California Growlers

The March edition of my 2011 Beer Challenge is going to go all legal. I apologize if this puts anyone to sleep.

SECTION 25200-25206

This is the main section that hurts the growler cause

25200. All beer sold in this State shall have a label affixed to the package or container thereof, upon which shall appear the true and correct name and address of the manufacturer of the beer, and also the true and correct name of the bottler of the beer if other than the manufacturer. No manufacturer, importer, or wholesaler of beer shall use a container or carton as a package or container of a beer other than such beer as is manufactured by the manufacturer whose name or brand of beer appears upon the container or carton, or use as a package or container of a beer a container or carton which bears the name of a manufacturer of beer or the brand of any beer other than those of the manufacturer of the beer contained in the container or carton.
If I am reading it correctly. The container must have the brewery name on it and the beer inside must be made by that brewer. Thus a growler is stuck. It can’t be blank. And once Brewery A puts the logo on and then only A brand beer can go in.

In my mind that leaves only one option. An addendum exempting Made in California growlers needs to be attached to this section of code.

25202. Manufacturers’ names, brand names, print, or markings first placed on returnable beer containers or cartons made of wood or fiber board shall not be obliterated, mutilated, or marked out without the written consent of the manufacturer whose name, brand, or printed markings is to be obliterated, mutilated, or marked out. This section does not apply to wood or fiber board containers or cartons of a beer manufacturer who has discontinued business and production and is no longer a licensed beer manufacturer.

This section rules out stickers as I read it. So the path of least resistance would be one standard California growler with a tag tied to the handle with the brewery name and beer name with ABV. That way we only need to amend one rule.

Let me know what your interpretation of these two rules are and what may be a good way to proceed. I am ready to hear all opinions.