Templeton Labeling, or Another TTB failure

[Brisko]

Now that Templeton is ubiquitous in the Twin Cities market, I actually had the chance to look at the label.

As I suspected, it read, "Produced and Bottled By: Templeton Rye Spirits, LLC, Templeton, Iowa." A cursory COLA search confirms that they've always labeled it this way*.

However, according to the federal regs, Title 27, section 5.36(d):

State of distillation. Except in the case of “light whiskyâ€, “blended light whiskyâ€, “blended whiskyâ€, “a blend of straight whiskiesâ€, or “spirit whiskyâ€, the State of distillation shall be shown on the label of any whisky produced in the United States if the whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the brand label. The appropriate TTB officer may, however, require the State of distillation to be shown on the label or he may permit such other labeling as may be necessary to negate any misleading or deceptive impression which might be created as to the actual State of distillation. In the case of “light whiskyâ€, as defined in § 5.22((3), the State of distillation shall not appear in any manner on any label, when the appropriate TTB officer finds such State is associated by consumers with an American type whisky, except as a part of a name and address as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section

[wadewood]

If the TTB isn't going to enforce their own regs, who is?

Unfortunately the answer is nobody. You can try to get the TTB to do their job by filing a complaint. I have filed a complaint using this exact 5.36(d) code requirement and their standard reply is "We will look into the situation and appropriate action will be taken, if necessary".

[cowdery]

Unfortunately the answer is nobody. You can try to get the TTB to do their job by filing a complaint. I have filed a complaint using this exact 5.36(d) code requirement and their standard reply is "We will look into the situation and appropriate action will be taken, if necessary".

Their policy is they don't talk about the specifics of label issues except with the label holder. You can, however, ask them to clarify the meaning of a rule, in the context of a specific, and while they won't reply with reference to the specific, they in some cases will reply in a general way that allows you to read between the lines. Thomas Hogue is their public affairs liason.

It helps to be nice.

[cowdery]

Brisko, right section (5.36), wrong part. You're in 5.36(d), which is "state of distillation," and not implicated here. You want 5.36(a)(4) and 5.36(a)(6).

The gist of it is, the rules treat "produced by" and "bottled by" as synonyms, so aside from being redundant, "produced and bottled by" is acceptable when the only production being referred to is mere bottling. You may think 'produced' should mean 'distilled,' but TTB doesn't see it that way.

Edited October 30, 2012 by cowdery

[Brisko]

Brisko, right section (5.36), wrong part. You're in 5.36(d), which is "state of distillation," and not implicated here. You want 5.36(a)(4) and 5.36(a)(6).

The gist of it is, the rules treat "produced by" and "bottled by" as synonyms, so aside from being redundant, "produced and bottled by" is acceptable when the only production being referred to is mere bottling. You may think 'produced' should mean 'distilled,' but TTB doesn't see it that way.

Are you sure? If you read the part I bolded it sounds like they are saying the state of distillation is required to be listed if it is different from the main brand label address. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

I understand that "produced" may be accuratee, especially since they (supposedly) age it in IA.

For the sake of comparison, the various young Willett ryes state "Distilled in Indiana bottled in Bardstown, Kentucky." I assue that KBD is following the rule (by my reading) while Templeton is not.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Brisko

[BFerguson]

While its nice to have the rules, when they get to be used in what appears to be a too flexible way, their use is greatly diminished. Hell, besides most of the folks here, who out in the rest of the world knows such things exist?

Besides, I have my own rule, I just don't buy Templeton. Its a simple rule. Pretty easy to follow.

It's a decent product, but it is not worth the money that they are asking for it.

B

[T Comp]

While its nice to have the rules, when they get to be used in what appears to be a too flexible way, their use is greatly diminished. Hell, besides most of the folks here, who out in the rest of the world knows such things exist?

Besides, I have my own rule, I just don't buy Templeton. Its a simple rule. Pretty easy to follow.

It's a decent product, but it is not worth the money that they are asking for it.

B

It has been said before; we are the .001%. :grin:

And your rule is also my rule.

[IowaJeff]

subsection (d) does appear to require the accurate state of distillation, but I'm not too versed on these regs or how they are interpreted and applied.

I know that Templeton was initially a single barrel and switched to 'small batch.' I don't what the heck a single barrel blended whiskey is though.

I too have stopped buying it (I think I've only had two bottles, so not sure I even started). It's a perfectly good product, but now that rye has become so popular there are plenty of cheaper options of an equal or higher quality, even in Iowa. I have started seeing it around more. For a long time everyone in Iowa was crazy for it and it was never on the shelves. That's surely part increased production, or sourcing, but may also be that some of those TR crazy people picked up a bottle of Bulleit or some other rye and found it a cheaper substitute.

[Gillman]

On the concept of a single barrel blended rye, I don't know (of course) what will actually be in the bottle if this is ever released. However, I don't think the term is a contradiction in terms. Blended rye whiskey is a mixture of straight rye and GNS or any whiskey where the straight rye is at least 51% of the mix on a proof gallon basis (see section 5.22(a)(4), SOI). Say you barelled 2 year old straight rye with a 1 year old rye whiskey where the straight was 51% of the mix on a proof gallon basis. And then you aged it 2 years. If you filled bottles from that one barrel, that would seem to me a single barrel blended rye.

Gary

[sku]

There is indeed a state of distillation requirement and it is not being enforced. I wrote about the issue a few months back, linked below. I had thought Templeton used to say "produced in Indiana" on the label, but I could be wrong.

http://recenteats.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-isnt-ttb-enforcing-state-of.html

[Brisko]

There is indeed a state of distillation requirement and it is not being enforced. I wrote about the issue a few months back, linked below. I had thought Templeton used to say "produced in Indiana" on the label, but I could be wrong.

http://recenteats.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-isnt-ttb-enforcing-state-of.html

I missed that post, thanks for the link. As to whether TR ever listed Indiana on the label, it doesn't appear so from the COLAs that are available. I've only just recently seen a bottle in the wild, as I said.

[MrAtomic]

A question for the legally-trained among us: do any of you know the potential penalties imposed upon a company for violation of the TTB rules? I'm curious if there's any meaningful disincentive against rule-breaking, or if there's no punishment beyond having to modify an offending label. From reading Brisko's thread, and Chuck and Sku's interesting posts about the TTB, I get the feeling that companies aren't terribly concerned about repercussions.

[cowdery]

Mostly they would just be required to change the offending item. If they refused or were flagrantly flouting the rules, the TTB could force them to be pulled from the market.

I don't want to get into a lot of legalese here, but accurate rule-reading does take some legal training. It should be plain English but it's often not and there are terms-of-art involved. TTB is stretched pretty thin right now and for the most part relies on voluntary compliance. The major producers watch each other like hawks and are quick to complain if they see something wrong. The micro-producer world is still very collegial and nobody wants to be a rat. That will change.

It appears that state of distillation is required if different from the state shown for the producer on the label. TTB, however, wouldn't investigate this. They would expect the label holder to know the rules and comply. If you want to rat Templeton out to the TTB, by all means be my guest. Just be sure to give them the TTB ID number of the approved COLA you think is wrong. If you have some documentation from Templeton stating that the whiskey is distilled in Indiana, include that too.

Edited October 31, 2012 by cowdery

[Leopold]

The micro-producer world is still very collegial and nobody wants to be a rat. That will change.

Astute comment yet again, Mr. Cowdery.

[MrAtomic]

Mostly they would just be required to change the offending item. If they refused or were flagrantly flouting the rules, the TTB could force them to be pulled from the market.

If you want to rat Templeton out to the TTB, by all means be my guest. Just be sure to give them the TTB ID number of the approved COLA you think is wrong. If you have some documentation from Templeton stating that the whiskey is distilled in Indiana, include that too.

Chuck,

Thanks for explaining the potential penalties. However, I'm not personally interested in finking on Templeton (I spend too much time dealing with bureaucracies already). It's also interesting to learn that the major producers essentially keep each other in line and ensure that everyone adheres to the TTB rules. And no doubt you're right that a similar situation will emerge among the micros.

[sku]

I would love to see them start enforcing the rule more aggressively. (They could at least ask on the forms what the state of distillation is and make the companies make a definitive statement.) It's one of the few tools we have as consumers to figure out where the whiskey was distilled.

Paul, even if you were to report someone, I'd be surprised if you got a response unless you had personal knowledge of some sort. Chuck get's responses from the TTB, but he's Chuck and the rest of us aren't.

[Brisko]

Is it possible that Templeton is unaware of the regulation? They have at least one youtube video that is quite open about their "partnership" with then-LDI. I can't link it easily from my tablet but it's the one with "Lifecycle Project" in the title. It's not so much that I want to rat on them as I want to know that I can trust that labels, not just theirs, are accurate.

I get that the TTB doesn't have the resources to actively police these things, and I can grasp how easily the industry could self-regulate prior to the craft movement.

Here's a question, totally unrelated to TR: what if a producer welched on an age statement? How would it be caught? I'm not thinking so much of 6 year old juice in an 8 year old label (though that's one scenario) but rather maybe 3 year old stock in an NAS? Do the produces have to maintain records to prove such things?

[wadewood]

OK Cowdery, I took your advice and wrote Thomas Hogue a very polite email asking about the distilled in state requirement.

[sku]

Here's a question, totally unrelated to TR: what if a producer welched on an age statement? How would it be caught? I'm not thinking so much of 6 year old juice in an 8 year old label (though that's one scenario) but rather maybe 3 year old stock in an NAS? Do the produces have to maintain records to prove such things?

That seems to be happening too. There are a number of craft whiskeys with no age statement that I'm betting aren't four years old. It's the same answer. It doesn't get caught.

[Leopold]

Age statement is only required for Straight Whiskey.

[sku]

Age statement is only required for Straight Whiskey.

Leopold, is that what you've heard from the TTB? It's certainly not what the regs say:

27 CFR 5.40(a):

(a) Statements of age and percentage for whisky. In the case of straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended, all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are optional. As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following:

(1) In the case of whisky, whether or not mixed or blended but containing no neutral spirits, the age of the youngest whisky. The age statement shall read substantially as follows: “___ years old.â€

[Brisko]

Age statement is only required for Straight Whiskey.

Wow, thanks for making my point.

[Leopold]

Respectfully, I'm very aware of the in's and outs of the CFR's. They are poorly written and often contradictory.

The section that SKU cites refers to HOW the age statement should read if you use it. Not that you MUST use age statements.

If the phrase As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following means that you MUST put an age statement on a whiskey label, explain why you've never seen an age statement on a corn whiskey label or a flavored whiskey label. Both are whiskies according to the CFR's. In point of fact, you can't put an age statement on a flavored whiskey label. The section

To answer your question directly SKU, i received my information from the TTB in person many years ago at their Cincinnati office. In addition, I have COLA's tied to formula approvals which state quite clearly what the age of the whiskies are... that they are under 2 years old and are therefore not straight whiskies. The TTB knows exactly how old our NAS whiskies are. We don't screw around with the TTB.

[Brisko]

The federal regs are a little confusing, but the Beverage Alcohol Manual, which is intended to clarify the regs, is less so. There is a handy chart beginning on chapter 8, page 5, that lists the requirements by class and type. According to that, virtually all whiskies, straight or not, including corn, require age statements if under 4 years old. Flavored whiskey, as you've noted, is exceptional: it may not bear an age statement.

So, I can't dispute what you've been told in person by the TTB, and I have no reason to doubt your account, but it conflicts with the TTB's own published guidelines.

EDIT:

To get to the original question, BAM pp. 1-15 and 1-16 clarifies the state of distillation issue as it relates to whiskeys.

"The State of distillation must be specifically identified on the label IF:The whisky was not distilled in the State identified in the required name and

address statement (see Item 4, “NAME AND ADDRESS” of this chapter)"

Edited November 1, 2012 by Brisko

[Leopold]

The federal regs are a little confusing, but the Beverage Alcohol Manual, which is intended to clarify the regs, is less so.

The BAM is a pamphlet, and nothing more. The CFR's are the controlling regs. Confused me, too, but the TTB set me straight in Cincinnati... focus on the CFR's.

You won't find an age statement on corn whiskey labels, as an example.

The other issue is that the TTB's institutional knowledge changes over time. As an example, they told me that the reg that vodka should be "without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color" was relative. As in, it's without the character and aroma of other spirits... gin, whiskey, etc....

They told another distiller, years later, that it's an absolute situation. In other words, vodka should have no taste or aroma. This is logically absurd, obviously, since that's describing distilled water. Vodka has a VERY distinctive aroma... the aroma of ethanol that even an inexperienced drinker can identify with ease.

It's a complicated business, that's for certain. The TTB does the best that they can with what little resources they receive.