Canadian whisky & coloring

[n811]

I'd like to try some Canadian whiskeys, but can't stand coloring additives. Since there's no 'straight' designation for Canadian whiskey, I'm not sure if any of them are bottled natural color. I emailed Forty Creek and tried to hail Davin DeK. on the subject but didn't hear back from either.

Anyone know of any natural color Canadian brands/lines?

[tanstaafl2]

I'd like to try some Canadian whiskeys, but can't stand coloring additives. Since there's no 'straight' designation for Canadian whiskey, I'm not sure if any of them are bottled natural color. I emailed Forty Creek and tried to hail Davin DeK. on the subject but didn't hear back from either.

Anyone know of any natural color Canadian brands/lines?

Since coloring (and just about anything else they want to put in there up to 9.09%. No idea why they use such an odd number) is permitted about the only way to know for sure is if the whisky states that it has no coloring added on the label. There may be some but nothing comes to mind at the moment. Maybe some of the newer one offs like Lot 40 or some of the 100% rye whisky's like Alberta premium (after all if it is 100% rye then what else could be in there...) but I certainly don't know for sure.

[dcbt]

Since coloring (and just about anything else they want to put in there up to 9.09%. No idea why they use such an odd number)

Probably has something to do with a 10:1 ratio of natural:junk. (1/11 = 9.09%.) "For every 1 part crap, we require 10 good parts."

Edited February 10, 2015 by dcbt

[Mr. Bourbon]

Colouring is one of the reasons why I don't buy Rye. I live in Canada, So I am surrounded by Rye at my local store. But adding colouring and what-not? No thanks.

If I'm spending money on Liquor I want something pure. And I guess Bourbon does that for me.

[smokinjoe]

It's no longer produced, but I would be surprised if Bush Pilot's had any coloring, as it is a very light straw color. Very nice whiskey, though.

BTW, there are several very good threads on SB regarding Canadian Whiskey, that one can learn much from. Here's one to get you started:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?17455-Canadian-Whiskey-Regulations

[T Comp]

It's no longer produced, but I would be surprised if Bush Pilot's had any coloring, as it is a very light straw color. Very nice whiskey, though.

[smokinjoe]

As to the Bush Pilot's Joe. Probably helps in the light straw color department that it is a corn whiskey per Davin http://www.canadianwhisky.org/reviews/bush-pilots-private-reserve-43-alc-vol.html

Now that you mentioned it I may have to rumble through the back of the bunker for a taste.

[BigBoldBully]

The more I contemplate Canada's (and Scotland's ...) permissive stance on additives and no legal equivalent of a "straight," the more I wonder how we got so lucky in the USA. I mean, the history books always tell a version of events with the benefit of hindsight and with no obligation to determine just how close it came to going another way.

Of course, I guess regulations are one thing and compliance is another. Remember that Texas feller on here recently, a distiller, who claimed you could legally add up to 3.5% of colorants and flavorings to a straight? Anywho, better at least to have it on the books. Maybe it would make sense for SBers to sign petitions or whatnot and make our desires formally known to those in the industry/gov't?

[Richnimrod]

Maybe slightly off the subject but here's my reason for preferring BOURBON to any foreign whisky.

Having celiac disease, I must be extremely careful not to consume a certain protein (commonly called gluten) contained in many grains. Many food-grade coloring agents (and some flavorings, too) are made by toasting or scorching flours made from some of these grains; the theory being that since these grains are all 'foods', the coloring agents made this way are safe to eat......

Well, that just isn't the case for someone with celiac disease. Since Straight Bourbon must, by law (assuming the folks bottling the juice are following the law), contain no coloring or flavoring agents, and distilling is understood to very likely break apart the long chain protein that is the concern with the disease; ergo, Straight Bourbon is very likely safe.... and may be the only safe whisky for someone who has the disease.

I could, of course, drink potato vodka, if just being stoned was the point. PASS!

[garbanzobean]

The more I contemplate Canada's (and Scotland's ...) permissive stance on additives and no legal equivalent of a "straight," the more I wonder how we got so lucky in the USA. I mean, the history books always tell a version of events with the benefit of hindsight and with no obligation to determine just how close it came to going another way.

Of course, I guess regulations are one thing and compliance is another. Remember that Texas feller on here recently, a distiller, who claimed you could legally add up to 3.5% of colorants and flavorings to a straight? Anywho, better at least to have it on the books. Maybe it would make sense for SBers to sign petitions or whatnot and make our desires formally known to those in the industry/gov't?

There's been an interesting series of articles recently, I think on Bourbonr, that shows pretty clearly that the TTB prioritizes collecting taxes to catching violations of labeling and contents, to the tune that a quick database pulls showed 30+% noncompliance results.

In addition, the fact that NDPs aren't REALLY required to disclose the source of their booze means that there's a great opportunity for "fuck fuck" games in America, too. As you mentioned, an actual distiller thought you could put 3.5% additives into some bourbons and ryes, and I would bet dollars to donuts that happens quite frequently.

I am not huge on government regulation, but outside of the big distilleries, I think it is pretty clear that the fairly reasonable regulations that do exist aren't being followed to an acceptable degree.

In short: we all suck, but I think we can all agree that Canada sucks the most! (J/k to you Canucks, your booze prices make me want to send you some "care packages")

[Gillman]

Obviously if it's a health thing I understand, but adding spirit caramel to whisky has been done for hundreds of years. Everything is a compound of some type. The inside of a barrel is rendered to a charcoal-like substance by gas jet fires (do trace amounts of unburned gas enter the spirit)? You can filter bourbon through charcoal after dumping (including simply adding powdered charcoal I understand in the cistern before final filtration and bottling) or, for Tennessee whisky which is the biggest selling type I believe in the US, you can put the whisky through burned maple charcoal for a prolonged period. Trace amounts of metals enter the spirit in distillation including copper, usually. So adding a little E150 which most people here must ingest I'd think in candy bars, cookies and a variety of foods, isn't the end of the world. It's sugar, a natural substance reduced to a syrup. Burning the inside of a barrel caramelized sugars in the barrel, a not dissimilar process.

People can choose - needless to say - to drink what they want but to refer to additives or flavorings as dreck or the like is not correct and misapprehends the family of drinks to which whisky belongs. (Apart from all this, most bourbon is drunk with Coke, does it contain E150? It sure contains a lot of fructose).

Canadian whisky is not inferior to straight bourbon, it is different - kind of like unstraight rye, say, to which the rule against additions in the US regs does not apply.

Gary

[squire]

. . . . adding spirit caramel to whisky has been done for hundreds of years. . . .

Gary I have to question that statement, by my calculation it's only been about 175 years.

[BigBoldBully]

Beyond the potential health issues, I think having to assume colorings and flavorings have been added robs us of information about what the barrel DID add and what the distillate would have looked and tasted like had there been no additives. I find it interesting to explore the results of distillation and barrel aging. But if the appearance, flavor, and even texture may be monkeyed with on top of that, it ruins the fun and much of the educational value.

[Gillman]

Oh well, what's a quarter century between friends.

By the way Cognac, one of the world's great spirits, can legally contain a small amount of sugar. Can all the other drink traditions be wrong and the U.S. one - for straight whiskey only - be right? I might add, all Canadian whisky must be aged for 3 years. Straight whiskey can be aged for as little as two.

Gary

Edited February 11, 2015 by Gillman

[squire]

American Blended Whisky can contain GNS right off the still yet back in the day there were some respectable blends on the market.

[dcbt]

Remember that Texas feller on here recently, a distiller, who claimed you could legally add up to 3.5% of colorants and flavorings to a straight?

[Gillman]

And there still are, e.g. Seven Crown but also some of the Barton labels.

Gary

[garbanzobean]

Boy, Whitmeyer came out guns a blazing and then left just as quickly. Gives new meaning to "marketing blitz."

[n811]

Gary I have to question that statement, by my calculation it's only been about 175 years.

I thought coloring came into mass in the 60's. I'd emailed Diageo a year ago asking about coloring in Talisker and the response was "it's been used for decades and it's perfectly safe". I have a big problem with this, and I let the rep know about it. How wonderful would it be for them to drop coloring and chill filtration across the board?

I guess if I was completely health conscious I wouldn't be drinking whiskey in the first place, but I avoid caramel coloring as much as possible. Several articles (here and here for example) provide backing for my viewpoint.

I know we'll all die of cancer anyway, but you gotta take a stand for something while you're here, right?

Shame it sounds like Canadian whisky is devoid of craft presentation.

[squire]

Blended Scotch as we know it was not permitted to be legally marketed in Great Britain as "Scotch Whisky" until a special Act of Parliament in 1860 or thereabouts and I don't think coloring was far behind as the major houses rushed to create products that would be acceptable to the public. Even if the grain whisky in the blend was aged it was still pale and I think all agree that coloring agents have always been used for purely cosmetic reasons.

[Josh]

I find the addition of coloring agents to whisky and other spirits to be annoying but little more than that. I want to know everything about the stuff I drink including what it looked like right out of the barrel! Still, I don't go out of my way to avoid it. It's been used for centuries and it seems to be no more damaging to health than the whisky itself. A bigger concern for me is how Canadian whisky producers are destroying their finest whiskies by bottling them at 40% ABV. But that's another rant.

[Smithford]

I'm Canadian, but I'm no fan of Canadian whisky. Not because of the additives and coloring, I just tend not to like it.

Gary's post (#11) upthread is illuminating. It's common to read people ranting about E150 in forums and blogs and comments sections, etc... It makes me laugh. I'm sure everyone who hates the thought of caramel coloring in their whisky must be eating only fresh organic fruits and vegetables, and wild animals that they hunted and butchered themselves. And of course none of them smoke, nor do they take medications when they get sick. They must also wash themselves and their (all natural, hand-made organic cotton) clothing in the unspoilt rivers and lakes of their community. I picture them walking (never driving) home from work, past their local whisky shop raising an open flat hand against the inferior Diageo whiskies and proclaiming to the store owner that their bodies are temples, and they only wish to imbibe pure spirits. That's what makes me laugh.

Sarcasm aside, when we're talking about products with "acceptable" levels of ethyl carbamate, I'd say that caramel is the least of our worries. And if you eat any kind of processed or packaged food, you're ingesting far worse.

However ...

Maybe slightly off the subject but here's my reason for preferring BOURBON to any foreign whisky.

Having celiac disease, I must be extremely careful not to consume a certain protein (commonly called gluten) contained in many grains. Many food-grade coloring agents (and some flavorings, too) are made by toasting or scorching flours made from some of these grains; the theory being that since these grains are all 'foods', the coloring agents made this way are safe to eat......

Well, that just isn't the case for someone with celiac disease. Since Straight Bourbon must, by law (assuming the folks bottling the juice are following the law), contain no coloring or flavoring agents, and distilling is understood to very likely break apart the long chain protein that is the concern with the disease; ergo, Straight Bourbon is very likely safe.... and may be the only safe whisky for someone who has the disease.

Interesting. Can you tolerate wheated bourbons? I have a friend with celiac disease who will not drink bourbon, based on the fact that it's not on some list she found on the internet of "safe" GF spirits. I don't understand how gluten could possibly survive distillation, so any additive-free spirit should be safe.

[squire]

I don't see gluten passing through the mashing/distilling process either else it would be present in any grain based distillate.

[BigBoldBully]

Beyond the potential health issues, I think having to assume colorings and flavorings have been added robs us of information about what the barrel DID add and what the distillate would have looked and tasted like had there been no additives. I find it interesting to explore the results of distillation and barrel aging. But if the appearance, flavor, and even texture may be monkeyed with on top of that, it ruins the fun and much of the educational value.

Let me put this a different way--I don't like fake colorings etc. for about the same reasons I don't like fake boobs.

[n811]

Let me put this a different way--I don't like fake colorings etc. for about the same reasons I don't like fake boobs.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!