The indispensable man: David Rehr's NBWA has become the industry's first, and best, line of defense

Modern Brewery Age, Sept 8, 2003

They are now obsessed with obesity. They're now after McDonald's and the fast food people. So I hope a lot of these crazy groups will have less money to initiate actions against us.

You might see them attacking beer bellies now ...

Right. That's next.

You mention excise taxes at the state level. Do you have the strength to participate in all these battles ...

Our view is that the states do well on these fights. But if they get tired, we want to run in with more troops.

So you'll provide expert testimony ...

Yes, and augment their grass roots campaigns.

We told the state association execs that we would do whatever they needed us to do to help them win. The flip side is that if state excise taxes get momentum, we don't want any talk of Federal excise taxes.

Do you foresee greater conflict with the liquor industry on taxes and other issues?

There is tension with the liquor people. There is fighting going on below the surface. They want to be us, and we want to ensure that they will never be us.

How are you making sure of that?

We remind people about the different history of the products. The very different origins and heritage of the products. The differences in the way that people view and consume the products. The fact that 90% of the beer sold in America is domestically sourced and produced.

We simply accentuate all the positive aspects of beer. We contrast that positive picture with the less-than-attractive aspects of hard liquor.

The liquor people are out there every day talking about equalization, and how there is no difference between beer and hard liquor. Peter Cressia is the head of DISCUS. I have a lot of respect for him. But he frequently says "There is no hard liquor or soft liquor." He's just incorrect. There is beer and there is liquor.

We don't want to get into this discussion about degrees of hardness, because then we lose.

So you do see a renewed push from the liquor people?

Yes. In part because they want tax changes; In part because they want to change distribution. Mostly because these companies are foreign operated. This means their CEOs live in non-U.S. cities. They have different experiences in international markets and they are trying to apply these experiences in the U.S.

In general, they are probably not too wild about the three-tier system ...

No, they are not.

These are deep-pocketed entities. And they must have a big war chest because they can't advertise on TV. Yes, the one thing they have is money. A lot of money. The one advantage they have is that the longer their product sits on the shelf the better it gets. But we are getting more active in this area.

MBA: There has been a lot of talk about a new National Academy of Sciences study on underage drinking ...

Yes. No one knows what's in it, because it's been a secret process. What we think is in it are excise taxes, restrictions on advertising and other elements of the neo-prohibitionist agenda.

Would you characterize this NAS panel as predominantly neo-prohibitionist in outlook?

Yes. We know 7 of the 13 received money from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the chairman of the panel is an activist with a colorful history.