Two years ago I questioned the ethics of beer labelling, where companies used names likely to confuse consumers about whose ales they are drinking and where they are brewed. Between the respective controls available to Trading Standards Officers and to the Advertising Standards Authority, there seemed a wide area of discretion, sanctified as ‘branding’, in which marketing folk traditionally enjoy unrestricted licence to mislead people. Shouldn’t we protest against their cynical attempts to con us?

Well we haven’t been very effective. One pumpclip nowadays reads ‘Morrells, Oxford, 1782’ after Morrells have stopped brewing and the Oxford brewery has been demolished. Another reads ‘King & Barnes Ltd Traditional Brewers in Sussex for over a century’, after the closure of the Sussex brewery and the takeover of the company. Again, Old Speckled Hen continues to be sold as a Morland beer, long after Greene King took over and closed the Abingdon Brewery. Nostalgia in pursuit of amnesia? I’d call it false branding.

The latest joke is to sell as Burton Ale something brewed in Leeds. I’ll accept that it was getting difficult to work out who was actually brewing Burton Ale for whom these days, but it did have a genuine association with Burton, where it had always been brewed. Not any more. Given the choice, John Grover at the Brewery Tap in Wimbledon Village refused to take it. He’s not going to insult his customers, and I welcome his decision.

But what line does CAMRA take? An ‘External Policy Document’, reissued annually, captures the accumulated AGM resolutions and policy statements adopted over the years in response to the moving targets of the Campaign. This document deserves to be better known and used to promote CAMRA objectives. For example,

‘CAMRA does not accept that a beer can be ‘saved’ by being brewed by the same company miles from its original brewery and then being transported back to be sold in its home trading area. CAMRA believes that this is nothing more than a flagrant attempt by brewers to mislead the public.’

‘CAMRA opposes promotion of national brewers’ beers as if they came from small independent companies.’

‘CAMRA doesn’t oppose the brewing of beers under contract provided that the site of production is clearly stated to the consumer both at the point of sale and on product labelling.’

Following such policies, we should now take the offensive against false branding, and reject categorically the ludicrous notion that in taking over and closing a brewery you can at the same time preserve its brands under its name. CAMRA should take a lead in deprecating the progressive devaluation of any brand to the point where only the name remains. We don’t want non-breweries paraded as breweries and non-brewers parading as brewers.

A traditional beer builds its reputation on how it is brewed, who brews it and where. CAMRA should uphold these three elements in promoting an appreciation of beer as a sensory product rather than an alcoholic commodity - Sean Franklin’s challenge. In the words of a branch colleague, we should distinguish the Parma hams from the Cheddar cheeses. For that matter, it’s the difference between a Budvar and a Bud.

On that note, in targeting the major offenders, CAMRA does at least seem to recognise the truth of John Gilbert’s Law, that quality is inversely proportional to advertising spend. To quote again from the External Policy Document,

‘CAMRA supports the complete prohibition of all mass media advertising of alcohol.’

So long as anything goes in advertising, identity counts for everything and quality means nothing. A concerted lobby by CAMRA against false branding could usefully fuel more widespread resistance to the dumbing down of our national beverage.