Would lined beer glasses solve the pint problem?
It is sometimes claimed by opponents of the metric system that any interference with “the British working man’s pint” would spell political death for any party that dared to touch it. Leaving aside the sexist assumptions behind the claim, let us examine whether there is a practical solution that need not be controversial.
Firstly, let it be said that it is not the beer itself that we are talking about - but simply the size of the glass in which draught (but not bottled) beer is served.
Secondly, the purpose of any regulation should be that customers get what they pay for - that is, the full amount (however measured) that they have ordered.
The current position is that draught beer and cider must be dispensed in amounts of one pint (imperial - not US), or a half or a third of a pint. Metered dispensers are rarely used, and the glasses in which beer is normally served may be either brim measures - that is, the glass must be completely full to the brim, or the glass may have a lined mark (etched, printed or moulded) indicating the amount. Overwhelmingly, British pubs use brim measure rather than lined glasses.
There are two unfortunate consequences of this use of brim measure glasses. Firstly, much beer is spilt as glasses are carried from bar to table, resulting in sticky carpets, and the customer not getting to drink the full amount. Secondly, because beer has a “head” of froth, the glass cannot actually be completely filled. In fact, the brewing industry claims that the froth is part of the beer and may be up to 5% of the glass by volume. In other words, even when the glass appears to be full, you only get 95% of the stated amount. Furthermore, trading standards officers will normally not prosecute for short measure if the shortfall is less than 5%. This means that when you order a pint, you are only guaranteed a minimum of 90% liquid beer.
CAMRA (the Campaign for Real Ale) has long campaigned on this point (see
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=campaigns)*, and LACORS (the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) have also argued strongly in favour of the customer being entitled to full measure (See http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=2432).
However, following a consultation carried out a few years ago, the DTI placed more weight on the views of producers than on those of consumers and did not accept the argument that a pint of beer should be a full pint of liquid.
The obvious solution is to outlaw brim measure glasses and require beer to be served in lined glasses so that the customer can see whether the glass contains a full measure of liquid, with the froth above the line. This would then give the opportunity to deregulate the quantities that may be served and allow for glasses to be marked with more than one line indicating different amounts - as happens in some other countries. Pubs would then be free to sell in any amount (e.g. 1/2 pint, 300 ml, 500 ml, one pint, 600 ml, 1 L) provided that the liquid filled up to the line. It is also desirable that the “unit price” (price per litre and pint) should be shown (so that you can compare the draught price with the bottled or canned price).
Objections on the grounds that replacement of glasses would be too expensive may be discounted. The average life of a beer glass is only a few months, and the cost of gradual replacement over a transitional year would - if noticed at all - be trivial in relation to the overall cost of running a pub.
The following illustrations show how glasses might be marked. The first is a glass produced by CAMRA itself for use at one of its festivals. It shows how a glass can be marked at (in this case) three different imperial levels.
The next illustration is of two glasses as used in some other countries - one marked at the 300 ml level and the other at 400 ml. Note how easy it is to see that the level of liquid is below the line (presumably, the owners couldn’t wait to sample the beer before taking the photograph!).
Finally, we give below a diagram to illustrate how the current legally permitted quantities compare with some possible proposed metric quantities.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
*CAMRA says: “Pints of beer are regularly served up to 10% short because the Government will not legislate to give beer drinkers the same rights as other consumers. If you buy a litre of petrol you can expect receive a full litre of petrol. If you buy a pint of milk you can expect to receive a full pint of milk. Beer drinkers are denied their basic consumer rights and as a result are frequently served short measures.”
November 12th, 2007 at 15:09
You say “It is also desirable that the “unit price” (price per litre and pint) should be shown ”
Why is it necessary to publish the price per pint? Price per litre uniquely defines the price of a particular beer, and not other price indication would be required.
[As long as it is legal to sell by the pint, it is surely reasonable to require the price per pint to be displayed alongside the price per litre - Ed]
November 12th, 2007 at 20:15
The sooner all glasses are lined the better. I really don’t care whether it is a pint or 500ml. An added benefit might be that landlords are discouraged from using a sparkler so they don’t give too much beer away !
November 13th, 2007 at 09:27
One of the things that the consumer should (but often does not) look at is the price difference between pre-packaged good and goods that are weighed or measured at the time of sale. Those goods could be bananas at a market stall, cheese at the supermarket deli counter or beer in a pub. In order to promote transparency, the unit price should be displayed using the same units of measure for any particular product, regardless of how the product is marketed.
It is worth noting that in supermarkets, the unit price is shown on the price tags of all cans, bottlers and packages of beer and cider.
November 13th, 2007 at 17:53
I have received the following comment from CAMRA. I leave it to others to respond.
“Dear Robin
Thank you for emailing me the link to this article.
CAMRA’s current stance is that the pint measure should be retained. Allowing the use of metric alongside imperial measures would be confusing for both staff and customers. Such a wide range of measures would make it very difficult for consumers to compare prices, without delivering any clear consumer benefit.
Clearly CAMRA would support the introduction of lined glasses to ensure consumers receive a full measure, but we are not able to support the use of metric alongside imperial measures.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Mail
Head of Policy and Public Affairs
01727 798448
November 14th, 2007 at 16:18
There is an issue with our current practice of selling draught beer by the pint and bottled beer in metric sizes that needs to be addressed. It is an issue of competition which puts suppliers of draught beer at a disadvantage and helps suppliers of bottled beer. Since most British real ales are sold on draught and most bottled beers are imported, it surprises me that CAMRA do not take this seriously.
Customers buying drinks in a pub or bar do not specify the quantity they want - they just buy a “drink” or a standard measure. For bottled beer that will never be more than 500 ml; but for draught beers that will always be a pint - appoximately 568 ml, or some 13% more. That means that the supplier of draught beer must supply 13% more product - making his drinks more expensive - than the supplier of bottled beer. If customers are motivated by price then the draught beers are going to lose out to the bottles. That is a bad thing for English ale.
November 14th, 2007 at 23:04
CAMRA’s position seems quite contradictory - the “pint measure should be retained”, but they are “not able to support the use of metric alongside imperial measures”.
Bottled beer and other beverages have been sold in metric sizes alongside imperial measures of draught beer and cider for many years. The world’s beer producers aren’t about to drop the use of millilitres for bottled beer any time soon, so the only realistic way to avoid metric and imperial alongside each other would be to dispense draught beer in metric.
It is patronising to think that customers would be confused by having a choice of more than one measure of beer. People cope perfectly well with different sizes of bottled beer, and personally, I appreciate having a choice of glass size when buying beer abroad.
During the Germany 2006 World Cup, many pub-owners would have welcomed the option of being able to serve their customers traditional German lager in authentic one-litre steins, to add to the sense of occasion. As it is, however, we have the odd situation where you can buy a 500 ml bottle of beer in a pub but a pub-owner cannot legally sell you a 500 ml or 1 litre glass of draught beer.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:16
What would be wrong with having three different pint sizes? Where the meaning of the word pint would be synonymous with the word glass. There would be 400 mL pints (small size), 500 mL pints (medium size) and 600 mL pints (large size).
This would give the patron more practical choices. If the patron was dead set on having the traditional size, he could order the 600 mL size and get a tad more then he was use to. If he has a problem asking for the amount in metric he could just ask for large.
There could be one glass for all sizes with markings for 400, 500 and 600 mL.
How much simpler can you make it?
November 19th, 2007 at 18:13
As a publican I have some views on this issue that are not entirely in tune with most of your contributors.
Firstly it is worth noting that there is significant regional variation in customers’ notion of what constitutes a pint of beer. Broadly speaking, southern drinkers prefer their beer with little or no head, whereas such a pint would likely be returned in the north where a deep, creamy head is usually expected; hence the use of sparklers which are recommended by many Northern brewers. This is well known of course, but it is not so well appreciated that this regional preference contributes to the, generally, lower cost of a pint in the north. It follows that if Northern drinkers were to be served a pint of liquid beer topped by the traditional head they would inevitably pay more for it.
Which leads me on to another point. It seems to be widely assumed that the head on beer is made of nothing but air, although in fact it contains up to 50% liquid (which anyone can prove by pulling a glass of froth and leaving it to settle). Why should the head on a pint be a ‘zero cost’ option?
Finally a word about the use of lined glasses. If a lined (pint) glass is filled with liquid beer to the line and a head on top then more than a pint will have been delivered. In order to pour an exact pint the barperson will have to judge the point below the line at which liquid beer should end and head begin. This will undoubtedly lead to greater variation in delivered volume than presently with brim glasses.
March 12th, 2008 at 14:50
I am sick of being made to feel guilty by landlords when I ask for a top up of an obviously ’short’ pint. This very day I was told that a glass which, by external measure, was at least 10% low “was a full pint if the liquid plus foam reached the top”. This, without allowing for the taper of the glass making short measure worse than is visually apparent, MUST be stopped.
July 29th, 2008 at 09:08
The glasses on the link maybe of interest (blatant plug for my business nevertheless)
They are CE marked disposable plastic 12oz and 22oz (oversized) tumblers, lined at 20oz and 10oz, approved by weights and measures.
For info, when we asked weights and measures if we could display both metric and imperial measures on the glasses we produce they would not let us, (they thought people would be confused) and we had to remove the metric measurements from the glasses (so much for being part of the EU)
We are expected to manufacture a separate glass just for the rest of the Europe (we dont bother)
Cheers