When is "bourbon" not bourbon? Ask Jim Murray...

[squire]

Mr. Murray may take himself quite seriously but that does not place me under any obligation to share his opinion of his opinion.

[Tucker]

Again, if you aged a bourbon mash for 15 minutes in new charred oak, then for many years in used sherry barrels, are you still going to accept a label of "A ten year sherry finished bourbon"?

This couldn't happen if the bourbon is aged less than 4 years. It would have to state the period aged in charred new oak.

Edit: Never mind. That only applies to straight bourbon.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Tucker

[mosugoji64]

This couldn't happen if the bourbon is aged less than 4 years. It would have to state the period aged in charred new oak.

Good point. I don't think we're completely defenseless here. A 15 minute bourbon finished for several years might even be an interesting experiment. As long as the information is on the label, I'm fine with it.

[callmeox]

The regulations were clearly cited earlier by me in re "new, charred oak". Murray also cites all relevent citations that he takes quite seriously, despite the pot shots. Regarding this claim (that additional treatments must be labeled), citations, please.

TTB Beverage Manual, Chapter 7 (first entry under General) sez:

Coloring/ flavoring/blending materials may be used in or added to any class

and/or type of distilled spirits. However, the use or addition of these materials

may change the class and/or type of the distilled spirits

Example: FD&C Yellow #5 is added to straight bourbon whisky. The resulting

product is no longer “straight bourbon whisky.” The product is now a distilled

spirits specialty and must be labeled with a statement of composition such as

“STRAIGHT BOURBON WHISKY WITH FD&C YELLOW #5 ADDED"

Is the requirement listed in the CFR? No, but it is listed in the BAM which contains the TTB's interpretation of the CFR (with convenient examples).

I find it fascinating that they used what is probably the most restrictive class/type in their example and I believe that it is intentional. If the most restrictive class/type can have color/flavor added provided that it is declared on the label, then it is fair game elsewhere.

[danz]

See also 27 C.F.R. 5.39, substantially unchanged since 1969:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=27:1.0.1.1.3#se27.1.5_139

§5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.

(a) Neutral spirits and name of commodity. (1) In the case of distilled spirits (other than cordials, liqueurs, and specialties) produced by blending or rectification, if neutral spirits have been used in the production thereof, there shall be stated the percentage of neutral spirits so used and the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits have been distilled. The statement of percentage and the name of the commodity shall be made in substantially the following form: “____% neutral spirits distilled from _______ (insert grain, cane products, or fruit as appropriate)”; or “____% neutral spirits (vodka) distilled from _______ (insert grain, cane products, or fruit, as appropriate)”; or “____% grain (cane products), (fruit) neutral spirits”, or “____% grain spirits.”

(2) In the case of neutral spirits or of gin produced by a process of continuous distillation, there shall be stated the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits or gin have been distilled. The statement of the name of the commodity shall be made in substantially the following form: “Distilled from grain”, or “Distilled from cane products”, or “Distilled from fruit”.

( Coloring materials. The words “artifically colored” shall be stated on the label of any distilled spirits containing synthetic or natural materials which primarily contribute color, or when the label conveys the impression that the color is derived from a source other than the actual source, except that:

(1) If no coloring material other than natural flavoring material has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored” a truthful and adequate statement of the source of the color;

(2) If no coloring material other than those certified as suitable for use in foods by the Food and Drug Administration has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored,” the words “certified color added”; and

(3) If no coloring material other than caramel has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored,” the words “colored with caramel,” or a substantially similar statement, but no such statement is required for the use of caramel in brandy, rum, or tequila, or in any type of whisky other than straight whisky.

© Treatment with wood. The words “colored and flavored with wood ___ (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)” shall be stated as a part of the class and type designation for whisky and brandy treated, in whole or in part, with wood through percolation, or otherwise, during distillation or storage, other than through contact with the oak container.Provided, that the above statement shall not apply to brandy treated with an infusion of oak chip in accordance with §5.23(a).

[T.D. 720, 34 FR 20637, Dec. 30, 1969, as amended by T.D. ATF-94, 46 FR 55097, Nov. 6, 1981; T.D. ATF-292, 55 FR 1065, Jan. 11, 1990]

This reflects the longstanding view that you can add things, as long as they are disclosed.

[Gillman]

See also 27 C.F.R. 5.39, substantially unchanged since 1969:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=27:1.0.1.1.3#se27.1.5_139

§5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.

(a) Neutral spirits and name of commodity. (1) In the case of distilled spirits (other than cordials, liqueurs, and specialties) produced by blending or rectification, if neutral spirits have been used in the production thereof, there shall be stated the percentage of neutral spirits so used and the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits have been distilled. The statement of percentage and the name of the commodity shall be made in substantially the following form: “____% neutral spirits distilled from _______ (insert grain, cane products, or fruit as appropriate)”; or “____% neutral spirits (vodka) distilled from _______ (insert grain, cane products, or fruit, as appropriate)”; or “____% grain (cane products), (fruit) neutral spirits”, or “____% grain spirits.”

(2) In the case of neutral spirits or of gin produced by a process of continuous distillation, there shall be stated the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits or gin have been distilled. The statement of the name of the commodity shall be made in substantially the following form: “Distilled from grain”, or “Distilled from cane products”, or “Distilled from fruit”.

( Coloring materials. The words “artifically colored” shall be stated on the label of any distilled spirits containing synthetic or natural materials which primarily contribute color, or when the label conveys the impression that the color is derived from a source other than the actual source, except that:

(1) If no coloring material other than natural flavoring material has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored” a truthful and adequate statement of the source of the color;

(2) If no coloring material other than those certified as suitable for use in foods by the Food and Drug Administration has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored,” the words “certified color added”; and

(3) If no coloring material other than caramel has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored,” the words “colored with caramel,” or a substantially similar statement, but no such statement is required for the use of caramel in brandy, rum, or tequila, or in any type of whisky other than straight whisky.

© Treatment with wood. The words “colored and flavored with wood ___ (insert chips, slabs, etc., as appropriate)” shall be stated as a part of the class and type designation for whisky and brandy treated, in whole or in part, with wood through percolation, or otherwise, during distillation or storage, other than through contact with the oak container.Provided, that the above statement shall not apply to brandy treated with an infusion of oak chip in accordance with §5.23(a).

[T.D. 720, 34 FR 20637, Dec. 30, 1969, as amended by T.D. ATF-94, 46 FR 55097, Nov. 6, 1981; T.D. ATF-292, 55 FR 1065, Jan. 11, 1990]

This reflects the longstanding view that you can add things, as long as they are disclosed.

You don't need any of that (none of which applies as such as I read it), because 5.23 (a) (1) covers in the law what Scott referred to from the interpretation guide:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/5.23

Gary

[danz]

I recall looking at that before, and coming to the conclusion that it suggests that non-straight bourbon could include small amounts of harmless colorings, for example. However, the BAM view on non-straight bourbon does not permit such colorings. In either event, they both trace back to the same December 1969 rulemaking which reflects the long-standing view that you can add things, as long as they are disclosed.

I do not know how long ago the BAM interpretation on non-straight bourbon was established. If someone does and can provide a source, I would appreciate it.

Dan

[mbroo5880i]

Mr. Murray may take himself quite seriously but that does not place me under any obligation to share his opinion of his opinion.

If you are like me, only one opinion matters. My own.

[squire]

My only interest is whether I like the stuff well enough to buy it.

[Gillman]

Well, I read 1(a) that you can add anything which colors or flavour straight whiskey but if you do, and if paragraph (2) doesn't apply, which it doesn't here (see concluding words of paragraph (3)), then the class and type are altered and the change must be "appropriately" stated. This is what the Manual Scott quoted elaborates on and is authority for the Angel's Envy approach, as I read these provisions.

[GaryT]

I have no problem with cask finishes, although I think it would be awesome if they would declare the amount of time of the finishing (like on the original HHSS bottling). As a consumer, understanding how much influence the finishing might have would be cool. As to the whole controversy . . . I don't see it.

[squire]

Nor do I Gary but sometimes a tempest in a teapot is easy to miss.

[Capn Jimbo]

See also 27 C.F.R. 5.39, substantially unchanged since 1969:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=27:1.0.1.1.3#se27.1.5_139

§5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.

(a) Neutral spirits and name of commodity. (1) ... if neutral spirits have been used in the production thereof.... (blah,blah, blah),

...there shall be stated the name of the commodity from which such neutral spirits or gin have been distilled. The statement of the name of the commodity shall be made in substantially the following form: “Distilled from grain”, or “Distilled from cane products”, or “Distilled from fruit”.

( Coloring materials.... (blah, blah, blah) ...(3) If no coloring material other than caramel has been added, there may be stated in lieu of the words “artificially colored,” the words “colored with caramel,”... in any type of whisky other than straight whisky.

© Treatment with wood. The words “colored and flavored with...chips, slabs, etc.... shall be stated as a part of the class and type designation (it is not)... other than through contact with the oak container (the case at hand).

"This reflects the longstanding view that you can add things, as long as they are disclosed."

Not at all. It has been well said that the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. At The Project the regulations have been well discussed, studied, reported and understood and in conjunction with industry experts, well known distillers and other competent parties. I'm familiar with the above regulation and all the links provided: they are irrelevent and unrelated to the issue.

Tossing massive amounts of cut 'n pasted doo doo against the wall in the unfounded hope that some may stick and seem authoritative or relevent is wishful thinking and unpersuasive - at best. The tactic - "my opinion is all I need" - doesn't much move me. And the last - attributing false motives to Murray - can all to easily be applied to those posters who take that cheap shot. Killing the messenger is unproductive.

Look, the big distillers and marketers have only one goal in mind: sales and profits. Knowing that the TTB has a long record of looking the other way, bending the rules is a way of life. All the respected experts - Broom, Murray, Ralfy, et all - know this and reject the practices. Here my friend Chuck Cowdery - for whom I have the greatest respect - made this trickery quite public with his well founded exposure of "Potemkin distillers" - who go to any length on their websites and labels to convince the buyer that they are actually distilling the juice, when it's actually purchased bulk (think MGP). There are many, many of these and you know that. However true, Chuck - just like Murray here - has suffered unwarranted insults and cheap criticism, and for what?

For telling a truth that we sheeple don't want to hear or see. No one wants to believe that bourbon - the last bastion of absolute purity and quality - is being degraded and misrepresented.

My advice: extract head, wipe off sand, open eyes...

Edited September 14, 2014 by Capn Jimbo

[Grain Belt]

I have no problem with finishes provided the label reflects the additional step. HH and Angel's Envy have achieved some great results using the process. Artificial flavors and colors, however, are where I draw the line. Come on, aren't there enough flavored vodkas out there to keep the sorority girls happy? Leave the whiskey alone!

The sorority girls line made me giggle. I think my local stores liquor dept. is about 2/3 flavored white rums and flavored vodkas. I mix cocktails for work related parties and can't fathom why there are more than two vodkas on the market. Would the world be harmed if the store shelves only had Smirnoff and Stoli?

On top of it we get to wade through honey this and cherry that so I can get to my beloved bourbon in the store. I think I am going to go hug my handle of EWBIB and tell it I appreciate it for being a damn good bourbon, take a pull, and then quit thinking about what is wrong with America.

On second thought, some of those sorority girls I remember from school were pretty cute. Would the world quit spinning if I poured one of them whipped cream flavored vodka? Mmmmmmm, sorority girls and whipped cream.

[callmeox]

My advice: extract head, wipe off sand, open eyes...

My advice: drop the appeal to authority fallacy schtick and the lame attempts to drive traffic to your site, grab a copy of the BAM and look at the example that was quoted above. It describes exactly what Murray has taken issue with and it demonstrates how the TTB handles these cases.

[squire]

Thanks for the advice but I'll keep my own counsel.

[Gillman]

"This reflects the longstanding view that you can add things, as long as they are disclosed."

Not at all. It has been well said that the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. At The Project the regulations have been well discussed, studied, reported and understood and in conjunction with industry experts, well known distillers and other competent parties. I'm familiar with the above regulation and all the links provided: they are irrelevent and unrelated to the issue.

Tossing massive amounts of cut 'n pasted doo doo against the wall in the unfounded hope that some may stick and seem authoritative or relevent is wishful thinking and unpersuasive - at best. The tactic - "my opinion is all I need" - doesn't much move me. And the last - attributing false motives to Murray - can all to easily be applied to those posters who take that cheap shot. Killing the messenger is unproductive.

Look, the big distillers and marketers have only one goal in mind: sales and profits. Knowing that the TTB has a long record of looking the other way, bending the rules is a way of life. All the respected experts - Broom, Murray, Ralfy, et all - know this and reject the practices. Here my friend Chuck Cowdery - for whom I have the greatest respect - made this trickery quite public with his well founded exposure of "Potemkin distillers" - who go to any length on their websites and labels to convince the buyer that they are actually distilling the juice, when it's actually purchased bulk (think MGP). There are many, many of these and you know that. However true, Chuck - just like Murray here - has suffered unwarranted insults and cheap criticism, and for what?

For telling a truth that we sheeple don't want to hear or see. No one wants to believe that bourbon - the last bastion of absolute purity and quality - is being degraded and misrepresented.

My advice: extract head, wipe off sand, open eyes...

Is it your view section 5.23(a)(1), and the elaborations in the BAM Scott mentioned, do not apply to the labelling practices being discussed? If so, can you elaborate on your reasons? I find the wording very clear. (IMO this has nothing to do, at bottom, with Jim Murray, he is entitled to his opinion and he is trying to make a broader point anyway, one I don't necessarily disagree with. But just in terms of regulatory issue, I don't see where the companies are doing anything wrong…).

Gary

[Gillman]

Squire, I think part of the problem here (I am not saying you) is that people are talking about different things. As I read Jim Murray, he doesn't like to see the word bourbon being used on a label when the product was treated in a way that does not represent historically what bourbon was and doing so will degrade its image ultimately. Reasonable people can disagree whether he is right, but it is a fair point to make and should be considered if the regulations are ever overhauled.

However, on the narrower point of whether using the term in the ways discussed (Bourbon finished in a sherry barrel, etc. etc.) is in compliance with current regulations, I think it is. It's two separate things.

Gary

[squire]

Aw, go ahead and single me out Gary I don't mind. This stuff's as much a hoot as the Owl posts.

[cowdery]

I thought we beat this dead horse pretty thoroughly when Red Stag first appeared, but here we go again. A couple of things.

As someone else has already said, Murray equating the SWA with the KDA shows Murray has some big gaps in his understanding of how things work in the USA. The KDA has no more to do with labeling than you or I do. The KDA used to be primarily a lobbying organization, but not a very good one, so now they are mostly promoters, when they're not taking potshots at Sazerac and others who don't bow to them, which seems to be their main preoccupation.

If something in the BAM seems unclear to you, go to the regs. Don't screw around trying to interpret the BAM. The regs rule, not the BAM.

As for whether or not bourbon with something added to it is still bourbon, many people think TTB is interpreting this incorrectly but how TTB interprets the regs is how they're implemented, so we have "bourbon with..." whether we like it or not. I compare it to a pre-mixed manhattan that lists 'bourbon' as an ingredient. Does the bourbon in that bottle stop being bourbon because it is mixed with vermouth and bitters? Of course not. The TTB rules are labeling rules. If you add something and just call the product 'straight bourbon,' that's a violation, but if you disclose the addition that's "bourbon with ..." and while we may not like it, that's the way it is.

Much of the rest of what's been said in this thread is bait better not risen to.

[Josh]

Aw, go ahead and single me out Gary I don't mind. This stuff's as much a hoot as the Owl posts.

The difference being that the owl posts were intentionally funny.

[Gillman]

Single the Squire out? Moi? Why I never.

Gary

[Gillman]

Well, you (Chuck) are saying what I did in a different way, and (true) it was discussed years back, but the issue does recur and it is good to go back to basics sometimes.

Gary

[cowdery]

The other part, also mentioned many times before, is that the Standards of Identity are, first and foremost, truth in labeling laws. They're not laws for the preservation of product purity. If the label clearly and honestly describes what is in the bottle there is no harm, hence no foul.

Or, in the case of Owl Bourbon, no fowl.

[squire]

Much has been mentioned about that high flying brand.