Unnatural and impure thoughts

As someone who spends his time encouraging people to be adventurous in their choice of beers I find it unhelpful, to put it mildly, when brewers use confusing, ambiguous, or downright inaccurate, terms to describe their beers.

Take the word "pure" for example.

Pure is an evocative word but what exactly does it mean when applied to beer?

Since 1516, German brewers have adhered to a so-called beer purity law, the Reinheitsgebot, which decrees beer must be made with only four ingredients; malt, hops, yeast and water. But is the German definition of purity the same as the one adopted by Kiwi brewers? Who knows?

And who's to say the German definition is correct? Should a beer whose recipe includes unrefined candy sugar and spices be considered "impure"?

If so, many of Belgium's finest ales, including some of its most revered monastic brews, would be deemed impure. It seems when it comes to beers, even those made by Trappist monks, purity may not always be a virtue.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that to our largest brewers pure is marketing speak for "flavourless". In recent months the word has appeared on some new golden lagers and in each case the malt and hop character of the beer has been toned-down to the point of blandness.

The most well-known example of the current trend is Steinlager Pure.

In the television ad, actor Harvey Keitel admires New Zealand for its cleanness and greenness and his choice of beer seems compelling. But the advert raises a question: If this new incarnation of Steinlager is so pure, what does that make the old Steinlager? Has Lion Breweries really been selling us "impure" beer for all these years? I don't think so.

Despite Keitel's recommendation, as someone who loves the grassy, herbaceous aromas and flavours of this country's hops, I'll stick to the old Steinlager, thanks.

Then there's that old chestnut "naturally brewed". If ever there was a term designed to confuse the unwary beer drinker, this has to be it. But, aside from sounding impressive and desirable, what does "naturally brewed" actually mean? And is there, by implication, such a thing as "unnaturally brewed"?

At beer tastings I'm often asked: "I don't like all those chemical beers; is this beer naturally brewed?" Allow me to explain.

All beer is made from a mash of grain and hot water, which is then boiled, usually with hops, and fermented with yeast. Simple. What's unnatural about that? I know brewers can sometimes be seen wearing white coats and working in laboratories, but to my knowledge they haven't yet come up with a new way of combining chemicals to make beer.

In my experience the difference between bland beer and great beer is usually directly attributable to the quality and quantity of malt and hops used.

There's also the issue of brewers incorrectly using the term "ale" to describe their darker-coloured lager beers.

This practice is common in New Zealand and in my opinion should be considered as unacceptable as a winery calling its chardonnay a red wine.

Let me state clearly that, regardless of the colour and despite what it may say on the can or bottle, more than 95 per cent of beer brewed and consumed in New Zealand is lager. So don't be fooled. OK? Cheers!

- © Fairfax NZ News