who in whiskey is abiding by ttb regs?

[Guest tom]

Kind of going of of coops post the other day, who among us making whiskey, is abiding by the ttb's definition of whiskey as defined by them. For example, bourbon, who is making bourbon by the guidlines setforth by the ttb?

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Anyone who is not abiding by ttb regs to the fullest extent possible is taking enormous risk with his business and his partner's money. Anyone who responds here that they are not abiding by ttb regs is a fool and does not deserve to be making whiskey.

Tuthilltown Spirits starts with the regs and we go from there. It is why we feel completely comfortable calling our HUDSON BABY BOURBON bourbon, it is within the regs, regardless the remonstrations of staunch self-described "traditionalists".

In another string there was discussion about how making whiskey or spirits rises above utilitarian value to be "craft" or maybe even "art" because the distiller is looking for something new, something different and special that expresses a concept the distiller has first in his/her mind, and then uses his skills to render in a glass. But as with all art, craft, game, contest, competition, there are rules that describe the playing field within which the players compete, and have ultimate freedom.

Mistakes notwithstanding, if you're deliberately outside the rules you aren't playing the same game as the rest of us. There's no art or honor in rebellion for the sake of itself.

[cowdery]

Remember too that the TTB rules don't say anything about what you can make or how you should make it, they simply dictate how you can label what you have made after you have made it. As Ralph says, I would assume everyone is abiding by the rules because to do otherwise would be foolish in the extreme.

[coop]

Remember too that the TTB rules don't say anything about what you can make or how you should make it, they simply dictate how you can label what you have made after you have made it. As Ralph says, I would assume everyone is abiding by the rules because to do otherwise would be foolish in the extreme.

A couple things Chuck. What is the name of your distillery? And what all do you make? The other thing is the TTB has more to say than just how you label something. If you are making whiskey they dictate what portions of your mash bill will be corn, they dictate what kind of a barrel you use and a minimum of how long you will keep it in the barrel. They dictate to you just what you need to do, to call it "Bourbon" or Whiskey. Also just wondering how many formulas you have submitted to the TTB for their approval? Coop

[cowdery]

I'm neither a distiller nor a distillery owner. I'm a writer and a marketing professional who has worked in and around the industry for 30 years. More relevantly, perhaps, I'm a lawyer and very familiar with the Federal Standards of Identity. The regs tell you how you have to make something in order to call it "X" (i.e., bourbon), but you can make anything you want, any way you want, then see what the regs will let you call it. The standards of identity are essentially a labeling code with a "truth in advertising" objective.

[Guest sensei]

I'm neither a distiller nor a distillery owner. I'm a writer and a marketing professional who has worked in and around the industry for 30 years. More relevantly, perhaps, I'm a lawyer and very familiar with the Federal Standards of Identity. The regs tell you how you have to make something in order to call it "X" (i.e., bourbon), but you can make anything you want, any way you want, then see what the regs will let you call it. The standards of identity are essentially a labeling code with a "truth in advertising" objective.

Then it seems the OP's question may have more to deal with who is experimenting with a product that defies current classification that may one day create its own category. Creating something new would, IMOHO, certainly denote being a "craft distiller" as one is making something new that has not yet been tasted, at least on these shores.

[cowdery]

Then it seems the OP's question may have more to deal with who is experimenting with a product that defies current classification that may one day create its own category.

Not really, as the regs have several "catch all" classifications. For example, to simply call a product "whiskey," with no other modifiers, is a pretty low threshold. Likewise the other major classes like brandy or rum. The biggest catch-all is probably "spirit specialty." So it's hard to conceive of a "product that defies current classification." The regs also include a lot of classifications and sub-classifications that have never or rarely been made, but they're included because they might be made.

You have to figure out what you want to make and figure out how that product would fit into the regulatory scheme, but not abiding by the regs isn't an option.

"Tennessee Whiskey" is a good example of what I'm talking about. To be so labeled, a product need only meet the minimum requirements for whiskey and be made in Tennessee, at least according to the regs. If you start to mess around with the name "Tennessee Whiskey" you might run into some other problems, but not with the federal regs.

Where conflicts usually occur are when someone wants to make X but for marketing reasons, they want to call it Y, but X doesn't meet the requirements for Y. Some ignorant people think Ralph, for example, hasn't followed the rules, when in fact he has followed them to the letter.

[Paul G]

Some ignorant people think Ralph, for example, hasn't followed the rules, when in fact he has followed them to the letter.

Let me guess...thinking Bourbon can only come from Kentucky?

[cowdery]

Mainly that, but people also misunderstand the aging requirement.

[Jonathan Forester]

Chuck- Can you go into this with more detail and maybe some examples?

Thanks

Mainly that, but people also misunderstand the aging requirement.

[cowdery]

Ralph's explained it before. The regs say bourbon, rye, etc. have to be aged in new, charred oak, but it doesn't say for how long. As a matter of policy, the minimum is three months, hence Ralph's Baby Bourbon is entitled to call itself bourbon. After two years of aging, the product may be called straight whatever (bourbon, rye). After four years it is considered fully aged and age-labeling is optional. A lot of people mistakenly believe that two years is the minimum to be called bourbon, when in fact it is the minimum to be called straight bourbon. Ralph chose to highlight his product's youth in its name, but that was his choice, not a legal requirement. He could have just called it "Hudson Valley Bourbon Whiskey."

[Jonathan Forester]

That's what I thought. Thanks

Jonathan

Ralph's explained it before. The regs say bourbon, rye, etc. have to be aged in new, charred oak, but it doesn't say for how long. As a matter of policy, the minimum is three months, hence Ralph's Baby Bourbon is entitled to call itself bourbon. After two years of aging, the product may be called straight whatever (bourbon, rye). After four years it is considered fully aged and age-labeling is optional. A lot of people mistakenly believe that two years is the minimum to be called bourbon, when in fact it is the minimum to be called straight bourbon. Ralph chose to highlight his product's youth in its name, but that was his choice, not a legal requirement. He could have just called it "Hudson Valley Bourbon Whiskey."

[Guest sensei]

Ralph's explained it before. The regs say bourbon, rye, etc. have to be aged in new, charred oak, but it doesn't say for how long. As a matter of policy, the minimum is three months, hence Ralph's Baby Bourbon is entitled to call itself bourbon.

Which goes back to my point of crafting a spirit that doesn't neatly fit into a curent category - such as a single malt whiskey distilled within the state of Tennessee using the Lincoln County process and aged in sherry casks instead of new charred oak. No one is currently doing it, and who knows, maybe no one should be doing it either. From my understanding of the law, and since I am not an attorney my understanding is naturally less than your own, such a concoction could not legally be called a Tennessee Whiskey because of the requirement of new charred oak casks. Of course, I could be as dense as an oak in my misunderstanding which is entirely possible. As good as the Internet is, nothing beats a conversation in person for clarity's sake.

However, I would liek to say that I just think it is interesting to see if anyone really is out there trying to craft something new not ever tasted. Wouldn't doing so lead to more credibility to the title "Master Distiller"?

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

There is ample opportunity to create new categories and have them approved by the TTB. The existing regs are very clear about what constitutes "whiskey". The example given, Tennessee Whiskey prepared as the above post suggests, would be single malt if it is aged in NEW barrel, (regardless what the Scots use, it is after all American Single Malt, not Scotch whisky). Your recipe would be "whiskey distilled from XXX mash", the "XXX" representing the type of mash (boubon, rye, malted barley, etc.). The problems arise when the producer proposes a previously defined term to describe something which varies in content or process from that described by the existing regulation, but wants the cache of the traditional name/designation (for instance "Tennessee Whiskey").

Here at Tuthilltown we are of the opinion there is plenty of latitude in the current definitions and in the end the "type" is less important than the product in the glass and the way it is presented to the consumer. We were challenged on a variety of levels for calling our Baby BOURBON: age, NY provenence, mash bill (it's 100% corn). But in the end the regs claify the type and we feel justified calling it Bourbon; and the TTB apparently agrees.

Incidentally, we went round and round with the TTB inspector when we submitted our SINGLE MALT label, the response being "You can't make single malt in the US, it's a product of Scotland." We had to actually get the inspector on the phone, have her call up the site of another US distiller to show her the bottle image with an approved label for Single Malt, proving it is not exclusively a Scottish "type".

Part of the problem is the regs have changed over years and people don't have up to date "standards of identity". Equally problematic, the professionals do not read the law, the actual text of the enabling legislation and not the interpretations provided by others. Go to the original text and read.

We are experimenting with various grains heretofore unused in American whiskey production. But in the end it will still be "whiskey" under the regs. If we come up with something that is an obscure combination of materials or by a process not described would be submitted under a new designation request, per TTB regs.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the regs are broad, within them there is ultimate freedom.

[cowdery]

Sensei,

Since the term "Tennessee Whiskey" does not appear anywhere in the standards of identity, any whiskey (as defined by the regs) made in Tennessee may be called Tennessee Whiskey so far as the regs are concerned. That may not be the end of the discussion, but it is as far as the federal regs are concerned.

As Ralph is saying, I think, make what you want to make. Worry later about what to call it.

Question for you, Ralph. Challenged by whom? Because, as you say, according to the TTB, you're legal.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

We were challenged by various spirits writers and aficianados. Eric Asimov and I had a nice conversation about the definition of Bourbon. He referenced a book (not sure the name) that had used an earlier version of the Standards of Identity and specified an upper limit to the amount of corn that could be included in the bourbon mash bill. I sent him the current Standards of Identity and he called out our discussion in his blog "The Pour" and verified that there was no limit on how much corn we could use and still call it bourbon. We also had some writers who were convinced bourbon had to be made in Kentucky; Single Malt had to be made in Scotland (even the TTB challenged us on that one); the obvious two year requirement (I reminded them it meant "straight" as you mentioned).

The fact is that the people getting into serious artisan spirits production are as much faced with the chore of educating their marketplace as they are with making good product and getting it a glass in front of a customer. In our experience there is an entire population of both consumers AND "professionals" out there who know nothing about how we do our work and make what we all make. If the producers want the public to embrace the product they make and indeed "how" it is made, it's up to you all to educate them why they should love us so.

[Jonathan Forester]

Ralph- you are right on that a major part of our business, and marketing, is education. I find I am continuously doing so and find that people find it interesting, helpful, and it helps sell product.

Do we have a glossary of distillers terms, that are accurate to current TTB Standards of Identity, on the forum?

We were challenged by various spirits writers and aficianados. Eric Asimov and I had a nice conversation about the definition of Bourbon. He referenced a book (not sure the name) that had used an earlier version of the Standards of Identity and specified an upper limit to the amount of corn that could be included in the bourbon mash bill. I sent him the current Standards of Identity and he called out our discussion and verified that there was no limit on how much corn we could use and still call it bourbon. We also had some writers who were convinced bourbon had to be made in Kentucky; Single Malt had to be made in Scotland (even the TTB challenged us on that one); the obvious two year requirement (I reminded them it meant "straight" as you mentioned).

The fact is that the people getting into serious artisan spirits production are as much faced with the chore of educating their marketplace as they are with making good product and getting it a glass in front of a customer. In our experience there is an entire population of both consumers AND "professionals" out there who know nothing about how we do our work and make what we all make. If the producers want the public to embrace the product they make and indeed "how" it is made, it's up to you all to educate them why they should love us so.

[Guest sensei]

Ralph- you are right on that a major part of our business, and marketing, is education.

Looks like you have something else to add to your already full plate. Not only will you have to lobby the government, you'll have to do more to educate the public via this website and in person with distributors. Much to do. Perhaps, and order of business is to begin thinking about a timeline in order to focus on issues and get them done.

[cowdery]

I have been looking at some new products and am struck by the fact that TTB also seems very open to new categories that are simply literal descriptions of the product. For example, Brown-Forman's Stellar Gin is classified as Citrus Flavored Gin, and so far as I know may be the only product so classified. I don't have the exact wording handy but their Woodford Reserve Master's Collection Sonoma-Cutrer Finish product was officially called something like "Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished in Chardonnay casks."

[rich phillips]

Ralph's explained it before. The regs say bourbon, rye, etc. have to be aged in new, charred oak, but it doesn't say for how long. As a matter of policy, the minimum is three months, hence Ralph's Baby Bourbon is entitled to call itself bourbon. After two years of aging, the product may be called straight whatever (bourbon, rye). After four years it is considered fully aged and age-labeling is optional. A lot of people mistakenly believe that two years is the minimum to be called bourbon, when in fact it is the minimum to be called straight bourbon. Ralph chose to highlight his product's youth in its name, but that was his choice, not a legal requirement. He could have just called it "Hudson Valley Bourbon Whiskey."

When I met Dave Pickerel from Maker's Mark, he let me taste his "White dog" which was labelled bourbon. It was less than a day old, but in new, charred oak. It passed COLA.

As far as I understand, TTB regs say that it has to be in new oak but nothing about how long. You are correct about the 2 year and 4 year designations though

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

And I thought our bourbon was young! Frankly I don't know why a producer would try to use "bourbon" to describe his "white dog", rye or wheat or whatever. That said, it is correct, the Fed regs have no minimum time in oak requirement except if you intend to call it "straight" whiskey. And far be it from us to criticize anyone at the edge of the definition (but still inside of it).