tanstaafl2 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Some of you may have already seen the article on this subject on Chuck Cowdery's blog. As Chuck notes transparency is already permitted (but not required. I would love to see it required of course!) in American whiskey. John Glaser of Compass Box, who has always been a strong advocate of transparency in labeling in my mind, now has started an effort to petition for transparency in labeling by Scotch whisky regulators (their system as best I can tell is a bit different with a lot of influence wielded by the largest players in market). I encourage you to look at his website and consider supporting it. I would once again like to see it take a step farther and not be voluntary but instead but a requirement. That is likely to happen in my lifetime of course but one can dream! As Chuck notes (and John Glaser has confirmed for me in an email) anyone is welcome to sign. You do not have to be a UK or EU resident. SCOTCH WHISKY TRANSPARENCY Edited February 25, 2016 by tanstaafl2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I signed up a few days ago. What a stupid law and I'd like it changed, however, as with any bureaucracy, it's doubtful anything will change in the near future What I don't get is why independent bottlers overseas are very transparent by identifying the distiller and bourbon NDPs do not. I'd love to know whether an NDP is bottling a HH, BT or FR for example. I figure that some of the distillers are contractually preventing the NDPs from identifying the source, but why do bourbon distillers do this and scotch distillers don't? Walk down the scotch aisle and it's very easy to figure out who distilled what, for how long, what it was aged in and other pertinent info. Quite to the contrary, the bourbon aisle is oftentimes overrun with NDP bottles boasting outright lies, mis-directions or ridiculous fictional stories about how the juice (mistakenly sometimes) got in the bottle. I generally just skip over this stuff as noise and buy my favs from the big boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 The simplest approach would be to make it a mandatory requirement to list exactly what is in every bottle (and then enforce it) but that certainly isn't likely to happen in anyone's lifetime! Even a simple requirement for the DSP(s) to be noted on every label, doesn't have to be prominent and the average drinker would likely not have a clue or care anyway) would be an improvement but it doesn't seem likely that will ever happen either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Thinking about it, I'm sure there are other examples, but isn't the model of transparency that JVD references from Scotch IB's the exception, rather than the rule? Not only in spirits, but many, many, other industries, too? Though NOM declaration on Tequila leans to transparency, of course. Opaque private labeling is quite widespread, I think. Not a judgement from here, rather an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, smokinjoe said: Thinking about it, I'm sure there are other examples, but isn't the model of transparency that JVD references from Scotch IB's the exception, rather than the rule? Not only in spirits, but many, many, other industries, too? Though NOM declaration on Tequila leans to transparency, of course. Opaque private labeling is quite widespread, I think. Not a judgement from here, rather an observation. I agree, most labels in spirits are not particularly transparent except when the producer feels said transparency is an asset to them. I believe the only way to get uniform transparency is to require it. The NOM designation with tequila would be similar to a DSP requirement for all American whiskey. And as much as I like John Glaser and Compass Box it is pretty clear that having the ability to define all components of a blend in Compass Box would be an asset to the Compass Box brand. Not a lot of other boutique blenders out there! As it currently stands they have no way to advertise the older whisky in their various blends which would presumably be to their benefit. And no doubt the big boys in scotch are perfectly happy to keep it that way even though I doubt Compass Box does 1/100th of their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 But on the flip side, the bourbon distillers in America most likely think that identifying the distillery on an NDP product diminishes their brand. I can see why Jim Rutledge and FR did not want Diageo advertising that Bulleit was FR distillate because that would undermine FR's brand, especially if the recipe did not consist of the 10 recipes, and undercut Diageo's "frontier" whiskey story in one fell swoop. However, if the NDP product is a single barrel, like SMOS, it could be an asset to both. I'm sure after winning the single barrel bourbon of the year award, people will have a more favorable view of both the bottler and the distiller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Perhaps so. But that would just have to be part of the price of doing business. If you need to sell off excess whiskey you need to be prepared to have your DSP on the label. Don't have to let the NDP say "We have Four Roses bourbon!" on the label (most NDPs wouldn't want to anyway as they are too busy pretending they are the ones who made it) but in small print in the corner your DSP has to be on the label. Most of the public won't know the difference but for those of us who care you at least know a little bit about what you are getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts