Forty Creek Small Batch Release

[Gillman]

I see what you saying but when you say "slack", is that not using a loaded term?

In the U.K., the definition of whisky does not require a maximum proof. You can make whisky too from any kind of cereals.

You can put whiskey in a "wet" sherry barrel and sell it as whisky three years later.

Is that slack?

I see the point you are making for the sake of the argument, but I feel the whole issue is moot (just my opinion).

Gary

[barturtle]

It took a bit of searching, but here are is the EU definition of whisk(e)y

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 June 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks...

Annex II...

2. Whisky or Whiskey

(a) Whisky or whiskey is a spirit drink produced exclusively by :

1) .…. distillation of a mash made from malted cereals with or without whole grains of other cereals, which has been

i) saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or without other natural enzymes,

ii) fermented by the action of yeast,

( 2 ) .…. one or more distillations at less than 94,8% vol., so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,

( 3 ) .…. maturation of the final distillate for at least three years in wooden casks not exceeding 700 litres capacity. The final distillate, to which only water and plain caramel (for colouring) may be added, retains its colour, aroma and taste derived from the production process referred to in points (1), (2) and (3) .

( The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of whisky or whiskey shall be 40%.

© No addition of alcohol as defined in Annex I(5), diluted or not, shall take place.

(d) Whisky or whiskey shall not be sweetened or flavoured, nor contain any additives other than plain caramel used for colouring

In my search I also ran across the fact that in 2003 the EC decided to recognize Rye Whisky as a distinctive product of Canada (note the spelling there...very important in this case...USA Ryes must be spelled whiskEy to comply)

[Gillman]

Timothy, I am not sure, this seems to be a resolution of the Parliament for a joint proposal with the European Council for legislation by way ultimately of a resolution of the European Council - not necessarily current legislation that is.

Even if it does state the law, and even that is if a maximum proof exists for whisky in the EU (maybe that maximum existed in the previous, national UK law too, I am not 100% sure) the percentage stated is just under 190 proof, and clearly whisky so distilled will be rather neutral in taste - not 100% neutral but probably very close.

I note caramel can be added, so this is an "additive" (which some observers feel can affect flavour, e.g. Jim Murray I believe).

I believe my basic point is still good, i.e., maybe some Canadian whiskies are currently excluded because they contain some flavouring other than caramel, but I find the distinctions without a difference, at bottom..

Gary

[barturtle]

Yes this is current adopted EU law. I couldn't find the text of the earlier Canadian-EU agreement. However, while there may be a separate ruling for imported goods and what they can be made of, until that turns up this is the best I can come up with for current EU regs applicable.

I too agree that anything distilled to nearly 190 proof will have little flavor resembling whisky, but then blended Scotch does use a grain component. Aged though it may be, it's still intended to be basically neutral. They wouildn't want to rule Johnny Walker and friends to be non-conforming.

I also agree that using flavored barrels is very much akin to adding spirits to achieve a given flavor profile. But there is nothing worse than adding caramel for color...the former is the blenders art, the latter are the marketers lies.

[Gillman]

Well, I agree with you on caramel, I think it is unneccesary and can (Jim Murray makes this point) "blunt" flavour. Still, it is a longstanding practice, and I think we have to accept the wider market will always insist on colour consistency.

But anyway my broader point is that it is best to judge the final product by taste alone - I know Hedmans may not even disagree and this is separate from what he was suggesting, but this is my feeling in the end when you compare what seem to be the laws in the various countries.

Actually when you look at it, of the countries we have discussed, only the U.S. and France in the EU have maximum distilling-out proofs for bourbon (and rye) and Cognac respectively that really ensure traditional character. The other countries (in the EU anyway) seem to have abandoned this for whisky.

Malt whisky is traditional only because the producers still choose to make it in a traditional way.

Gary

[barturtle]

Found the text of the Canadian EU agreement...109 pages of which maybe 20 say something useful...the rest are filled with protected names of wines and spirits. There seems to be no loophole for whiskys containing flavoring agents.

I too believe that the judgment should be in the flavor. This does require the provision of separate categories in the laws. The original Bottled in Bond Act did not prevent rectifiers from making compound spirits, it did however prevent them from passing them off as spirits that were more costly to produce. Of course, having laws that are more standardized world-wide is helpful too.

[cowdery]

To be sold in the EU as whiskey, a product has to contain 100 percent whiskey according to the EU definition, which means grain origin and aging for at least three years, mostlsignificantly. Contrary to what has been said here, I believe most Canadian whiskey meets this requirement, whereas most American Blended Whiskey does not. However, a Canadian whiskey producer who did not meet the requirement could simply do what Seagram's and now Diageo does with Seagram's Seven Crown, which is reformulate it as 100 percent whiskey for the European market.

I have heard a few times from people in the know, but who might also be spinning me, that Canadian whiskey must, by law, be distilled with such a low congeneric content that the only way they can get any flavor into it is to blend in something that has some flavor, which usually is bourbon.

The fact that Canadian producers age their nearly-neutral base whiskey, like the Scots do and unlike Americans, suggests to me that most producers wouldn't choose to flavor their whiskey with anything but whiskey. Point being that they tend to look at whiskey the same way the Scots do, and cite their closer connection to Great Britain (closer than us) for why they make their whiskey the way they do, which differs from the Scottish practice only in that they don't also market their "singles."

Considering that their biggest market is the USA, flavoring their whiskey with our whiskey makes a lot of sense.

If you don't think a less that 9.09 percent share of bourbon would have much affect on the flavor, try it yourself. Add one part Stagg to ten parts of any Canadian and tell me you can't taste the difference. I'm sure Gary won't hesitate to try it.

As for whether or not it's okay to flavor straight whiskey, it's permitted, so long as you label it flavored whiskey, which is a classification in the "Standards of Identity."

[barturtle]

Damn now this is starting to sink in...wish I would have picked up some of those EU Canadians when I was there last summer...Would be fun to try side by side with their USA counterparts.

[Gillman]

I agree with all Chuck has said except in Canadian law as I read it there is no distillation proof requirement. The definition states simply that it must be "mashed, distilled and aged in Canada" and be (evidently this is final bottling proof) not less than 40% ABV.

Flavouring Canadian with additional bourbon is a good idea: I do it all the time. Try it with straight rye and you get something even more "Canadian".

Gary

[Gillman]

Here is part of the definition of Canadian whisky (as I understand it).

The rest is in the blending rules, which I discussed earlier.

B.02.020. . (1) Canadian Whisky, Canadian Rye Whisky or Rye Whisky

(a) shall

(i) be a potable alcoholic distillate, or a mixture of potable alcoholic distillates, obtained from a mash of cereal grain or cereal grain products saccharified by the diastase of malt or by other enzymes and fermented by the action of yeast or a mixture of yeast and other micro-organisms,

(ii) be aged in small wood for not less than three years,

(iii) possess the aroma, taste and character generally attributed to Canadian whisky,

(iv) be manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the Excise Act and the regulations made thereunder,

(v) be mashed, distilled and aged in Canada, and

(vi) contain not less than 40 per cent alcohol by volume; and

( may contain caramel and flavouring.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall make any claim with respect to the age of Canadian whisky, other than for the period during which the whisky has been held in small wood.

(3) Where Canadian whisky has been aged in small wood for a period of at least three years, any period not exceeding six months during which that whisky was held in other containers may be claimed as age.

SOR/93-145, s. 10; SOR/2000-51, s. 1.

[Powertrip]

Forty Creek is the only Canadian whisky that I have ever seen that does not have the word "blended" on the label.

There isn't many, but the Century Reserve line was unblended....I think the limited edition Corby releases might not have been blended either....

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I see what you saying but when you say "slack", is that not using a loaded term?

Gary

I did not mean to offend anyone, Gary. Please note that the language barrier possibly rears it ugly head here. To me, the word 'slack' does not constitute a gross insult but maybe it does? The subtleties of language are not to be underestimated.

Anyway, my only interest in this discussion is to find out why Canadian whisky is so underrepresented in Europe. I would love to try stuff from Alberta, Valleyfield and Highwood but I never see their stuff anywhere.

[Gillman]

Hedmans please be assured I didn't take it that way at all, but was simply pointing out a personal feeling I have that a definition of whisky which excludes apparently additions such as sherry wine may on further consideration not be all that different from one which allows it. I fully appreciate your query whether perhaps the EU law does exclude some of our products for this reason and this may be why the choice there is narrow. My only interest is to state at the same time that this does not (in my view) affect the underlying quality determination.

Gary

[cowdery]

I don't think there is any mystery to why Canadian whiskey is not more available in Europe. There simply is too little demand for it. Similarly, there isn't much akavit sold in North America.

[BourbonJoe]

You're right Chuck. I once ran all over St. Moritz Switzerland looking for a bottle of CC with which to make Manhattans. I finally found one (just one) but it took quite a while.

Joe :usflag:

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I don't think there is any mystery to why Canadian whiskey is not more available in Europe. There simply is too little demand for it. Similarly, there isn't much akavit sold in North America.

Maybe Scandinavia is an exception to the rule, then? Lord Calvert (not to be confused with the North American version) is the biggest selling whisky in Sweden and we have many other brands that are very popular.

I suspect that the trends towards premium whisky is slowly weeding out the Canadians,though. Nowadays, at my local liquor store, it is mostly older men who opt for the cheaper Canadian (and Scotch) blends.