TTB definitively states no "aged less than" in FAQ

[bluestar]

TTB updated their FAQ to make absolutely explicit that the CFR requires that no statement of age can be made for a whiskey that identifies a maximum age, such as "Aged less than ____ years".

Part of this is a problem of their own making: for a while they were approving labels with the phrase "Aged less than four years". These were never in accordance with CFR 27, but there were a fair number of craft distillers with such labels. The TTB has been working to get these labels updated, but I suspect because the number out there at one time (and still on the shelves), they must have been getting too many submissions requesting these kind of maximum age statements.

See more at:

http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml in item S11

[dhdunbar]

Bluestar is spot on in his comments on TTB's requirements. Perhaps the most important point is that a statement of age is mandatory on all whiskey aged less than four years, that the statement can understate but may not overstate the age, and that the statement must be accurate and in a form "aged three minutes," if that is the actual time in oak. Again, if you do not age for at least four years - and remember that the requirement for bourbon, wheat, rye, and malt whiskies is that age reflects the time in new charred oak cooperage - you must have an age statement. TTB appears to be serious about this. Today's newsletter (1/16) featured the following announcement:

NEW FAQS ABOUT AGE STATEMENTS ON WHISKY LABELS

We recently published a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that provide guidance on age statements on whisky labels. See "S11: FAQs regarding age statements on whisky labels" at our Distilled Spirits FAQs page to review the entire list of questions and answers.

The news FAQs cover such topics as:

• Is an age statement required on a whisky label?
• What is the "age" of a whisky?
• What information must be included in an age statement?

I'd bet dollars to the proverbial donuts that TTB investigators will be looking into this matter if they make inquiry into whether your labels comply with the requirements. Review what is required and be ready to make the changes necessary to come into compliance. Hint - if you have been in business less than four years and claim that you distilled and bottled a whiskey but don't show an age on the label its pretty much a slam dunk that you are not in compliance.

[paclawyer]

Great Info. Thanks for sharing Bluestar and thanks Dave for the added detail.

[wadewood]

Glad to see the enforcing the our actual laws. I've also heard they are cracking down on 5.36 (d) compliance as well.

[Roger]

The term "aged less than " was a play on words based on the requirement that you could "understate the age" . It was a clever marketing strategy that was used in a manner adverse to the intent of the regulations. As for intent, who know, or cares why it as done, and who approved it. It just needs to be corrected going forward.

[John McKee]

Hey all,

One note on all of this; 5.36, Age Statements, etc.

So many of these issues are not intentional or nefarious by brands or distilleries out there. We used an attorney (a good one) to process our labels and COLAs and the TTB approved them with errors in both years ago...both of which we have now resolved, recently.

It should be noted that in label approval - due to changes in budget for TTB, turn over of staff, the vast increase in spirits labels in queue for approval, etc, etc, etc.......the number of experienced and knowledgable staff for approvals has plummeted. They even have wine approval agents working on the backlog of spirits labels...without the full knowledge of every last possible permutation of proper labeling for spirits.

The inevitable result of which is the errors that TTB have been making and thereby allowing the approved businesses of labeled products to believe they are acting in the letter of the law.

I guess my point here is to suggest that brands should reinvestigate each of their approved labels and resolve issues if there are any. I'll admit I was one of those that felt we had done everything correctly; used an experienced attorney, had faith that TTB agents were knowledgable of the statutes to catch and resolve errors before approval....and we still had errors. Sort of irks me, because I feel that even having done everything as best as I could, I was still let down by the process.

All that being said, fix your problems...move on. But in this issue, be careful about throwing stones....

Cheers,

McKee

[JohninWV]

John McKee with the voice of reason. Ditto.

[bluestar]

It should be noted that in label approval - due to changes in budget for TTB, turn over of staff, the vast increase in spirits labels in queue for approval, etc, etc, etc.......the number of experienced and knowledgable staff for approvals has plummeted. They even have wine approval agents working on the backlog of spirits labels...without the full knowledge of every last possible permutation of proper labeling for spirits.

The inevitable result of which is the errors that TTB have been making and thereby allowing the approved businesses of labeled products to believe they are acting in the letter of the law.

I guess my point here is to suggest that brands should reinvestigate each of their approved labels and resolve issues if there are any. I'll admit I was one of those that felt we had done everything correctly; used an experienced attorney, had faith that TTB agents were knowledgable of the statutes to catch and resolve errors before approval....and we still had errors. Sort of irks me, because I feel that even having done everything as best as I could, I was still let down by the process.

Amen.

We still see this problem. But also in the reverse form, where the reviewer finds non-existant problems. A recent few COLAs we submitted were returned for correction or rejected. In these cases, it turned out that the reviewer simply was wrong. In some cases, from their comments, it seemed like the reviewer had a background in wine labeling, and misapplied some of the requirements there to spirits. In most cases, a simple rebuttal moved the application along quickly, and the submitted COLA was approved. One "problem" cropped up repeatedly: misunderstanding that there was no requirement for a whiskey to state that it was aged in a new charred oak barrel. In each case we simply explained that such a statement was required nowhere in the CFR because the use of such a barrel was required for the designated spirit type.

I agree, in many cases there is no intention of misconduct by the distillery. My opening post I think points out my belief it was a problem of the TTB's own making for the reasons John McKee later reiterates. The fact that the TTB felt it necessary to put it into a FAQ makes clear that the CFR requirements just aren't clear enough to many, whether because of the difficulty in digesting it or the many extant examples on the shelf that don't follow it, suggesting incorrect interpretations are acceptable to the TTB.

But there is another cautionary note in this tale: don't assume because someone was allowed by the TTB to do something once before, that it is correct. While maybe not nefarious, I know more than one new distiller who felt it reasonable to submit COLAs that after the conflict with the CFR was pointed out to them, reasoned that since someone else had it approved once before, they might as well try. Given the porosity of the TTB reviews currently, I am not so sure that trying to take advantage of their prior errors in approval in this way is good counsel.

[Gretchen Bass]

Anyone know if a label will be approved with a blank to be filled in for the age statement?

Ex: Aged a minimum of ______ months?

[bluestar]

Anyone know if a label will be approved with a blank to be filled in for the age statement?

Ex: Aged a minimum of ______ months

Read the TTBs description of what information can be changed without re-approval of the label. One of the things that can be changed is the length of time declared in an aging statement, so long as it is truthful and does not involve any other change in the approved label to be made. For example, you have a straight whiskey with the statement "Aged a minimum of three years", you can change that to "Aged a minimum of two years" or "Aged a minimum of four years" (so long as it is true), but you can't change that to "Aged a minimum of one year" (because then it would not meet the requirement for being a straight).

[Gretchen Bass]

My question is can you write in the age statement? This batch may have been aged for 1 year in barrels but the next batch needed another couple of months so was aged 1 year 2 months. My thinking is that I need to be price conscious regarding printing #s of labels when you are doing small runs of a few barrels, etc. So you have a generic statement that is approved: IE Aged a minimum of ___ months. or Aged ___ years ____ months. and then you write in the blank space when the bottles are filled.

[P.T. Wood]

Gretchen,

We had to have proof and percent on the label for approval but since that is a part of the label you can change without resubmitting we where comfortable with having our labels printed with a blank space for that information. The TTB is mainly concerned with label accuracy and not so much if it is printed or hand written. hope that helps.

[P.T. Wood]

I just reread sorry my mind was on proof, age statement they did not have a problem with being left as a Aged___

[H-TownDistiller]

My question is can you write in the age statement? This batch may have been aged for 1 year in barrels but the next batch needed another couple of months so was aged 1 year 2 months. My thinking is that I need to be price conscious regarding printing #s of labels when you are doing small runs of a few barrels, etc. So you have a generic statement that is approved: IE Aged a minimum of ___ months. or Aged ___ years ____ months. and then you write in the blank space when the bottles are filled.

Gretchen, We were allowed this option, however; on the COLA submission, they required all blanks on the label to be filled in, even if its a range. They required us to make a note on the submission that stated that the information in the blank would vary from batch to batch.