America Needs Better Whisky Regulations

I am following a large number of American whisky people, bloggers as well as normal whisky lovers. Hardly a day passes without someone mentioning the ongoing debate about non-distiller producers (NDP) and the attempts of some to hide the fact that they are not distilling their own whisky but rather buy it in bulk from elsewhere, which usually is MGP in Indiana. Lately the debate has mostly focussed on the lack of enforcement of a labelling rule that requires the state of distillation stated on the label if the whisky was not distilled in the same state as the company is located.

The discussion gained even more steam recently when Templeton Rye, long regarded as one of the most notorious obfuscators, came clean and admitted that they were only selling sourced whisky. But this was not everything. In the aftermath of this confession yet another can of worms was opened. In a recent Whiskycast interview with Mark Gillespie Templeton also admitted that they were using flavouring in their rye whisky in accordance with Section 5.23(a)(2) of the US whisky regulations.

This revelation came as a shock to many. Rye whisky with undeclared flavourings was thought to be impossible to be legal. Apparently the rule in question was overlooked by just about anyone out there or at least not brought into connection with whisky because it affects all spirits. Even Chuck Cowdery who can safely be described as one of the most knowledgeable authorities on American whisky had to admit that he had been unaware of the fact that American whisky may indeed contain flavourings unless it is labelled as “straight”. And judging from his writings he knows the US whisky regulations better than almost everyone else.

This incident highlights a fundamental problem of the American whisky regulations. If even experts have trouble to understand the implications of the rules, there must be something seriously wrong. Part of the problem certainly is that the whisky regulations are not treated in a separate document. The regulations are covering all types of spirits, and rules for whisky only are mixed with rules for all spirits or subsets thereof.

Furthermore the regulations are written in a language that needs serious dedication to understand. The infamous section 5.23(a)(2) for example is a single sentence with 122 words, if I counted right. They also appear to be a hodge-podge of amendments as can be seen from the fact that in section 5.23(a)(3) the “whiskey” spelling is used contrary to the “whisky” that is used elsewhere in the regulations. In short the regulations are a jungle that has grown beyond control, and it needs someone with a regulatory machete to cut a new path through the thicket.

And while we’re at it, why not change a few things for the better? I am only a small whisky blogger, but here are a few proposals: