Nutritional Labeling of Bourbon, Scotch, etc.

[Conquistador]

This is interesting. I'm always for more informative labeling, so I applaud this move by Diageo. Yes, they get a lot of grief for their bogus and misleading back-stories for some of their product's histories, but providing the nutritional value on the back of their bottles should go over well with those of us who are on the look-out for as much information about our booze as we can get. This can only be good news for those of us who are wary about additives in our liquor. Here are a couple of links; the first one is to the Yahoo story about how Diageo is trying to put nutritional labels onto liquor bottles, while the second link is to Diageo's internet nutritional look-up for their products. I can only assume that the nutritional information is factual, so it is nice to see that the items you'd want/expect to be unadulterated with additives like sugar, appear to be free of such things. Although this might be a minor leap of logic, but comparing something like Captain Morgan 100pf Rum (0.3g carbs) to Captain Morgan Mango Rum (9.7g carbs) would suggest that the mango rum is loaded with sugar, as we would expect.

One can only hope that Diageo and others go a step further, and provide additional nutritional information (like actual sugar content, listing of flavorings added, and listing of color additives). Well, at least this is a start.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/labels-many-calories-johnnie-walker-221332183.html

http://www.knowyourdiageodrink.com/en-row/Pages/Homepage.aspx

[flahute]

I'm curious what Diageo would consider a serving? My guess is 1.5 fluid ounces (for a 40% ABV spirit).

You don't have to guess. If you click on the link above, you will see that it is indeed 1.5 oz and that they have a breakdown for every product they make (so it's not limited to a 40% ABV spirit).

[tanstaafl2]

If I was concerned about "nutrition" I would drink ensure, not bourbon. It would be even nicer if they (and everyone else) labeled the bottle with what is actually inside in terms of the real source, age, barrel management and mashbill.

Seems more like a way to pretend they care about the consumer than to actually do so.

[GaryT]

This is a nice reminder about why bourbon and rye are superior spirits than many others on the market! Less fat/sugar! Pretty much just straight (albeit empty) calories, which are directly correlated to the proof. I've created placeholders by proof for my own caloric tracking, but do think this is a nice move. I used to enjoy Yukon Jack regularly, and now know how much sugar is in that (it clearly HAD sugar, but I wouldn't have any idea how much!)

[The Black Tot]

If I was concerned about "nutrition" I would drink ensure, not bourbon.

[Harry in WashDC]

Pappy Vanilla Winkle?

It's been done - Abe Bowman (a product of BT's A. Smith Bowman, proud maker of Virginia Gentleman) finished with vanilla beans. AND, I'm with tanstaafl2: truth in labeling should start with where distilled, who owns it, etc.

[garbanzobean]

It's been done - Abe Bowman (a product of BT's A. Smith Bowman, proud maker of Virginia Gentleman) finished with vanilla beans. AND, I'm with tanstaafl2: truth in labeling should start with where distilled, who owns it, etc.

Thirded. Caloric information is generic at best. The devil is in the details, as they say.

[RyeNot]

We cares? If I were watching the calories, I would quit drinking and save a bunch. If Diageo wants to voluntarily put this info on their products, fine,it's their choice, but if the government wants to mandate it, they should sod off.