What new regulations would you guys like to see for US produced Whiskies?

[Old Hippie]

Personally I would like to see the following:

 A DSP #. Tequila does this with their NOM so that you can decipher who distills the product. Sourced Whiskey is not a bad thing but I want to know if I am paying for an extra layer of profit.

I like the "Straight" rules as far as aging but do not like the ambiguous statements like "aged up to...." I would rather they put the percentage of whiskey from the different ages on the package if they are going that route. 

[Mako254]

Mandatory age statements. 

[kaiserhog]

4 minutes ago, Mako254 said:

Mandatory age statements. 

Maybe not mandatory but if there is any reference to age, it must state the age of the youngest whiskey in the bottle.  No maybe 6 years maybe 8 or maybe not.

[PowderKeg]

As loathe as I am to consider any more .gov regulation of anything as an good thing, I'd not argue too much against a factual DSP# requirement on the label (although they can keep their fantasy company names), and not allowing flavored whiskey to use "bourbon" anywhere on the label - secondary finishing in another barrel is one thing, but flavored or other added adulterations....

[Cranecreek]

Knowing who distilled the product and what the youngest age is of the whiskey / bourbon contents are the two regulations I would like to see.

[rjg1701]

I think we need a couple of new categories to be defined. Less relevant for me but needed is American Single Malt (100% malt barley mash, new or used oak, single distillery), and then I would like to see an umbrella term for any other mash which is then aged in used oak ('Unblended American whiskey' just causes me to cringe).

[Adam777]

None. Free market and bourbon already has quite a few government regulations and maybe the most out of all spirits? 

 

I know now it’s nice when they put the age but don’t mandate. It can be misleading anyway with instances like Warehouse H that supposedly aged faster. If they don’t put one on just assume it’s young. Most of the time if a company can say aged 7 years they will. Plus it’s fun to guess.

[Old Hippie]

16 minutes ago, rjg1701 said:

I think we need a couple of new categories to be defined. Less relevant for me but needed is American Single Malt (100% malt barley mash, new or used oak, single distillery), and then I would like to see an umbrella term for any other mash which is then aged in used oak ('Unblended American whiskey' just causes me to cringe).

It is my understanding the the US Single Malt producers are working toward some type of a standard set of production/labeling rules. As to whether the TTB adopts them who knows. Straight Malts are already covered in the same way as Straight Bourbon, Rye and Wheat. 

Totally agree on the used oak part. It has merit but the Unblended American Whiskey sounds like you are pouring Seagram's 7

[Charlutz]

6 hours ago, Mako254 said:

Mandatory age statements. 

This falls into the be careful what you wish for category. There’s already too much chasing, bias and pricing based on age statements and proof points. We know it oftentimes doesn’t correlate directly with taste of the whiskey. I’m fine giving the masters their freedom to batch as they choose within the confines of current labeling. I just want more honesty, which is supposed to already be there but is subject to some shenanigans. 

[Mako254]

1 hour ago, Charlutz said:

This falls into the be careful what you wish for category. There’s already too much chasing, bias and pricing based on age statements and proof points. We know it oftentimes doesn’t correlate directly with taste of the whiskey. I’m fine giving the masters their freedom to batch as they choose within the confines of current labeling. I just want more honesty, which is supposed to already be there but is subject to some shenanigans. 

 

All fair points. 

 

Maybe what I really want is more aged whiskey that is readily available

[Kane]

I'd be happy just to see existing regulation properly enforced... But if I could: full disclosure of source(s) for NDPs and blends.

[mbroo5880i]

6 hours ago, Adam777 said:

None. Free market and bourbon already has quite a few government regulations and maybe the most out of all spirits? 

 

I know now it’s nice when they put the age but don’t mandate. It can be misleading anyway with instances like Warehouse H that supposedly aged faster. If they don’t put one on just assume it’s young. Most of the time if a company can say aged 7 years they will. Plus it’s fun to guess.

This.  However, I would like to see a bottled date.  

[Marekv8]

Jane Walker is the first spirits pack (secondary only) I've seen with an NLEA panel… can't say that I mind it.

 

[kaiserhog]

This is why I love my bottled in bond whiskies. 

[PaulO]

I agree with the OP.  Put DSP # on every label.  

Here's something else.  If a non standard (small) barrel is used for aging; put that on the label too.  

[Kepler]

Simple.  What's in the bottle.  Who put it there.  When and where.   I don't think that's too much to ask for something I'm ingesting into my body.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Kepler

[fishnbowljoe]

I think that we should form a panel made up of members here on straightbourbon.com. We could rotate the members of the panel periodically so that everyone has a chance to participate. We could come up with a sticker or label, something like “Approved by Straightbourbon.com”.  All  bourbon/whiskey products could then be sent to our panel for tasting and regulatory evaluation. If it conforms to our rigorous standards, it gets our seal of approval. With our seal of approval, you’d know it was good. Without our seal, well  “you pays your money, and you takes your chances”.  

 

Biba! Joe

[The Black Tot]

On 5/3/2018 at 2:37 PM, Adam777 said:

None. Free market and bourbon already has quite a few government regulations and maybe the most out of all spirits? 

 

Those regulations are precisely why bourbon is the clean and straightforward product that it is.

 

Take a look at the chaos and shameless deceit in the rum category if you want to see what happens when there is a "free market" with no binding regulations.

 

It is no coincidence that scotch, bourbon, tequila and cognac are the kings of the artisinal spirits world AND the subject of the most regulation.

 

In categories where there is no regulation, quality made spirits have a hard time even getting off the ground above the noise made by false claims and skullduggery.

 

The Bottled In Bond act was created because American whiskey was plagued by a shocking state of craven dishonesty and was even being cut with poisonous substances in the worst of cases. 

 

Where do you think American whiskey would be today without that regulation?

Edited May 6, 2018 by The Black Tot

[wadewood]

1.  Accurate and uniform enforcement of the rules as they exist - really this would solve most problems
2.  Legally define term single barrel

3.  Creation of American Single malt catageory
4.  Eliminate the TTB interpretation of once it's a bourbon it can't be undone.  'Bourbon with Flavors added' on label  should not exist.  'Bourbon finished in xyz barrel' on label should not exist.
5.  goes along with 4, create category of American Finished Whiskies

 

[smokinjoe]

12 minutes ago, wadewood said:

1.  Accurate and uniform enforcement of the rules as they exist - really this would solve most problems
2.  Legally define term single barrel

3.  Creation of American Single malt catageory
4.  Eliminate the TTB interpretation of once it's a bourbon it can't be undone.  'Bourbon with Flavors added' on label  should not exist.  'Bourbon finished in xyz barrel' on label should not exist.
5.  goes along with 4, create category of American Finished Whiskies

 

Indeed on #1, as in most any subject around, the rules, regulations, ordinances, etc are already there.  It’s just about enforcing what we already have.  I would have argued your position on #4, particularly as for finished bourbons, but I have found myself coming around to your way of thinking on this.  Perhaps, creating the new category you suggest might be a fix.  

[Old Hippie]

19 hours ago, wadewood said:

1.  Accurate and uniform enforcement of the rules as they exist - really this would solve most problems
2.  Legally define term single barrel

3.  Creation of American Single malt catageory
4.  Eliminate the TTB interpretation of once it's a bourbon it can't be undone.  'Bourbon with Flavors added' on label  should not exist.  'Bourbon finished in xyz barrel' on label should not exist.
5.  goes along with 4, create category of American Finished Whiskies

 

Respectfully disagree with not allowing "Bourbon finished in XYZ barrel" on the label. Once aged bourbon satisfies the straight rule, finishing in another barrel can and does add depth of flavor and can provide interesting and pleasing nuances. I would be very interested to hear your objection to this. 

[wadewood]

4 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

Respectfully disagree with not allowing "Bourbon finished in XYZ barrel" on the label. Once aged bourbon satisfies the straight rule, finishing in another barrel can and does add depth of flavor and can provide interesting and pleasing nuances. I would be very interested to hear your objection to this. 

Bourbon by law can have no added flavors or colorings and this process does both.  Because of this none of these products are actually Bourbon.  Once finished in a secondary barrel they become class type 641 - whisky specialties.  They require a TTB formula for approval.  Look up a COLA label for yourself.  I agree that they can be interesting in their own right and why I stated also create their own category.  

[Old Hippie]

37 minutes ago, wadewood said:

Bourbon by law can have no added flavors or colorings and this process does both.  Because of this none of these products are actually Bourbon.  Once finished in a secondary barrel they become class type 641 - whisky specialties.  They require a TTB formula for approval.  Look up a COLA label for yourself.  I agree that they can be interesting in their own right and why I stated also create their own category.  

I understand what you are saying but my understanding of the law is that you can say "DR. X Straight Bourbon finished in used brandy barrels" and still be within the legal requirements. If that is indeed the case then no more regulation is needed. This clearly spells out what is in the bottle. 

[wadewood]

20 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

I understand what you are saying but my understanding of the law is that you can say "DR. X Straight Bourbon finished in used brandy barrels" and still be within the legal requirements. If that is indeed the case then no more regulation is needed. This clearly spells out what is in the bottle. 

General consumers look at that on label and assume it's Bourbon; whiskey geeks know it's not.  Also you still don't what's in the barrel because you don't know what was in that brandy barrel or what processes were used to treat the barrel; ie sherry barrels have sulfur issues.  Also many producers 'recharge' barrels - meaning they empty out after bourbon was finished, then they put back in some port/sherry/etc to recharge and then fill again with bourbon.  Rinse and repeat.

[Saul_cooperstein]

Because bourbon is clearly a ‘distinctive product of the United States’ id want to see regulations that allow for its ability to be shipped from retail (or direct from distillery) to consumers in all 50 states plus some regulations that manage the ability for a controlled and legal secondary market - particularly one that can feed into on-premises (restaurant/bar) sales. Perhaps Just mirror existing econdary market rules in place for wine for whiskey.