flahute Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 A friend of mine just pointed out this: Anyone see the problem with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0895 Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 19 minutes ago, flahute said: A friend of mine just pointed out this: Anyone see the problem with this? My question is "Why?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcpfratn Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 It is amazing that TTB does not catch these things! It clearly doesn't qualify as straight bourbon with that addition. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musekatcher Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) If we don't police the advertised additives, I can only conclude we aren't policing the unadvertised additives. Do state boards go in and look for violations, like adding grain alcohol, or analyze products, looking for added flavorings like vanilla, cinnamon or sugar, and other secret ingredients? Edited October 26, 2017 by musekatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Steve, is the pictured EB bottle (back label) called a Straight Bourbon on the front? It clearly is NOT qualified to be called such. If it claims to be, shame on Luxco! Coloring up under-aged stuff, or even distillate containing GNS is deceptive in the extreme. I wonder what recourse we as consumers have, if this is the case? ...Other than choosing to spend our dollars on products other than Luxco offerings. Which I would consider doing if this is labeled a SB on the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFan Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 21 minutes ago, Richnimrod said: I wonder what recourse we as consumers have, if this is the case? ...Other than choosing to spend our dollars on products other than Luxco offerings. Social media shaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FasterHorses Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Havent there been class action suits previously? I think BT was sued for the 8 on OC after it was no longer 8 years old. Dont know how the suit turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Here's the front label. Looks like somebody, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, "Got some splainin to do". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I found this on the TTB web site: COLORING MATERIALS · STATUS Coloring materials must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved coloring materials are categorized as “certified” or “non-certified” · APPROVED COLORING MATERIALS All coloring materials approved for use in distilled spirits are listed below: Certified Colors FD&C Blue #1 FD&C Blue #2 FD&C Green #3 FD&C Red #3 FD&C Red #40 FD&C Yellow #5 FD&C Yellow #6 Vol 2 7-2 04/2007 NOTE: The lake of each certified color, except for FD&C Red #3, listed above is an approved coloring material Non-certified Colors Annatto Extract, Beet Extract, Beta Carotene, Caramel, Carmine (Cochineal Extract), Elderberry Extract, Grapeskin Extract (Enocianina), Paprika, Saffron, Titanium Dioxide, Turmeric. Glossary A number of abbreviated references (both alpha and numeric) are used in the chart below. A glossary of these abbreviations follows: HCFBM = HARMLESS COLORING/FLAVORING/BLENDING MATERIALS There is a table that follows and HCFBM are not allowed in bourbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I did find a picture of the back label of the brown label and it doesn't have the "Contains Caramel Color" on it. When was the pictured bottle purchased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flahute Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, CardsandBourbon said: I did find a picture of the back label of the brown label and it doesn't have the "Contains Caramel Color" on it. When was the pictured bottle purchased? Bottle was purchased recently. Looks the same on the front as the bottle you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, flahute said: Bottle was purchased recently. Looks the same on the front as the bottle you posted. Then it looks like, to me anyway, that Luxco is doing some false advertising since the way I interpret what I found it that they should not be allowed to call this straight bourbon whiskey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdcdguy Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 It's not on the 90 proof version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I emailed TTB regarding the labeling. I'll let everyone know what their response is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueby Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I have a recent bottle at home. I will check it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsandBourbon Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 The Luxco Conspiracy, exposed by CardsandBourbon. Sounds like a thrill packed movie to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcgumbohead Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 If this pans out (not a typo, mislabeling...) its a serious issue and needs to be stopped in its tracks, social media, fines, boycott... its not to be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Luxco has been around the block enough times, that I would be very surprised if this is anything other than some kind of unintentional Screw up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 BTW, UPC code on the label does not match UPC for older Old Ezra 7. That number should be the same, I believe, I think they pulled wrong label from another type of whiskey they have by mistake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 7 hours ago, DCFan said: Social media shaming. Ahhh. Well. The only social media I waste my time on is this site, so y'all will have to pick up my slack, I guess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFan Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Richnimrod said: Ahhh. Well. The only social media I waste my time on is this site, so y'all will have to pick up my slack, I guess. What came to mind was the story today how 1 tweet about Kellogg's Corn Pops got them to change the front label. The only corn pop of color cartoon character on the box was depicted doing janitorial duties so Kellogg's apologized that same day and promised to change the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Just now, DCFan said: What came to mind was the story today how 1 tweet about Kellogg's Corn Pops got them to change the front label. The only corn pop of color cartoon character on the box was depicted doing janitorial duties so Kellogg's apologized that same day and promised to change the label. Hmmm. Did not know that. Being totally 'out of it' as my daughter describes me, apparently does have disadvantages. ...But, I'm willing to live with 'em. Allows me to remain the unapologetic curmudgeon that I am. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flahute Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 55 minutes ago, smokinjoe said: Luxco has been around the block enough times, that I would be very surprised if this is anything other than some kind of unintentional Screw up. I'm thinking this has to be the case. They aren't stupid. I checked an older label bottle and it did not have that note. Someone else checked a different new label bottle and it did not have that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 I'll bet that back label was incorrectly grabbed since it is the same color as the new color on the new Ezra 7 label. It's probably for some flavored or other type of whiskey They make. Anyone know how to look up UPCs? Those last 5 digits will tell us what it is. The Old Ezra 7 ends in 11298, not 13147. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flahute Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, smokinjoe said: I'll bet that back label was incorrectly grabbed since it is the same color as the new color on the new Ezra 7 label. It's probably for some flavored or other type of whiskey They make. Anyone know how to look up UPCs? Those last 5 digits will tell us what it is. The Old Ezra 7 ends in 11298, not 13147. Mystery solved and you are correct. It's the back label for their bourbon cream. Clearly a labeling mix up. Colors are slightly different but close enough to make the mistake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts