Welcome Alosta Brewing; Quick Anecdote on Self-Distribution

This evening I had occasion to visit the 5-days-old Alosta Brewing in Covina, CA. They are Covina’s first microbrewery. (Nearby West Covina features a BJ’s that used to be a prominent brewing location for the company and remains licensed as a brewpub.) The opening process for the fledgling outfit has been long and painstaking, requiring a mid-game switch in locations, much negotiating, and a lot of waiting. After all, though, they are open for business and report a very successful first week so far. At least two local brewers were in the tap room sampling Alosta’s beer when I arrived.

Current offerings include a blonde, a British pale, a strong British pale, and a brown porter. Upcoming are an oatmeal stout and a saison. The brewers/owners include members of the Crown of the Valley Brewing Society, a homebrewing organization in operation since 1988.

While I stood in the tasting room,  a call came in from a nearby pub requesting another keg of the blonde ale. In minutes, a keg was loaded and ready to move. “We can deliver a keg faster than we would be able to get a pizza,” one of the owners exclaimed.

In California, brewers can sell their beer to retail licensees directly without limit. Many states either do not allow this at all, or place caps on the amount of beer that can be self-distributed.

For a brewery just starting up, the ability to be immediately responsive to local retailers seems like an important benefit. As a brewery grows, self-distribution becomes less efficient. But in moments like the one I witnessed, it means the just-opened brewery’s beer can remain on tap through a busy Saturday evening at a popular pub with many great craft tap handles.


Advertising by Autographing

There are restrictions on the freedom of brewers (and other suppliers) to advertise the availability of their products at a particular retailer. For one, they generally cannot initiate the transfer of information–someone must request (such as by clicking “Find Our Beer” on a web page) the information first.

A California ABC industry advisory details one way that a brewer could advertise the availability of its product at a particular retailer proactively. §25502.2 authorizes (until 1/1/16, at least) a supplier to “employ or engage” a person to sign autographs for consumers at an off-sale retail licensee’s premises (a liquor store or bottle shop, for example), and to advertise in connection with the event, including the beer to be featured, and to list the name and address of the retailer in the advertisement. Restrictions include no pictures of the retailer’s premises, and the listing must be “relatively inconspicuous in relation to the advertisement as a whole.”

This privilege may be used twice per year per retailer and must be registered in advance with ABC. While limited, this could be an effective way for small breweries to engage with their local fans (the brewer(s) themselves could sign the autographs) and to announce the availability of their product at a new location (or just to raise awareness about pre-existing availability). If the brewer were to make a special release beer for the event (or make an already popular seasonal beer available first at the event), that may make it even more successful.

Small brewers ought to be able to just send out a Tweet whenever they’re newly stocked at a store or put on tap at a bar, especially those that only self-distribute and are available in limited locations. The market works better when consumers have full information with which to make their choices and there would be no risk of the harms the regulations seek to prevent. For now, though, they are constrained to making use of the limited exceptions such as the “autographing event” one mentioned here. Since it would cost little and foster relationships with local retailers, small brewers should try to make use of it while it is available!

Stone’s “Crime”: Worthy of Pardon

I suppose I should not talk only about the law of beer on the law.of.beer. The beer of beer is worth talking about, too.

The following is Stone’s official description of Crime: “Crime is Lukcy Basartd Ale (a blend of Arrogant Bastard Ale, Double Bastard Ale and OAKED Arrogant Bastard Ale) brewed with freshly harvested peppers and aged in bourbon barrels. Like a criminal act, this capsicum-laced temptation—brewed with jalapeños and black nagas, to name but a few—provides entrée into the seedy underbelly of Stone’s pepper-induced purgatory.”

The first chili beer I tried was Rogue’s Chipotle, many years back. I recall enjoying the subtle, building warmth and light smokiness. Since then, I have had several more. I recently enjoyed sipping a glass of habenero stout by Aztec in Vista, CA (San Diego). The heat level was notably more aggressive than a restrained use of chili as in Rogue’s Chipotle Ale. Yet, with the robust qualities of the stout to accompany it, it worked well.

I have not yet tried the Punishment, which I hear is quite searing. Crime, though, impressively dabbles with extremity while achieving elegance. A strong whiff of chili, wood, and smoke comes off the nose. Stings the nostrils a bit. But the aroma of chili is rich and fresh–as though whole chilies were floating there in the bottle. A drink reveals oak, mild whiskey notes, and poignant heat. Not a subtle, building warmth but immediate sensation. After a moment of surprise, the heat level was actually pleasurable and remained so. It allowed a full appreciation of the true accomplishment of the beer: the nuanced fruit/aromatic flavor of the chinense family of chili peppers (the nagas in this case, related to habaneros). It can be hard to incorporate high-heat chilies in a dish so that the flavor comes through, while keeping the heat level tolerable. Here, it was done with finesse . . . in a beverage.

Unless you really cannot tolerate heat, in my opinion this beer is a must-try.

Language Shows Changing Power Relationships in Beer Distribution

Many states have protections for distributors, including some that require a brewer to renew its distribution agreement with the distributor unless the brewer can show “good cause” for ending the relationship. This of course interferes with a brewer’s freedom to choose how its beer will be handled, marketed, and placed for retail sale. The interference, historically, was justified by the power differential between large manufacturers with national presence and the small, independent, family-owned distributors that operated within particular geographic areas.

The three-tier system is now faced with breweries who are the smallest fish in the pond, with distributors being large and powerful (in many cases), and many retailers, too, being quite muscle-y: BevMo, for example.

Language itself can reveal a lot about how power dynamics have changed. One sentence in particular spurred this post:

@CraftBrewingBusiness sent out this tweet:

Stone Distributing takes Mother Earth Brew Co. under its wing http://www.craftbrewingbusiness.com/?p=11460.

Stone is no giant in wholesaling and craft brewers sign with them because they too are craft brewers and have a reputation for working well with fellow, smaller breweries. But the statement reveals a lot about a small brewer’s decision for the first time to cast a wider net and use distribution channels to sell beer. The language also reveals a lot about perceptions of Stone’s distributing business: it conveys the perception that Stone has a benevolent (if gargoyle-y) wing in the first place.

There are other examples as well (also happening to show that positive perceptions of Stone are long-lived).

When The Bruery signed with Stone in 2008, Patrick Rue posted on his company’s blog:

“This last Tuesday I … signed a distribution agreement! I cannot express in words how excited and happy I am about this.”

Now, taken out of context, if that statement were made in a traditional setting, with powerful manufacturers and small, independent distributors, who would be making that statement? Landing a contract to distribute Coors, Miller, or Bud would mean the world to a small company (I’m sure it still does). Now, such agreements can mean the world to small brewers who want to take the next step in growing their business.

A common usage to report a distribution agreement between a small brewer and a distributor seems to be “signed with.” For example, “Santa Clara Valley Brewing, which has been serving up some of the South Bay Area’s best brews, has just signed with California Craft Distributors™ to bring its golden goodness to the Golden State” (link). This phrasing is commonly found in pro sports, to report an individual player signing with an (obviously larger) organization. California Craft Distributors describes itself as “a  boutique distribution company which focuses on hand selling craft beer statewide in California.” This example further highlights the importance of distributor choice for a small brewer–since the laws add protections for the distributor, using other craft brewers or smaller distributors who will focus their time and energy on understanding and promoting smaller brands is key.

It bears mentioning that in CA, small brewers can self-distribute. Thus, they can get away with on-site sales and self-distributing to the local area for a while before they have to make the decision to use a distributor for the next step of growth. Not all brewers have this privilege, or to the extent that CA small brewers have it. Brewers Association has begun collecting information on the various self-distribution rights (or lack thereof) here.

Who is Craft Beer?

At the risk of dead horse abuse, I submit another consideration of the term the beer-appreciating community in the US has come to know, love, and #.

A recent blog post mused that “craft beer” is identifiable without need for the label, that one knows it upon sight. Indeed, in the words of Lagunitas Brewing Co., Beer Speaks, People Mumble.

The “craft” of beer, of course, is old. Even the University of California has been teaching brewing longer than you might think, as evidenced by this snippet from an Aug. 12, 1920 edition of the LA Times:


To jail for practicing a “forbidden craft” in the very Kern County that now produces “outstanding” IPAs. Many celebrate homebrewer/craft brewer Jack McAuliffe; perhaps we ought also celebrate Tex Smith, homebrewer-renegade.

The term “craft” also implicates the artisan craft guilds that controlled brewing in Germany centuries ago, wherein apprenticeships produced the next generation of brewers as in other artisan trades. In the early 90s, the term “craft beer” was already used to refer to beers made by brewpubs and small breweries in US publications, including a 1993 Wall Street Journal article about craft beer injecting life into an otherwise “flat” beer industry (sound familiar?), which explained the term as “beers made by microbreweries.” To some, that is probably still the working definition. Particularly where the term is used generally without distinguishing between true microbreweries and larger craft breweries: it’s all “microbrew.” As far as I can tell, that is not the case here in Southern California, but observing  Twitter suggests to me that it is the case in some places.

Of course, the Brewers Association has employed a more sophisticated definition to advance the interests of its constituents–many being microbreweries, all allegedly being “small.”

To illustrate a rise in the use of the term, the ProQuest database (newspapers and magazines) finds 3 uses in 1993; 6 in 1994; 33 in 1995; 125 in 1998. It dropped to 46 hits in 1999, to a low of 23 hits in 2003. In 2005, the number of hits jumped back to 100; by 2008, 450; so far in 2013, 634 records bear the term. The term “craft brewer” exhibits a similar pattern, though used less often.

An easy way to use the term is how the Wall Street journal used it: beer made by small breweries. As used by the Brewers Association, it has specific aims, but it still does little to describe the beer itself:

“I’d like a beer, please.”

“What kind of beer?”

“A craft beer, please.”

“What do you mean, a craft beer?”

“You know, a beer from a brewer that is small, independent, and traditional.”

“Okay, well, that’s all my beers. So we’re back at square one.” (We’re at a craft beer bar, of course.)

Some have indicated confusion from explanations that the term, as used by BA, does not speak to a beer’s quality. While it is true that most fans of craft brewers equate the term with the production of “good” or “quality” beer, as opposed to beers like Budweiser or Miller Genuine Draft that are the opposite of “good” or “quality,” a casual glance at the occasionally vicious nether-regions of the BeerAdvocate forums will indicate how adept craft beer drinkers are at expressing the lack of quality they find in brewers and beers that otherwise qualify as “craft.” Of course, no one should expect every offering from every craft brewer to be universally good and of high quality. That’s not the nature of the way things work. Brewers themselves have a different perspective than a casual imbiber on “quality,” and many remark on the quality of mass-produced light beers, often described as a style that is very difficult to make well (whether you like a well-made one is a different question).

So if the term doesn’t really describe any particular beer (other than to indicate what market segment produced it), nor indicate any given beer’s quality, what does it do?

It includes and excludes industry members:

Quite simply, setting the “small” limit arbitrarily at 6 million barrels per year or less (minus “flavored malt beverages” such as say, Twisted Tea) includes the vast majority of brewers in the United States, and excludes certain you-know-whos.

The same goes for “independent.” It includes the vast majority of brewers in the United States, and excludes a different but overlapping set of you-know-whos. Redhook, Widmer (craft brewing pioneers), and Kona (CBA) notoriously fall victim to the 25% ownership-by-non-craft-brewer line that means “not independent, so not craft.” Of course, many of the beers produced by these brewers are otherwise indistinguishable from craft beers, particularly Widmer’s smaller batch offerings. Which is because they are indistinguishable, at the beer level.

The “traditional” element is really the only element that deals with what as well as who. It also smacks of gerrymandering. Whose natural response to the question, What is a “traditional” brewer?, would be: well, naturally, one who has “an all-malt flagship or has at least 50% of its volume in either all malt beers or in beers [that] use adjuncts to enhance rather than to lighten flavor.” Some have vehemently challenged this notion of “traditional,” including August Schell Brewing. Still, this is the closest the three elements of definition get to describing the beer. It is still inclusive and exclusive.

Start with the first prong: all-malt flagship. No rice or corn in the brewer’s main beer. Well, that excludes several you-know-whos, including some that would otherwise qualify under the small and independent elements (Yuengling, for example). I wonder if it would also dispose of a brewer whose flagship wit includes un-malted wheat . . . probably so, but that brewer would likely be saved by prong two. Even if a majority of the brewer’s beer involved some un-malted grain or adjunct, they could be saved by the subjective “enhance not lighten” part of prong two. Who gets to decide whether an adjunct “enhances” rather than “lightens” flavor? The seeming decisiveness and clarity of the definition crumbles here. What if to make the body more “crisp” <in other words, to lighten–see certain famous double IPAs> also serves to enhance?

These elements are phrased in a manner that sounds dispositive of the issue, but BA throws in some additional “concepts” the weight of which in determining craft brewer-hood is not clear: innovation, traditional ingredients, non-traditional ingredients, community involvement, individualistic approaches to connecting with customers, integrity that derives from freedom from substantial interests by non-craft brewers, proximity (10 miles) to the majority of Americans.

It is important to remember that the Brewers Association is “a passionate voice for craft brewers.” They advocate for business and legal purposes in venues far removed from the world of beer festivals and bottle shares. Their success in doing so may in part be reflected in the increasing overlap of those worlds, with politicians increasingly stopping by breweries for photo ops. The general paradigm of advocacy, though, has BA climbing the hill in Washington to seek support for lower excise taxes for its constituents, for example.  They are tasked with seeking policy changes that benefit particular entities within an industry. That is why the term is more concerned with answering the “who” question than the “what” question.

It would seem to follow that only a craft brewer can make “craft beer.” But does that have to be the case? BA does not purport to define “craft beer,” only craft brewers. Some would say big beer attempts at “crafty” beers cannot be craft beer because they do not come from craft brewers.

In a recent post, Melissa Cole (@MelissaCole) discusses why attempts to define “craft beer” make little sense in the UK. Her post reveals two issues with transporting “craft beer” definitions to the UK. First, she discusses the historical differences in beer-making created by Prohibition that allow the the United States’ nascent brewing revolution to stand in stark contrast to the industry as it had developed post-Prohibition into the 1970s. No such stark contrast exists in the UK that one can use to trace the boundaries between what is “craft beer” and what isn’t. Second, the elements of a “craft brewer” are also unique to the brewing industry in the United States–the Brewers Association does not purport to advocate (at least not directly) for any breweries in the UK. Even though the craft brewer definition could technically be applied anywhere, they list only US craft brewers on their site.

And what about homebrewers? They are not craft brewers either. Is their product relegated only to consideration as “homebrew”? The line blurs when craft breweries hold contests and then brew the winning homebrewer’s recipe. Is it the recipe and ingredients, or the fact that the equipment happens to be sitting on licensed premises that makes the end product “craft beer”? I would argue this reveals the reason BA focuses on “craft brewer” and not “craft beer.” A workable definition for “craft beer” is more elusive and less useful when it comes to advocacy. Legislators want to know who policy changes affect and why those parties should be affected.

The parallel between the “craft brewer” definition and the BA’s advocacy mission reveals itself in the group who would benefit from the passage of S. 917/H.R. 494–the Small BREW Act: the Act will redefine a “small brewer” in federal taxation terms (previously 2 million barrels/per year) as one who “produces not more than 6,000,000 barrels of beer during the calendar year.” That would be huge for you-know-who.

Odd Pub Out? California’s “75” Brewpub

California offers a license designated as “75–on-sale general brewpub.” While it authorizes just what the title suggests, brewing, it does a few other things, too, providing privileges and limitations not afforded to other breweries. Notably, it allows the brewpub to offer distilled spirits, whereas other breweries that have restaurants on premises are authorized only to sell beer and wine by virtue of their type 1 or type 23 license.

The brewpub statute was added to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act in 1996, under Bus. & Prof. Code § 23396.3. The bill was supported by the California Restaurant Association. It was opposed by California Small Brewers Association (now the California Craft Brewers Association).

Why would a brewers association fight the creation of a new brewpub license? Because the license holder “shall offer for sale on the licensed premises canned, bottled, or draft beer commercially available from licensed wholesalers.” § 23396.3(c). Further, a “a brewpub-restaurant licensee shall purchase all beer, wine, or distilled spirits for sale on the licensed premises from a licensed wholesaler or winegrower, except for beer produced [on-site].” 23396.3(b).

I wonder which tier had the greatest interest in this becoming the brewpub model? With these provisions, the bill also had the backing of distributors.  A 1996 article in SFGate covered the matter. Small brewers were concerned the state was making a move to force them to sell big beer, as expressed by then lobbyist for the association, Bob Judd: “It’s like telling Chez Panisse to sell Taco Bell stuff. Like making Nike sell Florsheims.” California Cafe Restaurants pushed for the bill so it could operate a chain of brewpubs (Alcatraz Brewing Co.), but could not under because it held too many liquor licenses already. Alcatraz Brewing Co. closed recently. Fritz Maytag, then president of the CSBA,  shared his view thusly: “Socially, it just strikes me as a disaster.”

But the fears probably proved largely unfounded–brewers are still free to start up under regular brewery licenses and operate a brewpub as well, so long as they do not have their hearts set on a “full bar.” It has not been the most popular type chosen. An informal survey of CCBA-member brewpubs shows about 15% of them choose the 75 license over the 23, not counting repeat locations for the same brewing company. Breweries with a chain of locations do use them, like the original proponent of the license (Oggi’s Pizza has many locations and has had several 75 licenses, though not all remain active; BJ’s still has active 75 licenses in West Covina and Brea–which requires them to brew at least 100 barrels per year on site). This is likely due to two key factors: (1) constraints the license places on expansion–the 75 brewpub can produce no more than 5,000 barrels of beer annually; (2) the license cost–12 grand for a new 75 license, compared to a mere $100 for a new 23. As of June 30, 2013, there were 109 type 75 licenses issued in California. There were 371 type 23 licenses (up to 60k bbs/year) and 34 type 1 licenses (more than 60k).

The license type also constrains interaction amongst craft brewers. While the brewpub can–indeed, must–have other beer available, it can only bring in commercially available beer through a licensed wholesaler. Thus, it cannot have a “guest tap” from a type 23 brewery that only self-distributes.

This is not the case with type 23 or type 1 brewpubs (standard breweries that also have a “bona fide eating place” on site–such as Stone Brewing Co. or Pizza Port). They can put on tap the beers of brewers who only self-distribute . Take a look at Beachwood BBQ & Brewing’s “hopcam” to ogle what delights await you there, including beers from breweries whose beers are not available through a licensed wholesaler. The same goes for Stone Brewing Co.’s generous guest tap list.

Since many craft brewers do distribute through wholesalers, consumers can find craft beer not brewed by the brewpub on tap at type 75 breweries (TAPS, for example). What they will not find, however, is a direct exchange from brewer to brewer, because the middle tier must intervene. These three-tier regulations were originally put in place to prevent “tied houses,” where a supplier manages through financial interest or inducement to force a retailer to exclusively deal in that supplier’s brands. In the 21st century, some of these rules have hampered craft breweries’ freedom to “untie” their houses and offer a greater variety of locally produced craft beer–especially beer from the smallest members of the brewing community who have yet to access, or who have no plans of accessing, the wholesaler channels of distribution. The type 75 brewpub is an example of just that.

Growlers: Filled with Love, Fraught with Confusion

An article posted on the Florida Beer News website attempts to clarify the ambiguous law governing who can fill what sizes of growlers in Florida. Ultimately, aptly named Brewer concludes that a recently issued waiver will not solve the problem: comprehensive laws are needed to resolve important questions, such as who may fill growlers and the size and composition of the growlers. The law currently governing, while ambiguous, appears to hinge on “packaging” language in the statute. Since retail stores for on-site consumption do not package products like breweries do (they just buy pre-packaged goods and dispense them to customers), this distinction may have led the ABT to order a beer and wine bar to cease growler fills. However, a few years later, a retail store selling for off-site consumption applied for a waiver, and received it, leaving the ABT’s official stance on growler fills regarding any other retailers in Florida unclear.

What started as a simple attempt to allow 64oz growler fills in the state turned into somewhat of a kerfluffle when a state congressperson represented other interests by adding several provisions to a bill that became far less friendly to small brewers. In the end, neither the simple 64oz growler provision nor the add-ons are likely to become law–at least not this term. Brewers’ Law has a number of excellent write-ups that track the story.

Some states do allow growlers to be filled by non-brewing retail locations. A recently passed North Carolina law allows standard retail locations to fill growlers–likely leading to a growler fill up at the local grocery store. In Oregon, growlers can be filled at any retail store, restaurant, bar, brewpub, or winery with the appropriate . . . license. The state even publishes a handy-dandy info-sheet that makes the growler situation quite clear. Accordingly, EugeneWeekly.com reports on the development of a “growler rush” in that state. The same goes for ArizonaMontanaMichigan, New York, Washington, and Wyoming as well, thanks to laws allowing properly licensed retail establishments to fill growlers.

Texas appears reversed: certain retailers and brewpubs can fill growlers, but breweries cannot. A Georgia bill (H.B. 314) was introduced early in 2013 that would alter the definition of brewpub to allow limited (288 ounces per person, per day) growler fills. It was tabled by committee in March and has not been acted upon since.

The growler issue is not confined only to beer. Wineries in Washington state, for example, are allowed to fill growlers of wine at the wineries themselves, but not at satellite tasting rooms where no winemaking occurs. For brewers in California, the fact that no brewing occurs on premises is not a barrier to growler fills, provided the brewer has received a duplicate license for the premises. (The Stone Company Store in Pasadena, CA, for example, has no brewing facilities but operates under a duplicate license giving it the same privileges to sell beer from the site as the brewery itself has).

California recently resolved some ambiguities that had arisen as to the filling of one brewer’s growler at a different brewery. The California Craft Brewers Association has a July 9, 2014 blog entry titled “Growlers – Q&A” with some good information on CA’s approach. A California Craft Beer Association-sponsored bill (AB 647) passed resulting in clarifications for labeling of growlers, including the procedure for filling growlers produced by one brewery (thus bearing its logos and information) but filled at another. On February 13, 2014, the Sacramento Bee reported that not many breweries are choosing to use the new law to allow fills of third-party growlers.

One reason might be that few want to bother with the ambiguity figuring out how to use it: what obscuring device counts as “not easily removable”? Another claimed reason is sanitation. I don’t know about most beer drinkers, but I don’t want to drink out of a dirty growler, so I clean mine pretty well before refilling. I assume that is fairly standard behavior. It’s probably mostly about money, since its business. Russian River, for example, is frank about its stance on the role growlers play in its marketing strategy. Of course, the sale of the growler itself is nice, too. But I have a modest growler array at home, and even that is too much. An entire shelf is taken up with 32–64oz jugs in the garage. Other than for intentional collecting of these things, no decent Californian should have to dedicate a significant portion of home storage to growlers. It’s silly.

While the state still limits growler fills to breweries only, the California Craft Beer Association discussed the potential of change in that area in a panel discussion at its recent bi-annual meeting. One the one hand, more access to craft beer cannot be a bad thing. I would certainly make use my local grocery or liquor store’s ability to fill growlers. On the other, I do like the impetus to visit my local breweries provided by the exclusive right to fill growlers, as well as more confidence in fresh beer from clean lines.

The widely varying stances on issues like this reveal the oddities that result from leaving the regulation of alcohol primarily to each state. There are 50 “laboratories” out there each brewing up their own solutions to the orderly regulation of alcohol production, sales, and consumption.

First Prost; Collaborative Spirit of the Craft Beer Community

Greetings and welcome to the Law.of.Beer Blog. I am a law student at the University of La Verne in Ontario, CA. While I have been an active enthusiast for craft beer for, well, quite a while (I am older than the average law student), a recent writing project has rapidly advanced my interest in legal issues surrounding the craft beer industry and alcohol regulation. 

While making a particular point in that paper, I happened upon an interesting topic for additional research on the side: “guest taps.” In California, a brewer with a standard brewing license may serve their own beer on site. If they have a restaurant (“bona fide eating place”) on site, they may also serve others’ beer (and wine). Of course, they do not have to serve competing products–they have a great opportunity for a little monopoly in their little restaurant domain to focus exclusively on touting their own products. 

But many choose not to do so (some have no choice–the type “75” brewpub must carry other commercially available beers; these brewpubs are identifiable in that they may also serve wine and spirits). Rather, they place directly competing beers and beer styles from near and far fellow craft breweries on tap alongside their own. In fact, given my experience with brewery/restaurants in Southern California, I thought this was standard practice everywhere.

Not so. Although my initial method was based only on information available on web sites (include TapHunter), an early inquiry into the matter revealed some potentially interesting results. While the practice is almost ubiquitous in Southern California, it does not appear nearly as standard up north–particularly in the bay area and Sonoma/Mendocino regions. 

The dichotomy is interesting enough warrant further inquiry, I think. Reasons for having guest taps seem evident: brewers like drinking each other’s beer and collaborating, consumers of craft beer like variety. Reasons for not having them do also: your brewery is your brewery; it is where you raise awareness about your beer by serving your beer exclusively. Both choices are made, but the exclusivity choice appears to be made much more often up north. 

This inquiry was a side note to learning that several nearby microbrewers would like to be able to collaborate with their fellows in this way as well, but they cannot as they are not in the restaurant business. Bringing a food truck does not count. My paper proposes an exception that would allow them to do just that. I welcome your thoughts on the matter!