AB 2375 revises Section 23006 of the California Business and Professions Code to change how the state defines “beer.” The amendment adds “other grain” to the list of base materials from which beer may be produced and specifies that fermentation occurs in “drinkable water.” The bill leaves intact the existing list of permitted adjuncts (honey, fruit, herbs, spices, etc.) and the provision that beer aged in barrels formerly used for wine or distilled spirits remains classified as beer.
The change is narrowly surgical: it modernizes a decades‑old statutory definition to accommodate a wider range of brewing inputs and to spell out a water‑quality requirement. That has practical consequences for product classification, labeling and licensing, and for small producers who rely on alternative grains or barrel‑aging practices.
The provision also raises interpretive questions—especially around what the statute means by “drinkable water” and how state enforcement will align with federal tax and labeling rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2375 amends Section 23006 to add “other grain” to the statutory list of materials that can be fermented to make beer and inserts the phrase that fermentation must occur in “drinkable water.” It keeps the statutory list of acceptable adjuncts and confirms that beer aged in wine or spirits barrels remains beer.
Who It Affects
Craft and contract brewers using non‑traditional grains (rice, sorghum, millet, corn, etc.), producers of gluten‑free beers, brewers who barrel‑age in previously used wine/spirits barrels, and regulators who classify and inspect alcoholic beverages.
Why It Matters
The bill updates an old definition to reflect contemporary brewing practice, reducing legal ambiguity for innovative beer products while creating new interpretive tasks—chiefly defining “drinkable water” and reconciling state classification with federal TTB definitions and excise rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2375 is a focused amendment to California’s statutory definition of beer (Business and Professions Code §23006). Where the statute previously described beer as a fermented beverage from barley, malt, hops, or similar products in water, the bill inserts “other grain,” signaling that grains beyond barley and malt are expressly covered.
It also modifies the clause about water to specify fermentation takes place in “drinkable water.”
The bill preserves two familiar clarifications already in the statute: an enumerated set of adjuncts (honey, fruit, fruit juice, concentrates, herbs, spices, and other food materials) may be used in fermentation, and beer that has been aged in an empty wooden barrel that previously contained wine or distilled spirits is still “beer” for statutory purposes. That latter point prevents barrel aging from triggering reclassification of a product as a mixture of wine or distilled spirits and preserves the beverage’s status for licensing and taxation under the beer rubric.On the ground, many California brewers already use a broad palette of grains and potable water; the bill mostly codifies current commercial practice.
But the statutory insertion of “drinkable water” creates a new statutory phrase that state agencies will have to interpret—does it mean water meeting California’s safe‑drinking‑water standards, any potable municipal supply, or something else? That definitional gap matters for producers that source water from private wells, reclaimed systems, or unconventional supplies.Finally, although this looks like housekeeping, it interacts with federal regulation.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and California’s ABC use overlapping but not identical criteria to classify malt beverages. The bill reduces one area of ambiguity (allowing other grains) but introduces another (the water standard) that could produce inconsistent results between state classification, labeling, and federal excise treatment without further regulatory guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 23006 to add “other grain” to the statutory list of base materials that can be fermented to make beer.
It inserts the phrase that fermentation occurs in “drinkable water,” creating a new statutory water‑quality requirement without defining the term.
AB 2375 keeps the explicit list of permitted adjuncts—honey, fruit, fruit juice, concentrates, herbs, spices, and other food materials—available for use in beer production.
The statute continues to state that beer aged in wooden barrels previously used for wine or distilled spirits remains classified exclusively as beer.
The bill explicitly excludes sake (Japanese rice wine) from the definition of beer.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Updates the statutory definition of 'beer'
This single statutory amendment changes the definition that determines what products fall under California’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Act treatment as beer. By explicitly adding “other grain,” the section broadens the universe of fermentable base materials beyond the familiar barley/malt/hops formulation. That matters for licensing, labeling, and the definition of malt beverages versus other alcoholic categories.
Permits non‑barley grains as base materials
The bill’s insertion of “other grain” is deliberately capacious and will capture rice, corn, sorghum, millet, oats, and other cereals used by brewers. Practically, that reduces the need for producers to litigate or administratively argue that a product is a beer when it’s brewed from non‑barley cereals. It should ease market access for gluten‑reduced or gluten‑free brewing techniques that rely on alternative grains.
Requires fermentation in 'drinkable water'—left undefined
The amendment replaces a generic reference to "water" with "drinkable water," introducing a public‑health oriented qualifier. The text does not define what constitutes drinkable water, which means enforcement will hinge on administrative interpretation—whether by ABC, state public health agencies, or municipal standards. Small producers using private wells, reclaimed water systems, or vats of non‑municipal water will need clarity to avoid compliance risk.
Reaffirms permitted adjuncts and barrel‑aging treatment
The bill retains the statutory list of adjuncts permitted in fermentation and keeps the existing rule that beer aged in barrels formerly containing wine or spirits remains beer. That language prevents barrel aging from being treated as creating a hybrid beverage for regulatory purposes, which would complicate licensing and excise treatment for brewers who use wine or whiskey barrels for maturation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Craft brewers using non‑traditional grains — The explicit ‘‘other grain’’ language removes a potential statutory hurdle for breweries that use rice, sorghum, corn, millet, or oats, simplifying classification and reducing the risk of re‑classification disputes.
- Gluten‑free and specialty beer producers — Producers who market beer made from gluten‑free grains gain clearer state recognition that their products fit within the legal category of beer.
- Breweries that barrel‑age in wine/spirits barrels — The continued explicit rule that barrel‑aged beer remains "beer" protects these producers from being forced into wine or spirits licensing regimes because of barrel provenance.
- Consumers and retailers — Greater clarity about allowable ingredients can support accurate labeling and reduce uncertainty in distribution and retail decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small brewers using non‑municipal water sources — The new “drinkable water” phrase may force some small operations on wells or reclaimed supplies to obtain water‑quality testing or switch supplies to maintain compliance.
- California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and public‑health regulators — Agencies will need to issue guidance and possibly develop testing or documentation protocols to operationalize “drinkable water,” creating administrative work and potential budget pressure.
- Producers of hybrid or borderline products — Beverage makers that blend beer with wine or spirits, or who make sour/wild fermented products using nontraditional processes, may face new scrutiny as agencies apply the revised definition.
- Compliance officers and label reviewers — Companies will likely need to update internal compliance checks and label submissions to align with the clarified ingredient universe and to document water sourcing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades off: it modernizes and broadens an old statutory definition to accommodate brewing innovation and protect barrel‑aging practices, but it simultaneously creates interpretive space—especially around the undefined "drinkable water" requirement—that shifts the burden to regulators and producers to resolve through guidance, testing, or litigation.
AB 2375 is small in scope but significant in the gray areas it opens. The addition of “other grain” is deliberately broad and will likely be welcomed by brewers, but it also invites questions about where to draw lines between beer and other fermented beverages (for example, beverages primarily based on rice or other cereals that some traditions call wines).
That ambiguity is somewhat contained by the bill’s explicit exclusion of sake, but there will still be close cases that require agency interpretation.
The insertion of “drinkable water” is the provision most likely to require new regulatory work. The bill does not define the term, leaving a gap that agencies must fill.
Will California adopt its Safe Drinking Water Act standards, rely on municipal potable water definitions, or create a bespoke standard for brewing? The choice affects small producers using wells, recycled water, or alternative supplies.
It could also trigger new recordkeeping and testing costs. Separately, the bill’s changes interact with federal TTB rules on what constitutes a malt beverage; absent coordination, producers could face inconsistent classification or labeling treatment at the state and federal level.
Finally, the enrolled text contains a drafting glitch (an apparent stray phrase) that could complicate judicial or administrative reading until corrected by amendment or committee clean‑up language.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.