News From, you know, Around

InBev purchases Anheuser-Busch. St. Louis headquarters will become North American headquarters of Anheuser-Busch InBev. All breweries will stay open. For now. Of course, InBev is famous for slashing payroll and cutting jobs while niche-i-fying every brand. Unfortunately, by sheer fact of being bought out by a global monolith Anheuser Busch loses its niche-defining quality - namely that it is an American beer. Others anxiously wonder what will happen with A-B's marketing team. The buy-out leaves Pabst and Sam Adams to fight over banalities that make each uniquely qualified to lay claim to America's #1 Brewery.

MillerCoors to split baby. A few months back Miller Brewing Company (owned by SABMiller) and Coors agreed to join forces under the US entity MillerCoors. Of course, much blood was spilled debating where the world headquarters of this beast would be. Coors aficiandos argued that Golden, Colorado was the only place that made sense. Miller freaks pointed out that Milwaukee was better suited. Well, the board of MillerCoors has decided that Chicago is the place. The Milwaukee and Golden offices will remain, but administrative positions will be replaced by increased brewing jobs as the breweries in each city will re-tool slightly to brew each other's beer.

Unsurpisingly China produces the most beer. In other news: water is wet. China has 1.321 billion people - good for 20% of the world population. Well, it turns out, China produces 22% of the world's beer. Not surprising given the cost of labor there makes manufacturing less expensive than in Europe or the US. The top four beer producing nations are China, US, Russia and Germany (in that order).

Finally, back in May, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that bars can do what the state or municipalities ask them to, even if the bars aren't specifically told to do it. The basic gist was that, based on concerns about drink specials on Friday or Saturday nights contributing to binge drinking in bars near the UW-Madison campus, the state of Wisconsin and city of Madison made it known that may, you know, if ya want, you can stop doing that. No laws. No regulations. Just a vague hint. So, in a move that surprised no one, all of the bars simultaneously got rid of their drink specials. Of course, sensing some collusion, some helpful residents sued the bars for acting anti-competitively. Well, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, these bars are actually exempt from antitrust liability because the city of Madison said "pretty please" which basically coerced the bars into banding together to screw the customer and do nothing to actually stop binge drinking.

I Was Going To Post About Nutritional Information For Craft Beers

The problem is – it's not available. But what I really didn't know was that I was stepping into a decade long hornet's nest (mixed metaphors? Me? Never!).

 

This is a battle that has been on-going since 1993, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF") determined that "there was no significant consumer interest in having nutrition information on alcohol beverage labels." Then, in 2003, the issue was raised again when a brewery contacted the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB, the latest incarnation of what used to be the BATF) desiring to voluntarily put nutrition information on their labels. Then in December of that year the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and others formally petitioned the TTB to change regulations to require nutritional information on alcohol labels. But, don't go thanking them just yet – their interests may not be entirely in your interest. The Beer Activist Blog notes that "CSPI has long espoused the dangers of alcohol and is what many beer supporters would refer to as a neo-prohibitionist organization. I like some of the work they do, including this awesome table of alcohol industry donations to members of congress, but their overall attitude toward alcohol is that it is ruining America." This petition requested that that beer labels include the following "Alcohol Facts":

• Alcohol content
  
• Amount of alcohol in fluid ounces
  
• Number of calories
  
• Ingredients
  
• Number of servings per container
  
• The current definition of "moderate drinking" for both men and women published by the US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture
  

So, what do you think of these "Alcohol Facts"?

As a consumer, it doesn't seem to me that there is anything too objectionable. Well. Besides that "definition" of "moderate drinking" (currently defined as "one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men).

Yet, various groups have various objections. For instance, the Beer Institute, the primary beer industry trade group, objects to publishing alcohol content. This group would prefer to keep this information from you because "The alcohol content in most beers is in a very narrow range, and consumers are generally aware of that fact." Like the Beer Activist, I call shenanigans on that one. Beers can range from less than 4% ABV to over 20% ABV, while maybe a 16% range is "narrow" to some, it seems like a pretty broad range to me.

Why does the beer industry promote this theory? Well, "The fact is that distilled spirits can contain up to ten times as much alcohol per ounce as a can or bottle of beer. A whiskey drinker can consume as much alcohol in one swallow as a beer drinker consumes in one beer. Most cocktails that Americans will recognize contain more alcohol than a bottle of beer; many contain twice as much. … The misguided equivalence campaign favors an industry that imports most of its product and contributes disproportionately fewer jobs and tax dollars to the U.S. economy when compared to the beer industry." In plain English? The general theory for taxing alcohol is for the industry to help pay for some of the damage that it causes (e.g., increased hospitalization, drunk driving, etc.) – and the beer industry's stance is that by taxing by volume rather than total alcohol output the beer industry is disproportionately taxed for its relative contribution to public drunkenness. For example, in twelve ounces, you can have 4% ABV of beer, or you can have about a third of a bottle of tequila at 40% ABV. What the left hand doesn't want you to remember is that your average drinker drinks more beer than liquor. Moreover, some of these Beer Institute members are talking out of both sides of their mouth, as Anheuser-Busch, MillerSAB, and InBev (the world's largest beer distributors) are aggressively adding to their liquor holdings as well.

This issue also affects what an appropriate serving size is. I would argue that an appropriate serving vessel for the Dogfish Head 120 IPA, a 21% ABV beer, is a champagne flute. In that case a single twelve ounce bottle is two servings, not one. To get the same alcohol content of one twelve ounce bottle of the 120 IPA, you could drink almost a whole six pack of Miller Lite (which one looks like the better deal now?) This all means that the "typical" nutrition information is effectively cut in half – making beer look almost downright healthy!

Then, in 2005, the TTB finally published a proposed rule, setting out the standards for putting labels on bottles of alcohol. There was significant disagreement among the commenters at this time about whether the labels should be mandatory or optional. The medical associations, CSPI and distillers all favored mandatory labeling. The brewing industry preferred that labeling remain optional; ostensibly because the labels would increase costs. There was also disagreement whether to list alcohol content by percent (as is traditional) or by actual volume (about .6 fluid ounces per 12 ounces of "regular" beer, 5 ounces of wine and 1.5 ounces of 80 proof liquor). Recognizing the wide range of alcohol content of beer, the US Bureau of Consumer Protection noted that "Beers in the marketplace range from approximately 3.3% to 17% ABV, thus delivering between .39 and 2 ounces of alcohol per [12 ounce] serving." Perhaps thinking that consumers may be interested to see exactly how little alcohol is in a 12 ounce "regular" beer (only .6 of an ounce? That's not much is it?), the CSPI withdrew their request to display alcohol content by actual volume. The breweries were also in favor of a percentage approach mainly because "a standard serving size is not consistent with the manner in which many alcohol beverages are actually consumed."

During the course of the 2005 process, the comments clearly indicated that "consumers are very interested in having information about the calorie and nutrient content of the alcohol beverage products they purchase. These consumers expressed the view that this information should be available on the product's label."

The latest proposal, issued in July of 2007, merely amends the 2005 proposal to solidify the requirements around the concerns raised to the 2005 proposal – comments for this 2007 proposal ended at the end of January 2008. This proposal would require a "Serving Facts" label that displays alcohol content by volume (disclosure of ounces of alcohol would be voluntary), the serving size (defined as the amount of the alcohol beverage customarily consumed as a single serving – for beer less than 10% ABV, 1 serving is 12 ounces, over 10% ABV, 1 serving is 5 ounces), calories in the serving, carbohydrates, fat, and protein. This proposal would have a delayed effective date to allow a three year implementation period so that small businesses could use up existing label stock and get new labels produced that conform with the requirements.

While the government deleted a comment from "J. Citizen", as a "J. Citizen" myself, maybe I can use my own forum to comment. Really, more information can't be a bad thing. Unfortunately, so many companies use these labels for misleading purposes (e.g., by using unrealistically small serving sizes, etc.). But, as Starbucks is finding in New York City where all chain restaurants are now required to display calorie, carb and fat information at the point of retail sale, more information doesn't necessarily equate to lower sales. People just want to be informed of what they are putting in their bodies. Moreover, the definition of serving size promulgated by the TTB seems eminently reasonable. While quite a few people will drink an entire bottle of, say, the Dogfish Head 120 IPA at 21% ABV by themselves, it doesn't seem absurd to recognize this as, at least, two servings. Interestingly, the craft beer industry suggests (pdf) even more specific serving sizes: 12 ounces for less than 10%, 6 ounces for 10-20%, and a mere 2 ounce serving size for beers over 20% ABV – a shot of 120 IPA anyone? While I applaud the effort, I think that this breakdown unduly "rewards" high alcohol beers (basically divides calorie and carb information in six!) and is not particularly realistic (to wit: the aforementioned champagne flute of 120 IPA).Where the government gets it wrong, I think, is not requiring full ingredient information. There is some suggestion that this is intentional so that people don't realize just how unprocessed some beers are as compared to others. But again, if we view this as a consumer protection regulation, don't you want to know that the beer you are drinking contains more corn than barley? Or more "lemon flavoring" (and the components of that "flavoring") than actual lemons. I recognize the "hassle" of re-tooling bottling lines, or more specifically the labeling portion of the bottling lines, to accommodate this regulation. However, the phase-in period seems reasonable and, really, how much of a hassle can it be? I don't see how it requires anything more than moving some text around on the label to accommodate the "Serving Facts" and printing the label. Perhaps the bigger hassle is actually learning how to calculate this information? Indeed the Brewers Association suggests that reporting tolerances be expanded so that small breweries without the labs of the bigger breweries don't "accidentally" violate the regulation.

Recognizing the inevitability of this regulation, the brewing industry also finally recommends that they be allowed to use as small of a label as possible, preferably a linear display over a full "serving facts" panel.

I Was Going To Post About How Awesome Josef Is

But, instead, I should probably mention that yesterday the budget was passed. As part of the budget, an add-on bill was tacked on at the last minute by Gov. Doyle.

I'm sure you all see where this is going. Yes, you guessed correctly. That pork bill was SB 224. So, SB 224 is now law, with only the "minor" revision that eliminates the requirement that the restaurant be at least 40% of the brewpub income. The Great Dane can now brew at Hilldale. So, congrats. I suspect that you will see the first beers there by the end of the week.

In our prior posts about this topic, we've suggested that the Wisconsin Distributors have taken over the bill and turned it into something that may not be the best for brewers, but works very well for them to further cement the three-tier system. Comments in our last post suggest that the three-tier system is the greatest invention since sliced bread, being the sole force bringing all of the world's craft beer to our doorsteps.

I have a few comments about that.

First, we never said the three-tier system wasn't beneficial. It is a very useful system. The problem of this bill in particular, but the distributors in general, is that their political power further deprecates alternative methods of distribution. If the three-tier system is so awesome, why don't we have Stone, Alaskan, Brooklyn, Jolly Pumpkin, and other nationally distributed beers here? If the three-tier system is so awesome, why don't we have a greater diversity in our beer stores? If the three-tier system is so awesome why does the influence of Miller, Bud, Coors, et al determine what is available in our restaurants? Yeah. The restaurants count on the distributors to make recommendations (remember, even the CEO of Miller suggested that the biggest benefit of the distributors is that they know the local market so well). But the "recommendations" of the distributors are paid for by Miller, Bud, Coors, et al who provide incentives (either over the table, or under it) to ensure that their product gets recommended (seriously, there is no other reason that Miller Chill is still in stores).

If the three-tier system is so awesome why does it need specialized protectionist legislation?

Even despite all of that, our problem with this bill is not that it passed. Our problem is that it was passed in such an under-handed fashion. It was hardly debated. The revisions were not debated. It was appended at the last minute as a political favor on a budget that was under pressure to be passed. This small part of the budget wasn't going to prevent it from being passed. And, that, is our main problem with this bill. If after debate on its own merits, absent the influence and money of the distributors (or The Great Dane, or The Brewers Guild, or any other political action group for that matter), the senators and the assembly both passed this, it would signal a legitimate claim that reasoned discourse decided this was appropriate. But that's not what happened. Afraid that the bill couldn't pass on its own merit, the distributors took over the bill and shoved it down an unwitting public's throat.

As a result, small breweries will be severely limited in the options that they can undertake to grow their businesses. We have turned away novel distribution methods (e.g., Granite City) and we have hampered the regional competitiveness of one of the few vibrant portions of this state's economy. All because the distributors are afraid that if some brewery has a restaurant on their premises that this will somehow erode the three-tier system.

Well. Congratulations to The Great Dane. Seriously, they were just in this for themselves, and I can't say I blame them. They got, finally, what they wanted. This particular piece of legislation, though, is far from ideal. Yet, I can't help but wonder what solution would have arisen after reasoned debate.

========Edit==============
We're getting a lot of hits about this today, so I thought I'd invite all y'all to read up on everything we've done about SB 224 (The Great Dane Bill). If you click the tag at the end of this post that says "SB 224" you will see all of our posts on this subject. We've had a couple that lay out, in quite some detail, exactly what this bills does, and we also have interviews with Tyranena's Rob Larson and The Great Dane's Eliot Butler. Anyway. Thanks for reading! Keep coming back, we promise more about beer.

The Great Dane Dilemma Part IV - The Great Dane

This is the last of our four part series on legislation currently being considered that would enable The Great Dane to serve its own beer at its Hilldale location. This legislation is currently known as Senate Bill 224. For a detailed look at SB 224, you can read our summary here, and you can view the actual bill here. As we pointed out, this legislation is not without controversy. Many small brewers, including Tyranena Brewing Company, think that this legislation could seriously hurt their ability to compete both here in Wisconsin and on a regional and national level; you can read our interview with Tyranena's owner and head brewer, Rob Larson, here.

In late 2005, co-owner and President of The Great Dane, Mr. Eliot Butler, was introduced to the idea of putting a Great Dane Pub at Hilldale. Mr. Butler, knowing that the current legal environment was against him, nonetheless believed The Great Dane would be successful there whether it could be an active brewery or not. The location would reach its greatest potential as a brewpub, but could still be successful without it. So, he and his business partners agreed to the location. But this story actually begins a few years before that.

In 1994, The Great Dane Pub and Brewing Company set up at the Fess Hotel Building in downtown Madison. It was the first operating brewery in Madison since the Fauerbach Brewery closed its doors in 1966. By 1999, The Great Dane was on its way to becoming the Madison institution that it is today. Around that time, a small brewpub up in the Fox River Valley, appropriately called Fox River Brewing Company, was trying to get the laws changed so that it could have more than two locations. Mr. Butler remembers, "I spoke at the Senate committee hearing that Fox River Brewing instigated that led to the exemption for 'small brewers' (under 4000 barrels cumulative) allowing them to have six retail locations as opposed to two. I begged the senators to set the limit at 10,000 [barrels] and failed due to the wholesalers' power." These committee hearings led to revisions that resulted in a minor exception to the general rule that "tied houses" were prohibited. Namely, that a brewery can have two Class B licenses, but can distribute to up to four more locations if its total brewing capacity is less than 4000 barrels per year.

Clearly, Mr. Butler had his eyes on expanding The Great Dane. In fact, in 2002 The Great Dane opened its second location in Fitchburg. Around this time, Mr. Butler took another shot at convincing the legislature to change the laws. In Mr. Butler's words, "I chose the wrong lobbyist ... those efforts cost me lots of money and went nowhere."

So, in 2005, when Mr. Butler had a decision to make about Hilldale, he chose the same lobbyists that had been successful for the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild.

"I just believed that the current law is so unreasonable and unfair that we would eventually succeed. ... After meeting with [the lobbyist] I was hopeful that the law would be altered in the Spring of 2007. I knew I was taking a big risk, not just with the success of the new store, but with the entire Great Dane brand and concept. Perhaps it was my belief in the excellence of our restaurant operations that provided the courage to move ahead."

Of course, it is now Fall of 2007 and the law has not been changed.

The Wisconsin Beer Distributors Association is a formidable opponent. As has been noted before, no law regarding alcohol passes in this state without the approval of the distributors. The idea that the cap of 4,000 barrels per year would have to be raised would have to have the approval of the distributors. And, thus, the political process of getting that cap raised began. "I was not so naive to think the wholesalers would give us these 'concessions' without getting something in return. Or that they would agree to lift all limits, as I and every other craft brewer would love to see happen."

Modern politics is a game of compromise. Whether it should be or not is another debate best left for another day. But, the fact is, very few legislators are going to go about changing the alcohol laws without first asking the distributors what they think, at least not for the request of a single brewpub. In a perfect world, The Great Dane could propose a law that simply changed the barrel cap from 4,000 barrels to 10,000 barrels - a simple proposal suggested by Tyranena's head brewer in our last post and proposed to the State Senate by Mr. Butler back in 1999. A proposal that was rejected by the distributors.

Bear with me please, but let's analyze this suggestion for a moment.

The following information is based on tax filings in 2006. The Wisconsin beer tax for producers less than 50,000 barrels is $1 per barrel; we will assume that breweries this low on the production scale are not exporting out of Wisconsin in any significant amount (exported barrels are not taxed at all). In 2006, 52 breweries in Wisconsin brewed less than 5,000 barrels (paid less than $5000 in beer taxes). All but 10 of them brewed less than 1,000 barrels. Which means that 10 breweries in the state brewed between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of beer last year. We know that 1 of those 10 is The Great Dane. Which leaves 9 breweries that brew more than 1,000 barrels and less than 5,000 barrels. There were only 3 breweries in the 5,000 to 10,000 barrel range. What does this mean? Well, this means that raising the cap from 4,000 to 10,000 barrels would affect, at most, 13 breweries (even if we assume that all 10 of them are between 3,500 and 5,000 barrels), one of whom is The Great Dane. Such a cap increase would allow those 13 breweries to distribute to up to 6 locations, instead of 2. How many of them would take advantage? Half of them? Clearly, not all of them; because some of them could have 2 (or even 6) now, but they don't. (If you're interested in where these numbers came from, please see Rep. Terese Berceau's website; somewhat interestingly, it comes from her proposal to raise the beer tax in Wisconsin).

The reality is that the Wisconsin Beer Distributors are putting up a fight that really only affects, at most, half a dozen breweries. Nonetheless, it is a significant move, as any of those 42 that are less than 1,000 barrels could find a market and take off; not to mention those starting up in the future. And, the fact remains that the distributors are opposed to any further erosion of the three-tier system in any form.

So the battle rages on, and the current proposal, SB 224, represents the compromise that the distributors are willing to make to allow 10,000 barrels per year at 6 locations. It basically requires a brewer to make a choice when it starts: brewery or brewpub. If brewery, it must fit fully in the three-tier system; If brewpub, it must stay below 10,000 barrels.

As Mr. Butler notes, "new start-up brewing companies are going to need to have more developed business plans and financing and exit strategies than before." In other words, the owners will need to understand the law and have these options fully mapped out in a defined business plan. The business plan will have to include what strategies will be once these limits are reached and what types of funding will have to exist to stay above or below these limits. Brewing companies that choose the distribution route will have to be creative in how their beer is marketed; opening an on-premises (or off-premises for that matter) restaurant will not be an option. If a brewing company chooses to become a brewpub it must be willing to abandon (spin-off?) its restaurants once it needs to surpass the 10,000 barrel limit. Of course, as Mr. Butler notes, the other option is to simply expand out-of-state once the brewery reaches its in-state limits.

It is useful to be reminded that SB 224 has not yet passed. It is not yet law. It can, and likely will, change from the form it is currently in. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate compromise. It would allow The Great Dane, and other brewpubs in the state, its additional locations and a reasonable path for growth, even if that growth is capped at 10,000 barrels. Current breweries would be grandfathered to the current laws (allowing restaurant permits and up to 2 Class B licenses). Of course, the breweries can still have a Class B license, just not a Class B license and restaurant license; so, breweries could still have a tasting room. On the other hand, starting as a brewpub, even one that's income is less than 40% from sales of food, is an attractive option for entering the market, both locally and regionally. Preventing this income stabilizing and marketing opportunity would handicap small brewers vis-a-vis the region in competing against beers from other states. Moreover, preventing such additional income streams could reduce some of the risks that in-state brewers might be willing to take. Without the safety of non-beer related income, a brewery might be less willing to take a risk that would impact its only source of income, even despite the opportunity for reward for taking that risk.

As of this writing, the Wisconsin Brewers Guild has yet to officially endorse SB 224; in fact, they "officially" oppose it. The Wisconsin Distributor's Association endorses it. Strangely, the Wisconsin Independent Businesses endorses it. The Wisconsin Restaurant Association and the Tavern League are undecided or have reservations. Miller Brewing Company "officially" is undecided, but its CEO has recently made statements strongly supporting the three-tier system ("The three-tier system is the best business model for the beer industry").

For his part, Mr. Butler has this to say:

I do truly believe that the benefits of the bill outweigh the loss of 'total freedom' for future brewers in Wisconsin.

The Great Dane Dilemma

Politics has devolved into the serving of special interest groups. This is not an inherently bad thing. Where the problems arise are when not all interests are represented by special interest groups. In those cases, how do those not represented gain a voice? Usually, they don't. In the usual case, those not being represented are the average, uneducated (I don't mean "uneducated" as in "not smart" just one not generally informed of the details of a particular piece or series of legislation generally because one isn't aware of said legislation) every-day consumer. Take, for example, your consumption of beer (you knew it would come to that didn't you?). Well, a new special interest group looking out for joe-sixpack (not this joe sixpack, although him too, just not in his "official capacity") called SupportYourLocalBrewery.org has pointed out that there is some interesting legislation going down here in Wisconsin.

Generally, a consumer can purchase beer in any number of places: at a retail store, at a restaurant or bar, at a brewpub, at a bowling alley or golf course, at a sporting event, and scores of other places. All of these places are regulated in their sale of beer (and other liquors). This isn't really news. However, what you may not know is that the channels of distribution for beer are highly regulated. As a brewer I can't just sell my beer to anyone. As a brewer, absent special circumstances, I can only sell to a distributor. As a distributor, I can only sell to other distributors or retailers. As a retailer, I can only sell to consumers. This distribution paradigm applies to all breweries, including "brew pubs" which are really just breweries that are licensed to sell beer on premises through a codified exception to the general rule.

The current law only allows a brewery to have 2 "on premises" licenses (called a "Class B" license). A brewery can have up to 4 more licenses, if some "small brewer" conditions are met and the restaurants buy the beer through a distributor, not from themselves. Thus, at max a brewery can have 2 brewpubs, and 6 if it's sufficiently small and buys its own product from an independent distributor.

So, these rules set up the problem. A very successful brewery called The Great Dane has two Class B licenses, one downtown, and one in Fitchburg. They are approached by a real estate developer who would like to put a Great Dane at their trendy mall on the West side of town (Hilldale). You see the problem. Under the current laws, if The Great Dane wants to add this third license, they would have to meet the "small brewer" conditions (they don't) and they would have to buy their own beer from a distributor. So, what's a brewery to do?

Well, if you are as successful as the folks over The Great Dane, you hire a lawyer and a lobbyist and you get the rules changed. And now, making its way through the legislative process is the result of that process.

SB 224 (and AB 455) would create a fourth type of license called a "Brewpub License."** In addition to the following rules, here's the catch: a brewer can only hold a maximum of 6 Brewpub Licenses. This license would allow the brewery to do a few things:

1) manufacture up to 10,000 barrels a year across all brewpubs (as a point of reference, this is slightly less than the current total output - pre-expansion - of New Glarus Brewery)
2) bottle
3) sell growlers
4) transport this beer to any of the brewpubs owned by this brewery
5) sell bottled beer at wholesale from the 10,000 barrels and up to 1,000 additional barrels (this is very small)
6) sell other alcohol provided the relevant licenses are procured.

So, back to the top; as a consumer of beer, what does this mean for me? Well, the entire point of the original version of these rules (only 2 Class B licenses per brewery) was to prevent the likes of Miller from opening up a ton of "brewpubs" and keeping small breweries out of the market by saturating the market. Given the reformulation of these rules, it's not like it's inviting the macro-brews from opening up tons of brewpubs. Heck, Capitol Brewery is over 20,000 barrels a year and thus would be prevented from obtaining Brewpub Licenses. 10,000 barrels seems like a reasonable cap and the allowance for bottling could make Wisconsin's beer scene even more interesting (Great Dane in bottles!) Thus, this new formulation is reasonable and exciting.

My only problem is this: what happens when Great Dane has 6 locations all around Madison and some real estate developer in Milwaukee asks if they'd like to have a location at a trendy new mall going in on the North side of Milwaukee. Are they going to go back to the legislature and re-write the laws again?

** For the sake of completeness, the other three types of license: Class A (allows retail sale of beer in original packaging for consumption off premises), Class B (allow retail sale of beer for consumption on or off premises), Class C (allows retail sale of wine for consumption on premises at a restaurant).