This striking visual shows how out of step Minnesota will be if the proposed legislation passes. The proposed tax would make it about twice as expensive to produce beer in Minnesota than any other neighboring state.

This striking visual shows how out of step Minnesota will be if the proposed legislation passes. The proposed tax would make it about twice as expensive to produce beer in Minnesota than any other neighboring state.
As the Minnesota legislature contemplates a massive tax increase on brewers and distillers we may be reminded of a time in the 1920’s when state and federal governments decided to punish beer drinkers for the supposed good of everyone. The Prohibition era of the 20th century was not the first instance of this in American or Minnesota history. To find the true roots of this misguided movement we must travel back to Portland, Maine in the 1840’s. It was in this city that temperance and prohibition took their first breaths.
In 1827 Neal Dow became a founding member of the Maine Temperance Society. Most temperance advocates tried to convince people of the danger of drink but Dow believed that the only way to eliminate alcohol was by legislation. He used his influence to attempt prohibition in Maine several times before being elected mayor of Portland in April 1851. In that same year he succeeded in shepherding the first prohibition law in the nation through Maine’s legislature. With the “Maine” law in effect it would spread like a virus through the northern states. Minnesota would pass its own version of the Maine law in 1852.
Early prohibition would meet its nemesis in the German beer cultures of Milwaukee and St. Louis. German immigrants and their descendants viewed prohibition as an attack on the very lifeblood of their culture. Unlike the Northeastern Yankees, who drank heavier British style ales or rum, Germans preferred the lager beer of their homeland. Lager was considerably lighter and lower in alcohol than ale and many Germans enjoyed it in community beer gardens or other social events. As Midwesterners this should not be an altogether unfamiliar situation for most of us. In that culture beer was not viewed as an intoxicant but an everyday beverage to relax, enjoy, and be sociable.
The reaction in Milwaukee and St. Louis to prohibition should not have come as a great surprise to the temperance advocates in those states. The vehemence in the rejection of temperance came in the form of riots and mass protests at state capitols. A prohibition act did reach the Governor’s desk in Wisconsin in 1853 but was promptly vetoed. In St. Louis there was another idea entirely. There German-Americans would go to court to prove that lager beer was not an intoxicating beverage. In one story, a portly German man volunteered his time to sit in front of jurors and consume 22 beers to prove that he could not become drunk from beer.
While the Maine laws stalled in Wisconsin and Missouri they came under attack in the state where they were born. On June 2, 1855 Portland residents rioted after hearing a rumor the Neal Dow himself had sold alcohol for medicinal purposes to the state. When the rioter reached his steps he ordered the state militia to fire killing one and injuring several. This incident was repeated across other dry states. In 1856 Maine repealed Prohibition which led to repeal in several other states as crusaders focused on a different cause, abolition.
This first attempt at Prohibition taught American several lessons one being that denying people a popular product caused more problems than it solved. Minnesota would change its law because it had not counted on the reduced revenue from the lack of liquor and beer taxes. An unintended consequence of Maine laws was the popularity of lager beer. The publicity from the protests by German-Americans would lead many to try this new lager beer. Since then lager beer has become the most popular style of beer in America for more than 150 years. So go out and find a locally brewed lager or pilsner and salute our ancestors for holding off Prohibition for 80 years by teaching America how to drink beer again.
Saint Paul City council members Russ Stark and Amy Brendmoen have introduced a resolution that will modify zoning to allow smaller breweries to have taprooms in traditional neighborhood and commercial zoning districts, as opposed to only industrial districts.
The council is having a public hearing on this issue and others at 5:30 on Wednesday, March 20, in the Council Chambers on the third floor of St. Paul City Hall. Join members of your community in speaking up about the advantages that taprooms bring to your neighborhood!
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Sec. 65.774. – Malt liquor production.
Standards and conditions in traditional neighborhood and business districts.
(a)
In traditional neighborhood and B2 business districts, a conditional use permit is required for such uses with more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area to ensure size and design compatibility with the particular location.
(b)
Fewer than five thousand (5,000) barrels of malt liquor shall be produced in a year.
(c)
The malt liquor shall not be sold to customers for consumption on the site where manufactured.
The resolution would completely eliminate section (c), allowing St. Paul to enter the taproom scene, joining cities like Stillwater, Rochester, Minneapolis, and more.
It would be great to see Saint Paul catch up to other leading cities, but does the resolution go far enough? The 5,000 barrel limit may be the next hurdle to overcome. Without the ability grow brewers will still put Saint Paul near the bottom of the list for potential brewery locations.
A growler is a 64oz or 750ml container of beer. In most cases growlers are sold directly from the brewery to the consumer. They are a great way to bring home a taste of local beer in an easily transportable container. Growlers are vital to the income of small local breweries, especially those that do not have bottling or canning facilities.
The ability to sell growlers directly to consumers enables Minnesota brewers to have a direct line of revenue from their beer. When a brewery sells growlers they don’t have the added expense of transporting the beer to market and from the retailer, or worry about the additional investment in kegs.
Growlers are all the rage with Minnesota beer fans. Growlers are a great way to bring home a bit of your experience at the brewery. Once you see the fermenters, the bright tanks, and meet the guys and gals making your beer you’ll want to take a jug of it to go. Growlers are great for trips like canoeing or picnics, or even bringing one to a party.
Growlers sound great, right? So why can’t you get one at every brewery? Size. Growlers are limited to Minnesota breweries that produce less than 3,500bbls of beer annually. The breweries that can sell growlers are limited to 500bbls in growler sales. Once a brewery passes that magic 3.500bbls number the right to sell growlers is forever gone. The growlers you bought are about as useful as flower pots.
Why is 3,500bbls the magic number? The number is based on the production limit for brewpubs. Last year, I spoke to a brewery owner about the limit, he told me it was a terrible place to have the limit, saying most breweries don’t even start breaking even until they reach 3,500bbls. Why would you punish a local business for being successful?
Brittany Krekelberg, Badger Hill Brewing Co-Founder says, “Part of the expanding American palate, not only includes craft beer, but also the experience of visiting a local brewery and being able to purchase a growler to take home.”
Shouldn’t you be able to enjoy a growler from every brewery in Minnesota, regardless of production size? That is the argument being put forth by the Minnesota Brewers Association (different from the Minnesota Craft Brewer’s Guild) a group of about a dozen Minnesota packaging breweries. The association is behind the “Save the Growler” movement. An initiative that would allow all Minnesota breweries the right to sell growlers, regardless of size. The group isn’t trying to change the limit on growler sales, 500bbls a year seems to be enough.
“We’re all doing this because our customers and locals have built a phenomenal community centered around our beers,” says Excelsior Brewery’s Ben Flattum. “Part of our responsibility, in return, is to ensure that everyone is up to date on legislation and circumstances that could limit their choices going forward.”
There isn’t any proposed legislation yet, but I was assured that it is being worked on. In the meantime, if you want to “Save the Growler” check them out on facebook, twitter, and sign up for their mailing list at SaveTheGrowler.org.
News is coming in from the west coast that California breweries are going to be able to fill ANY growler as long as it is properly labeled. This is a revelation to many as it was just assumed that breweries could only fill/sell their own growlers. The language of the CA code merely speaks to proper labeling, not the origination of the growler. As long as the label says where the beer came from, what is in it, it is properly sealed, and a few other requirements, the 64oz containers are good to go. Literally. Proper labeling will likely be achieved through the use of stickers specific to each brewery’s beer.
Is this a viable option here in MN? Proper cleaning and sanitizing of growlers could be potential hangups for MN brewers. There is no point in putting your beer in a growler if you don’t know that it is clean. The variety of growler containers could pose problems as well. Are brewers interested slapping stickers all over their brethren’s containers?
Any craft beer fan in Minnesota will tell you that investing in growlers for every brewery you want to visit can be a bit daunting, and leave you with empty containers taking up real estate in the cupboard.
A quick look at MN Statute 430.301 says it might be viable option for the land of 10,000 beers: ” The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules….”
With the number of Minnesota breweries increasing every month, it is not likely that local brewers would ever reach a consensus on the issue. But, growler swapping sure is worth considering.
Lucid Brewing won approval to sell 64 oz “growlers” and 750ml bottles earlier this week via unanimous vote from the Minnetonka city Council. The license allows Lucid to sell directly to its consumers at the Lucid Brewey located at 6020 Culligan Way, Minnetonka MN 55345.
The west metro brewers are expected to begin growler sales in early January. The brewery is intent on “flexing its creative muscles” with some new recipes and “brewery-only” special releases. The first two special release beers available in growlers will be “DUCE”; a 7.5% ABV malt-forward imperial red ale, and “CRAIG’S ALE”: a 7.5% ABV chocolate rye, brown ale brewed in honor of a brewery supporter. Brewer Paul Johnson says, “Foto, Dyno, and Air in growlers. Special projects in 750’s. Look for lots of 750’s…”
Price: FREE
Dates: November 27, 7:00PM-8:30PM
Venue: UBS Forum at Minnesota Public Radio
Address: 480 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101
For MPR’s November Bright Ideas, Stephen Smith is joined by Omar Amsari, the founder of Surly Brewing Company. They’ll talk about running a company, his fight to change Minnesota’s law, and beer.
For full details and reservations CLICK HERE