"White Whiskey" part 2

[delaware_phoenix]

While I'm on the subject, Buffalo Trace White Dog is officially classified merely as whiskey, as is one of Heaven Hill's Try Box releases. I am assured by both producers that both products spent the minimum amount of time in oak containers to qualify as whiskey. In the case of Try Box Rye Whiskey, the container was new charred oak, as required. The phrase "straight from the still" is what the TTB calls a 'fanciful' descriptor. It was submitted and approved months before the product was released.

So HH is basically lying when they say their product is "straight from the still"?

https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/viewColaDetails.do?action=publicFormDisplay&ttbid=10362001000171

Even on the back label text they describe the TryBox where their master distillers sample the spirit. They totally imply that this whiskey is straight from the still. But it's not, you say?

The TTB completely relies on the statements of the distilleries/brand owner on a COLA. They don't do a chemical analysis to see if there's any oak flavor components.

But until 1938 there was no US legal requirement for whiskey to be in oak to be classified as whiskey. Whiskey was a grain based spirit just a rum is a molasses/sugar cane spirit, tequila is a blue agave spirit, brandy is a fruit spirit. Even the term whiskey is derived from the Irish uisce beatha and Scottish uisge beatha. Both terms refer to clear unaged spirits. The current SOI are regulatory fictions.

Many whiskey consumers don't even know why whiskey is brown. They have to be educated that all spirits come from the still as clear spirits.

[Paul Tomaszewski]

I have had discussions with folks in labeling/formulation for submitted COLA's and how I can or cannot use certain statements that would be considered confusing or misleading to the consumer. Just my opinion, but when a statement such as this is made:

"This particular Trybox Series New Make, when aged in new, charred, white oak barrels WOULD become the award-winning Rittenhouse Rye Whisky."

Now, based on the proper TTB officials telling me that if you are making a completely unaged whiskey it MUST be a corn whiskey, and HH implying that this whiskey is unaged (but it's obviously not a corn whiskey), that seems quite confusing to me.

[Artesian Distillers]

Due to this being a follow-up to a past post, I wanted to provide this in a new post so all interested parties may see how/if this will affect them. So I believe I have a final word from the TTB on the "White Whiskey" labeling issue. Basically, here goes, if you use the word "white" or "white dog" or anything that has "white," in conjunction with "whisk(e)y," you can put it on the front label. However, "white dog" (or white or white whatever) may not appear in close proximity with the class and type disignation "whiskey." Furthermore, and I quote, "the product is not allowed to be classified as a 'whiskey' if the product is unaged UNLESS it is a corn whisky" (I hope by now we all know what a corn whisky is). If the product fits the standard of identity for "corn whisky," than it must be so designated on the label, which I understand as meaning that if you are talking about an UNAGED, CORN whiskey, you MUST label it with the designator of "corn," as opposed to simply "whiskey." This came directly from the director of formulation for ALFD. So, if you don't like it, disagree, or believe it to be untrue, there ya go. Does this mean that all "white whiskey" products are going to be forced to change their labels? Maybe eventually, maybe never, but I would mentally prepare myself that any unaged, whiskies that are not "corn whiskey" products may come to be forced to be labeled as "spirits distilled from grain," or something close to that. Finally, if you have "white" on the front label in "close proximity" to the word "whiskey," you may have to change that as well.

Job well done!

what matters most, is that TTB actually replied or you got a hold of them.. It is a successful feat in itself.

[Lenny]

Somewhat of a follow up to this whole subject...

I've been dealing with cola registry for a 100% malted barley based whiskey that is intended to fit within the 'white whiskey' category.

After the initial submission I was asked to provide process description to qualify or disqualify this product being called a "white whiskey". After explaining that we did indeed age the spirt for a short time in oak casks we were then told that more space was required between the wording "small batch white" and "whiskey" (the lines are stacked). I got a ttb rep on the phone to clarify this and was told that there was no set amount of space that they could prescribe but I should add *more* space (thanks guys - very helpful).

I pushed a bit harder and asked if the issue was surrounding the descriptor "white". What if it was Silver Whiskey or Shine Whiskey (both of which are on the shelves and do not have significant space between the descriptor and "whiskey". The rep sounded a bit confused and pretty much stated that they need to control this new expansion of offerings that are being called "white" and that I should just add more space.

I don't quite get why, if the TTB is seeing an influx of clear colored whiskey offerings, they can't establish a fair standard to allow such a product to be called white, sliver, clear, whatever ...whiskey, rather than disqualifying certain adjatives that would indeed help the public understand what sort of whiskey offering it really is. It's done with rum and the public seems to get it. Very frustrating.

[paul@mbroland.com]

Think of it this way. The federal government is a machine. It has no heart, no soul, no feelings. When you work with/speak to the "system," it replies based on the way it is programmed, like a machine (computer). If you think it needs reprogramming, contact your congressman. Right now we (micro/craft distillers) already have enough on their plate with HR 777, so throwing more at them is probably a battle for another day. With regards to why you're being told what you are, someone in the system is trying to take the current regs that do not take into account what is going on with clear grain-based spirits that can or can't legally be called a whiskey. It's basically doing like Number Johnny 5 and they're screaming "malfunction!" Therefore, they're doing what they can with their existing system/regs and trying to make it make sense. You may not agree, but you're not in charge. I think we all would agree that some of the regs need some fine-tuning. However, until then, this is the world we live/work in. I don't blame the TTB, they're understaffed and trying to make sense of something that cannot properly be dealt with until the laws are rewritten.

[cowdery]

"White Whiskey" is not a category and the TTB has no intention of creating a "white whiskey" category or of allowing a de facto one to be created. As such, they will allow you to get whiskey close but not actually with white, especially not as the official type descriptor. This is said recognizing that consistency has not been TTB's strong suit of late.

A simple example would be "White Colorado Whiskey" is okay, but "Colorado White Whiskey" is not.

Try this: "Deerhammer White. A Whiskey."

[nick jones]

Think of it this way. The federal government is a machine... If you think it needs reprogramming, contact your congressman.

I have never heard it put so well.

[bluestar]

True, but in this case they are trying to be consistent, sadly. All they are saying is that they want the reader of the label not to confuse the fanciful name of your product with the category. The category is whiskey. So, if you say white whiskey, it sounds like a new category. Yes, it is subjective, and our is not to reason why except in as much as we can get better at getting through COLA on the first try ;-)

[Lenny]

True, but in this case they are trying to be consistent, sadly. All they are saying is that they want the reader of the label not to confuse the fanciful name of your product with the category. The category is whiskey. So, if you say white whiskey, it sounds like a new category. Yes, it is subjective, and our is not to reason why except in as much as we can get better at getting through COLA on the first try ;-)

But the are not being consistant - they are being capricious and arbitrary by my reconing. My label was designed in acordinance with every ttb issued document I could find. They have approved and continue to approve (as recently as 2 months ago from what I could find) other lables that use the word "white" on one line with "whiskey" on the next. If it was simply a matter of the TTB taking a stand that a fanciful name can not appear within a designated distance of the catagory, that would be understandable. I don't believe that is what they are doing becuase they have never made that clear in their rejections. The most I've gotten from them is that neither the words "white" or "silver" can appear in close proximate to the word "whiskey".

[cowdery]

If you show them one or more examples of approved labels that you believe are the same as yours, that may help.

[bluestar]

If you show them one or more examples of approved labels that you believe are the same as yours, that may help.

Agreed, consistency definitely is lacking. I have also seen a few "White Whiskeys", one line, one typeface. I think DD is an example, a wheat whiskey short aged in uncharred oak. Of course, they may instead just ask the others to stop using their labels, Arrrgh.

[Lenny]

Of course, they may instead just ask the others to stop using their labels, Arrrgh.

I chose not to cite other labels for this reason. I did make some headway on Friday, and was actually able to get a TTB rep to appoligize for errors they might have made. Once I get an approval I'll make it known what they are willing to let pass for a lightly aged malt whiskey with no notable color.

[bluestar]

I chose not to cite other labels for this reason. I did make some headway on Friday, and was actually able to get a TTB rep to appoligize for errors they might have made. Once I get an approval I'll make it known what they are willing to let pass for a lightly aged malt whiskey with no notable color.

That would be great. I think the TTB and the micro distillers are all learning together with the explosion of products in this business. But which do you think is more fun, being the distiller or being the government representative?

[Lenny]

Quick update - I received my COLA approval yesterday on a spirit/label that fits within the sector that everyone (but the TTB) understands as white whiskey. I was shown NO flexibility or willingness to reason when it came to the following iterations...

Small Batch White

WHISKEY

Small Batch Silver

WHISKEY

White Tail

WHISKEY

White Mountain

WHISKEY

...The final iterations that was finally accepted:

Whitewater

-fresh from the still-

WHISKEY

What are you going to do? It's the government. Even though there are slews of other labels that they have approved with the words white and whiskey in close proximity (line break between the words), it seems that they are no longer willing to allow such a treatment.

[bluestar]

It will be interesting to see what we hear after submitting our COLA for our unaged corn whiskey. While we will have the phrase "White Lightning" as part of the fanciful name, it will be separated from the whiskey designation by an image. It seems that separation may be what they were requiring of you, and I agree that seems to be a more conservative requirement than applied in the past.