Tuthilltown's Hudson Whiskey Is Not Whiskey In Europe.

[cowdery]

Now that William Grant & Sons has decided to take Hudson Whiskeys worldwide, perhaps someone will address the elephant in the room. None of Tuthilltown Distillery's Hudson Whiskey products may be legally sold as 'whiskey' in the European Union (EU) or many other parts of the world that have modeled their own rules on Europe's.

That's because, unlike the United States, the European Union defines 'whiskey' as "a spirit drink produced by the distillation of a mash of cereals...matured for at least three years in wooden casks." The Hudson line's flagship, Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey, is three months old, 33 months shy of the minimum.

What is whiskey? Depending on where you sit, there is more than one correct answer. Hudson Baby Bourbon, whiskey in the United States, is not whiskey in Europe.

As recently as 1968 a group of large American producers argued for the adoption of a three- or four-year minimum here too, but the U.S. Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (predecessor of today's Tax and Trade Bureau) rejected the proposal. The agency concluded that "it is preferable to permit the consumer an adequate basis for the selection of whiskies (even immature ones) than to limit his choice by banning them from the market. The mere desire to conform American regulations to those applicable in foreign countries is not sufficient justification for imposing the proposed limitation." (Industry Circular 68-03)

Therefore, on behalf of producers such as Tuthilltown, the American trade representative should argue that the United States is a major whiskey-producing country, has been for hundreds of years, and has a whiskey-making heritage that developed independently of other whiskey-making traditions. Current American rules are consistent with that tradition.

It is not in the spirit of fair trade to expect American producers to change their authentic and long-held practices in favor of European ones. Nor is it in the interest of European consumers, who want access to authentic American products, not proxies reformulated to pass muster with regulators in Brussels.

It is absurd that while the EU recognizes "Bourbon Whiskey" as a distinctive product of the United States, it doesn't accept the American definition of Bourbon Whiskey.

More here.

[p_elliott]

Chuck

How can they call it "baby bourbon" if it is only 3 months old when bourbon has to be 2 years old? Maybe I didn't read the label close enough. It's not very good by the way and certainly not for the price.

Paul

[kickert]

Chuck

How can they call it "baby bourbon" if it is only 3 months old when bourbon has to be 2 years old? Maybe I didn't read the label close enough. It's not very good by the way and certainly not for the price.

Paul

[callmeox]

If you pour new make that meets the bourbon requirement into a suitable barrel and dump it right back out you have very young bourbon.

[cas]

The two year requirement only applies to STRAIGHT Bourbon.

Can someone expand on this? The distinction isn't clear to me.

Craig

[kickert]

Can someone expand on this? The distinction isn't clear to me.

Craig

There are standards that must be met for a spirit to be called a bourbon. These cover mashbill, proof, and the use of a new charred oak barrel.

Then, there are a separate set of standards that apply to a spirit that can be called "Straight Bourbon." This is where the two-year requirement comes in.

[Gillman]

Bourbon and straight bourbon must be made the same way, except that a bourbon must not be termed straight unless aged at least two years. However, if a whiskey which meets the standards of identity for bourbon (at least 51% corn, distilled at not more than 160 proof, etc.) is aged in new charred barrels, it can be termed bourbon. It needs to be aged for a time in other words, which time is not specified. A few months is enough, as in the Tuthilltown products.

Gary

[cowdery]

I did a guest spot on John Hansell's blog yesterday and covered these very questions. Click here.

[cas]

I did a guest spot on John Hansell's blog yesterday and covered these very questions. Click here.

[kickert]

What's the point of the barrel-entry and distillation proof requirements? Or in other words, how might the product differ without those requirements?

Craig

Bourbon cannot be distilled over 160 proof. 190 proof is considered Grain Neutral Spirit. That is to say, once you get to 190 the flavor is neutral. There is a limit because the higher you go the less the spirit tastes like the grain it was made from.

Changing the barrel entry proof affects how much influence the barrel can have. In general, the higher the proof, the quicker and more dramatic the spirit takes on the flavor from the barrel. I am guessing the limit it so that the main flavor comes from the grain and not the wood. To be honest though, I have never really thought about barrel entry proof much. I wouldn't think there would be that much difference from 160 to 125. Some for sure... but not enough to make it no longer taste like bourbon.

[cowdery]

What's the point of the barrel-entry and distillation proof requirements? Or in other words, how might the product differ without those requirements?

Craig

In both cases, lower proof means more flavor. In the case of distillation proof, more flavor from the grains and yeast. In the case of barrel entry proof, more flavor from the wood. Very high proof spirits may experience the oxidation and evaporation effects of aging, but they don't get much absorption of color and flavor from the wood. For that stuff, water is a better solvent than alcohol.

Distillers are, of course, free to distill and enter at lower proofs, and most do. Those are just the maximums permitted.

[craigthom]

Changing the barrel entry proof affects how much influence the barrel can have. In general, the higher the proof, the quicker and more dramatic the spirit takes on the flavor from the barrel. I am guessing the limit it so that the main flavor comes from the grain and not the wood.

[Gillman]

Well, there is also the idea that alcohol extracts sugars and tannins faster than water, is a better solvent in a word. 125 proof for entry is the maximum balance point, basically. That number was lower before a change in the 1970's, 115 I believe, so the balance has changed a little since then.

Gary

[kickert]

I think it's exactly the opposite. The higher the entry proof the more diluted the finished product, because more water will be added at bottling time.

Again, I am not an expert on this. But, this is what I can say. 1-2 days of water in a small barrel will do very little to the water. 1-2 days of 125 proof spirit in a small barrel will make a very noticeable difference (in color and taste). We have barreled 140 proof rum in a 5 gallon barrel and within a day it looks like an aged product (light of course, but it has clearly picked up a whole lot of flavor and color.

What you are saying about the amount of water needed to cut it actually makes a lot of sense. Even if the barrel is able to impart character faster with a higher proof, that will be quickly negated if more and more "cut water" is added.