cbenoit

We're in Toronto and required to register with the FDA and get a Foreign Facility Registration #, and agree to FDA inspections here in Canada. We also have to give the FDA advance notice of every shipment into the U.S., or CBP won't release the cargo. FDA can and does take samples from pallets on occasion.

Can you deliver locally? If so, then you can probably ship as well, although USPS won't handle beverage alcohol. With FedEx and UPS, you've got to have an alcohol agreement attached to your shipping account.

My previous posts weren't aimed at Chip's current situation, just best practices for people running businesses. And yea, if you believe you have a legitimate cause to object to a discovery demand or order, definitely make it, or you'll lose your opportunity. If you bring it up later, the court will be less sympathetic. There's no role for encryption-as-protection against civil litigation. If you're seen to be obstructing the litigation, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. By all means vigorously protest discovery demands, but don't destroy records. And encrypting them won't get help you if the other party has a legitimate reason to see the records:

James, encryption is great for protecting against unwanted intruders, but not against court subpoenas. If you hand it over encrypted, they'll just tell you to unlock it and take off the password. Refusing to cooperate in discovery or otherwise obstructing (by handing in a damaged device) is not a good choice. A court instruction directing a jury to make adverse inferences against you because you were responsible for missing records = you lose. There are serious fines and sanctions for spoilage. If you have really embarrassing personal records on the device being subpoenaed that you really don't want the other party to see and aren't relevant to the litigation, you can petition the court to have a neutral third party vendor comb through your phone/computer to ensure only relevant docs are handed over. But that could be a lot more expensive for you than the initial investment of having a company-only device.

Yea, James, I agree that's pretty natural / justified, but god forbid if you're ever in a similar situation, don't do it! Here is a good rule to live by: if you anticipate litigation, don't delete anything; doing so is "spoliation of evidence". This is an area where technology has left the law in the dust, and as a result a lot of people are doing things that are entirely reasonable to most of us, but seriously frowned on by the courts. For example, none of us would think twice about deleting family texts off our company phone before returning it. A fair minded person would have no problem concluding that personal texts from your spouse are not relevant. But the law doesn't trust you to do that ad hoc with possible litigation on the horizon. Discovery used to be so much simpler when everything was on paper and in file cabinets. You knew you were doing something bad if you shredded those company records in the filing cabinet as a result of something going sideways. We don't feel the same way about every text message because invariably all those digital records don't have the same weight as our old paper files. All the time now across the country people are getting subpoenaed, being asked to turn over their entire laptop as part of a lawsuit - yikes! Rule #1: write every text message and email in such a way that you would be comfortable with it being read back to you by opposing counsel in a courtroom. When that's not doable, call the person. Rule #2: as soon as viable (it'll seem like a waste of money), get a dedicated company phone and computer. Then #1 starts to become doable; mind you #1 is still a good rule to live by for your personal phone and computer as well (just ask Governor McDonnell and his wife). Rule #3: adopt an official Company Records Management policy, especially if you can't help yourself with Rule #1. The ABA website gives an example here. Basically what this policy does is apply some order to saving and deleting of files. So, for example, if can't bring yourself to give up forwarding chain letters or writing personal notes from the company computer/phone, then you should at least have a policy where those types of "records" get deleted on a scheduled basis. E.g., once or twice a year on pre-arranged dates you go through your inbox and sort things out that need to be saved and delete the rest. If it's done on an approved company schedule, courts are sympathetic - with the giant, huge caveat that if you sense litigation is on the horizon, you absolutely must stop deleting. Anyway, best wishes for Chip, hang in there sir.

In British Columbia, it's 50,000 liters of finished product per year, and then between 50,000 to 100,000 liters there's a graduated increase of provincial levy until you get to 100,000.

Certainly seems insane that "the law does not allow for warnings". I think this is a really interesting issue for distilleries. So many people want to learn the art, and proactively contact distilleries insisting that they want to work for free to learn the ropes. If you didn't know better, it would be very tempting to take them up on their offer of help with cleaning, bottling in exchange for teaching them distillation. Now, I'm not a labor lawyer, but I had a conversation with an agent for the worker's comp board of the Province of Ontario, and he laid out to me a very clear framework, one which I thought was quite sensible. First, he said there is no prohibition in Ontario on for-profit companies having volunteers come by. But whether a person is a volunteer will be determined by how you interacted with them, not how you chose to label them. Basically, don't attempt to direct or control them in any way like you might with an intern/trainee/employee. Don't even say "be here at 9am". Say "We'll be doing [x] at 9am, you're welcome to come by". Definitely don't schedule individuals with conveyed expectations that they show up. Treat all volunteers as you would an elderly church lady who wandered in on a Sunday after service and said she loved labeling and asked if it'd be alright if she put some labels on bottles for a while to relax. Anyway, take it for what it's worth (which is probably not much for everyone outside Ontario), but I thought it was good advice generally.

License to Swill: D.C.’s Unique Booze Laws Allow a Way Around the Middleman. Guess Who Isn’t Happy? http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/youngandhungry/2013/08/07/license-to-swill-d-c-s-unique-booze-laws-allow-a-way-around-the-middleman-guess-who-isnt-happy/ One thing the (very good) article doesn't mention is that many DC licensed wholesalers are actually MD/VA wholesalers. The Bud Light trucks roll in with Maryland plates.

I think it'd be great if TTB promulgated a "craft" designation / certification. State governments that do this will be helping build a reputable brand for their spirits. The British Columbia government earlier this year released a "certified craft" designation for distilleries in the province. Distilleries have to apply for the "Craft Distillery" designation from the province's ABC. The requirements are: 1) All products must be fermented and distilled at the licensed distillery site using 100 per cent BC agricultural inputs; and 2) All products must be produced utilizing traditional spirit making techniques. The production of spirit cooler products or other highly processed products are not permitted, nor is the use of neutral grain spirits in the production of any products; and 3) The distillery has an annual production of finished products below 50,000 litres. "Finished products" is defined to mean bottled and ready to sell. Putting aside the 100% local inputs, I think it's a great definition. They also say when you apply for a craft designation, they'll combine distilleries that have any combined ownership/management. And less anyone doubts their seriousness, the ABC requires a "signed statutory declaration", along with extensive and periodic auditing and information sharing with the Federal Excise authorities. Edited to add this thought: I think the "USDA Organic" logo would be a good model. "TTB Distilled Craft" - awesome!

TTB just issued a Circular on the use of social media in advertising beverage alcohol: http://www.ttb.gov/industry_circulars/archives/2013/13-01.html In short, they say that any media used by a TTB-regulated industry member that's intended to induce sales is subject to TTB regulations and must contain the standard required statements. But also - what's noteworthy to me is that TTB did not pick up DISCUS' "basic principle" of age affirmation. To me, this says that at some point TTB rule-writers thought about it, decided it was too inane, and dropped it. Good for them! Let's all now discontinue this particular charade (unless of your course your state says otherwise, which would be new to me).

I don't share the view that it's "more" regulation if you aren't increasing the number of agency "adjudications" (in the broad admin-law sense; basically anything an agency does). For example, I wouldn't consider it to be a new burden if TTB gave the same weight to the words "Produced by" that "Distilled by" already enjoys. Entities that bottled others' spirits would write "Commissioned by [entity name]" instead.

Congrats Mash!! Also available for retail here: http://www.federalspirits.com/collections/vendors?q=Appalachian+Mountain+Spirits

I think the far more interesting question here is not what this means for ADI, but what the relationship between ACDA and DISCUS will be, given ACDA's stated purpose. The ACDA distilleries are also DISCUS affiliate members (haven't confirmed one by one, someone please chime in if there's not straight overlap). Will ACDA and DISCUS work lockstep, or will we see the same divergence as we see between the Beer Institute and the Brewers Association, currently butting heads over the the BEER Act and SmallBREW Act. Distillers will in short order have very clear signposts to evaluate ACDA. Presumably, for example, they support the "Distillery Excise Tax Reform Act of 2013" (HR 1806) that was introduced a few weeks ago. It cuts the excise tax for small distilleries to $2.70 a gallon for the first 60,000 gallons, and even gives strong direction to the IRS to promulgate regulations to ensure that no group that produces more than 60,000 gallons benefits. Mark Gorman of DISCUS has said, however, that his organization doesn't support an excise cut at this time. Rep. Tom Reed's office has worked with DISCUS on a draft spirits excise tax cut bill that, unlike last year's HR 777 and HR 1806, would apply to any producer's first 65,000 gallons, and also struck out the corporate control test for producer. I.e., a tax cut for all. If this bill did get introduced, we'd actually have a complete parallel to the competing beer bills. Could be that I missed it, but I'd love to hear each organization's view of HR 1806. Also will be interesting to see whether ACDA takes over other DISCUS functions, like being the intermediary for USDA's Market Access Program. Finally, my two cents. ADI will continue to be the focal point for the industry because it excels at bringing lots of people together, no matter where they're at. No barriers to entry. There is a need for some more organization around lobbying, but ACDA would need to broaden its base a lot. Until you have high overhead full time office space in DC and are in a position to hire in-house former committee staffers and put other advocacy shops on a payroll, you need to go the other route - hard core grass routes (think of the internet community and SOPA). Asking $500 a year from DSPs will amount to nothing unless you have an army of letter writers behind you.

Hi Vintage, A bill hasn't yet been introduced for this Congressional session, but it will be, so stay tuned. The SmallBREW Act beer excise bill has been introduced: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr494ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr494ih.pdf Here's your best bet to stay informed about legislative issues on the beer side: http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/excise-taxes

Ralph, the hearing isn't about whiskey or for any business in particular, it's a notice & comment period for all interested persons to comment on the proposed US-EU free trade agreement- the "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" (TTIP). ADI will be submitting a letter after feedback from members, similar to the one the organization submitted for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations: http://goo.gl/dYb9i That letter goes into the issue a bit, and how it can be resolved.

Kind of glad we don't have this in America, although I guess it's harmless: http://www.alexanderandjames.com/ From bottom of the FAQ: Question: Who is Alexander & James? Answer: Alexander & James (A&J for short) is an online spirits store brought to you by the global drinks specialist Diageo. Named for two celebrated men in whisky: Sir Alexander Walker II and James Buchanan, Alexander & James is dedicated to making the craft, heritage and passion that go into making fine spirits easily accessible and contemporary. You'd think it'd be cheaper that other places, but I checked a bottle of Oban 14yo and it was 5 pounds more on the Diageo site than on DrinksDirect.co.uk. Although this makes more sense if A&J is kind of like Caskers.com - not an actual retailer, but just an internet marketing site... call it the "4th tier".

Dick, thanks, will call tomorrow. Scott, yes, just replied. To all: Happy to have just helped Atelier Vie LLC jump straight from New Orleans to Washington, DC: http://ateliervie.com/ateliervie/first-bottle-of-toulouse-red-sold-in-washington-dc/

Hi all, I'm a DC licensed retailer (off-premise), and am dedicated to promoting genuine craft spirits (no private label offerings). I sell online at http://www.federalspirits.com/ - feedback on the website always appreciated. The site is new (but functional), and I haven't done anything to market it yet (selling through word of mouth for now). I want to put together a decent sized inventory before going live with advertising. As a DC retailer, I can buy direct from suppliers outside of the District if the particular product I'm sourcing isn't already offered by a DC wholesaler. When you send me an invoice, I take it to the ABC and fill out an import permit form and pay the tax, and then send you the permit which accompanies the shipment. Shipping a couple bottles is expensive: the import permits are $5 + shipping isn't cheap. But if you're coming to DC, or have some other economical way to get your product here, please do PM me or e-mail me (available on the site) and bring a few bottles that I can buy for resale. Hopefully sooner than later I'll be in the position where I can order by the case, but I'm not there quite yet. Also, am limiting deliveries to DC for now, will explore out of state shipping options later on.

This whole thing was so weird. My reaction upon hearing the news was that this was an incredible example of the all too typical scenario where management wants to court Wall St. by improving margins without raising prices and damns everything else. And yet, assuming Beam management had a passing familiarity with Maker's customers, the reaction couldn't have come as any surprise. Management couldn't have executed that poor a cost-benefit analysis (and if they did, I'd expect the Board to roll heads - we'll see). Now, I never subscribe to conspiracy theories... but this is the liquor world after all, where shamelessness is the governing ethos. This whole dust up (in addition to a somewhat successful rush at stores) did convince newspapers across the country to run stories stating with credulity that Maker's Mark is a product where demand outstrips supply and scarcity is an issue. This news would run counter to the casual consumer's observation of Maker's being a reliable a staple everywhere from duty free's to bullet proof liquor stores. And personally speaking, I'd rank as the top threat to Maker's brand its market saturation, and the association of Makers as pure commodity among a new generation of consumers. But what finally did convince me that this was all likely a stunt was the slickness of their retreat. Exhibit A is the retreat's catchy slogans and polished website. Exhibit B is the letter from Rob & Bill Samuels (oh! family business!), as opposed to a letter from actual decision makers. Speculation aside though, this fiasco/stunt does demonstrate management's disregard for the people who pay money for Maker's Mark. Either management hasn't bothered to get to know them, or they think they're chumps. Embarrassing for everyone.

jeffw - definitely not trying to make any judgments here, or promote or detract any production technique. Just trying to help my customers by giving them a spectrum of production questions, each returning a firm, non-subjective answer. Tom & Nick, thanks for the support and feedback! Agreed that the "single distillate" thing is awkward, but I guess I was trying to phrase it so as to lock down whether the distillate came from a spirit run of a particular wash, or whether the spirit was mixed with other spirit (including in house) following the spirit run. Maybe that's getting too deep, but at the same time I'd like to avoid having assumptions embedded into the questions, because lord knows that's a slippery slope. Nick, to your other points: Enzymes - that's great, adding it, thanks. Still - agreed, will switch to just "batch" or "continuous". Ageing - yea, I'm inclined to agree, I'll just merge the wood type barrel question into "What type and size of barrel?" Will share soon!

Hi all. In an effort to help my customers further their spirits education and figure out what they like, I've put together a draft "Questions to Ask When Buying Craft Spirits" pamphlet. Would love your feedback. I don't want to presume (in this guide) to tell customers what each answer should yield by way of taste; just want to help them gather hard & relevant info. Questions to ask when buying craft spirits: Is it a blend of spirits, or distillate that was produced from a single mix of grains ("single distillate")? If Single Distillate: Ingredients: What's the "mash bill"? (I.e., what feed stock was used?) For whiskey: If more than one grain, then what percentage of each grain makes up the mash bill? Were any of the grains malted? (i.e., were grains sprouted before being "mashed", aka boiled together?) [*]For rum: Sugar cane? Molasses? Something else? [*]Process: What type of still was used? (Pot, Column, or Hybrid) Was a single still used, or more than one type? What size of still(s)? Did the distillate pass through on one run of the still, or multiple? Ageing: Was it aged? If yes, then: What size of barrel? (Anywhere from 5-55 gallon barrels) New barrel or one that's already aged alcohol? If used, then with what (e.g. old bourbon barrel, old port barrel, etc.) What type of wood? (E.g. American Oak, French Oak...) Were there wood chips in the barrel? (and if so, what type of wood?) Barrel's char level? (Light #1 - Heavy #4) Anything else? (E.g. accelerated ageing techniques). If Blend: Short answer is that all bets are off, unless the Blender or Bottler can answer the above for each spirit that was blended together. Even if they can answer though, they may not, as leading Master Blenders often won't share. And be wary of casual references when discussing blends. For example, it's not uncommon for whiskey that has a mash bill that is only partly rye grain (maybe less than half) to be referred to as "rye whiskey". So if someone says "a blend of rye whiskies", there could actually be all sorts of other grains used. On the other hand, some blenders (e.g. John Hall of Forty Creek) actually distill individual grains one at a time (so single-grain mash bills) and do their artistry on the ageing side of the equation. Blending is definitely an art. Master blenders have a very tough job in producing a consistent flavor profile for what may be a huge production run. But the bottom line on blended spirits is that you're generally going to have to accept your consumer education being limited to associations between brand names and tastes, as opposed to quantifiable information generally available for a single distillate.

Thanks JohninWV, that's very helpful, and yes, was a fan before hand and was glad to find you on Country Vintner! Looking forward to shared success for us all.

The worst I've heard is "Handcrafted Vodka Made From [Local] Water" + "Distilled & Bottled By", where the DSP just cut down bulk GNS. I own a new liquor store here in DC, and am very interested in offering my customers authentic craft spirits. Here's my working definition of "craft" (which I share with customers): Whiskey: The distillate has got to have come damn near 100% from their still. No blending of sourced whiskey, but I can't fault some GNS being used to level up the proof. (Right? Feedback welcome.) Vodka & Gin: Sourced GNS should at least pass through the DSP's still. I figure if I insisted on grain to glass, I'd have nothing to sell. I rely a lot on Facebook to vet distillers. Anyone who's doing the hard work will proudly show it off on their distillery's Facebook page (I hope), and this method has been pretty revealing. Lots of websites for "craft" spirits which say the right things, but when you go to their Facebook page there's no pictures of actual work. Also, will be starting up Internet sales this month. And as a DC Liquor Store, I can source from anywhere, no wholesalers or minimums needed. Am very keen on connecting with real distillers out there so that we can promote this movement and make money together.

I think some ABC store systems may require you to register with GS1 so that you can get a Company Prefix # as part of your GTIN. I gather it's the same with Wal-Mart. When I was thinking about the number of bar codes needed (e.g., need a new one if you change label, or do any change that the customer would perceive) plus bar codes for cases, it didn't seem worth it to just order one-off bar codes. May as well join and get the Company Prefix and a large allotment.

+1 to everything Ralph said. Support entirely.