the brewery goes to great expense to produce a fully compliant Canadian label, apparently the alcohol content is off somewhat (it's bit stronger than declared) so, the LCBO has given us the option to pay $6900 to apply strip labels to 800 cases or to destroy the beer at our expense.

That's a tough one to swallow, Peter. You must be mighty pissed off. Over $8 a case for a label that no one really reads.

icemachine · Post by **icemachine** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:15 am

Would it be better to over declare the alcohol? If you tell the LCBO its a 5.5 when its intended as a 5.2, and it tests at 5.3, would they force relabelling?

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:18 am

Yet another reason our beer needs to be freed. Man that sucks.

icemachine, I think the LCBO's policy is if the variance is a certain amount, either higher or lower, it forces relabelling. So I think it has to be pretty exact.

GregClow · Post by **GregClow** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:25 am

So not only are they going to screw the importer and/or brewery with a ridiculous relabelling fee, but they have this somewhat fragile beer sitting in a (presumably) non-air conditioned warehouse, getting staler and staler by the day.

I've been cautiously optimistic and very diplomatic in my opinions about the LCBO recently. It really seemed that they were moving in the right direction. But once again, they're showing that for every step forward, they'll be taking two steps back.

I know for a fact that LCBO reps are reading this forum on a daily basis. Wouldn't it be nice if one of them had the guts to offer some justification for these completely outlandish fees? Don't they realize that any good will they might be gaining with the slight improvements in craft beer selection are being dashed every time something like this happens?

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:36 am

For beers with the alcohol level of BW, the tolerance is +/-.3%. For higher alcohol beers it goes up to +/-1%. This is all fine and good for normally brewed beers but doulbe fermented beers are sometimes difficult to keep within such a tight range.

Gedge · Post by **Gedge** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:01 am

Thanks for the update Peter. Sorry to hear that the LCBO is giving you such grief over this beer. I'll certainly buy a bunch if it makes it to the shelves.

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:52 am

I've always wondered, and perhaps Peter knows, if the labelling issue regarding bilingualism (strong beer/ Biere forte), the fairly precise alcohol measure and the metric contents are requirements of some government branch or simply a policy decision by the LCBO? If the LCBO are legally required by the government to have that labelling on each and every bottle then the blame can't rest with them exclusively.

If it's simply LCBO policy then it's pretty ridiculous. Even more ridiculous that such a stiff price has to be incurred in order to strip label. But that's likely due to the fact that only LCBO staff are allowed to do the work and they're all unionized workers...so it's more bloated LCBO bureaucracy at work.

Free our beer indeed!

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:07 pm

Does the LCBO have to be the one to apply the labels? Can the importer do it themselves? we should have a labeling party!

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:13 pm

Some reads on the subject:

Packaging / labeling standards and testing guidelines:

http://www.lcbotrade.com/pdf/Product%20 ... 202008.pdf

Simple labeling guidelines:

http://www.lcbotrade.com/pdf/070201%20L ... ements.pdf

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:26 pm

GregClow wrote:
I know for a fact that LCBO reps are reading this forum on a daily basis.

Maybe the LC need to revise the policy - allowing more flexibility on these very small product orders to anticipate a little more alcohol variance.

It seems the recurring problem for the LCBO (or above them CFIA) is this:they do not take into account the very nature of the products they are trying to retail. Just as you cannot control the exact ripeness of a brie cheese at the moment of sale, you cannot precisely anticipate the ABV of some small-production beers.

These are 'world-class' beers approved for sale in a bazillion countries just the way they are. So there is no reason to exclude or penalize the distribution of any such products just because they behave exactly as they do everywhere else in the world.