Jump to content

Swiss IGP for exclusive use of the word "Absinthe"


Recommended Posts

I'm copying and attaching a letter, received yesterday morning from David Nathan-Maister, who is the only person to whom I humbly defer on the topic of absinthe. I may occasionally defer to others, but not humbly. ;) David, owner of Oxygenée Ltd., is arguably the most well-respected absinthe expert in the world. If you're an absinthe producer—or have even the vaguest plan to become an absinthe producer—you owe him a debt of gratitude, whether you know it or not.

So, if you're an absinthe producer—or have even the vaguest plan to become an absinthe producer—and you have the means to respond, I strongly urge you to do so.

If you feel you don't have a dog in this fight, you're mistaken. The Swiss government is well-known for exerting pressure where needed in order to protect their national identity and products associated with it. If this measure passes—and it will if unopposed—you can expect the fight to come to your door fairly soon. I just spoke with David this morning, and I assure you the sense of urgency in the letter below is not exaggerated.

May 23, 2010

Dear Absinthe Producer,

On March 31, 2010, the Swiss Interprofession filed for an IGP (Indication de Provenance Géographique) for the Val-de-Travers that specifically and independently protects not only the words the words “La Bleue”, but also “Absinthe”and “Fée Verte”.

Switzerland and the European Union are bound by several treaties, including the Agreement on Exchange of Agricultural Products dated April 30, 2002, and in particular, Appendix 8 relating to Wines and Spirits. As a result, E.U. producers will soon no longer be able to use the word “absinthe” as a product description. It's likely that this restriction would be extended to US producers (and in practice distributors) as well.

We strongly feel this action is inappropriate, as the word “absinthe” itself refers to a plant, and a type of liquor historically derived from it. The term “absinthe” does not refer to a specific region of Switzerland, nor does it imply that absinthe cannot be produced outside of the Val-de-Travers, as history proves that absinthe (including absinthe of the highest quality) was and is produced in other countries, including France, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, the USA and others. From the Belle Epoque through the present day, the Val de Travers has in fact accounted for only a tiny fraction of worldwide absinthe production, and in the modern era only an infinitesimally small fraction of green absinthe production.

Our legal counsel has indicated this IGP will be approved unless swift action is taken to oppose it within 90 days of the filing date, which is less than 30 days from the time this letter was written.

The consequences of this IGP being adopted unmodified will be catastrophic for absinthe producers outside the Val de Travers, and also for those companies in Europe and the US which distribute and sell non-Val de Travers absinthes.

There is some local opposition to the IGP in Switzerland itself from absinthe producers outside the Val de Travers, but if this is successful it may simply lead to the IGP being modified to include all Switzerland - no use at all to producers elsewhere. What is needed is urgent and concerted action from producers and distributors worldwide to stop this historical and geographic travesty in its tracks.

We are writing this letter to request your urgent support to fight this action. Without adequate support, E.U. producers will no longer be free to use terms like “Absinthe” and “Fée Verte“. Our legal counsel is confident that the Swiss petition can be defeated, but there is no time for delay.

You may be aware that this legal team successfully overturned the French decree on fenchone and pinocamphone recently, and we have complete confidence in their professionalism and ability to defeat this matter.

We are asking for your participation, which is requested in the amount of one thousand Euros (€ 1.000,00). Your contribution will provide the support we need to fight this petition, and no more will be asked of you. The money will go directly to the account of the legal team, who have agreed to undertake this work at a substantially reduced tariff. Any surplus funds received will be returned by them to the donors on a pro-rata basis.

Please forward payment directly to NIXON PEABODY, our legal representatives at the coordinates below, reference the phrase "ABSINTHE IGP" together with your name and business when making payment, and inform us of your payment via email. Please advise if you have any questions, but please do so quickly, as we have less than 30 days to respond.

The clock is ticking, and time is running out. If everyone sits on their hands and hopes for the best, the IGP will be approved. We must act now, with the greatest urgency to stop this. Please join this urgent campaign immediately.

Sincerely,

Ted A. Breaux tabreaux@gmail.com

David Nathan-Maister david@oxygenee.com

Legal Counsel:

Legal Counsel:

Arnaud de Senilhes

Avocat à la Cour Associé

Managing Partner

NIXON PEABODY

32, rue de Monceau

75008 Paris, France

+33 (0) 170723600

adesenilhes@nixonpeabody.com

Nixon Peabody International, LLP

Crédit Agricole de d’Ile-de’France

Bank Code – 18206

Guichet Code – 00432

Account – 60235222423

IBAN – FR76 1820 6004 3260 2352 2242 332

BIC – AGRIFRPP882

Publication de la demande d'IGP pour l'Absinthe,la Fée verte et La Bleue

Berne, 31.03.2010

L'Office fédéral de l'agriculture publie aujourd'hui dans la Feuille officielle suisse du commerce, la demande d'enregistrement en indication géographique protégée (IGP) des dénominations «Absinthe», «Fée verte» et «La Bleue» .

Les trois dénominations désignent un seul et même produit, une boisson spiritueuse élaborée à partir d'alcool éthylique d'origine agricole, d'eau et d'un mélange spécifique de plantes. Leur enregistrement comme IGP a notamment pour objectif d'éviter les imitations et usurpations et de protéger tant la renommée que l'originalité du produit. La zone géographique de transformation est le district du Val-de-Travers dans le canton de Neuchâtel .

Né dans le Val-de-Travers à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, ce produit a rapidement connu un succès important, qui a contribué au développement économique de cette région. Au-delà de sa valeur gustative intrinsèque, ce produit doit également sa notoriété à plusieurs autres éléments, notamment aux rites complexes qui accompagnent sa dégustation ainsi qu'à la passion qu'ont suscité ses supposés vertus et méfaits. Même la période de prohibition, qui a duré de 1910 à 2005, n'a pas suffi à étouffer le lien unissant ce produit avec son terroir du Val-de-Travers. La réputation de l'Absinthe n'a cessé de croître, au gré de son histoire mouvementée et des mythes qui l'entourent .

Le registre des appellations d'origine ou des indications géographiques permet de protéger les noms géographiques ou traditionnels désignant des produits agricoles et des produits agricoles transformés dont l'identité et les principales caractéristiques sont déterminées par leur origine géographique. Lorsqu'un nom est protégé, son utilisation est réservée aux producteurs de l'aire géographique définie, pour autant que ceux-ci respectent un cahier des charges précis. La publication des demandes d'enregistrement est soumise à une enquête publique. Toute personne justifiant d'un intérêt ainsi que les cantons peuvent s'opposer à l'enregistrement pendant un délai de trois mois .

Le registre fédéral des appellations d'origine et indications géographiques compte actuellement 27 enregistrements: 19 AOC et 8 IGP. La documentation est disponible sous www.blw.admin.ch (Thèmes > Production et ventes > Désignation des produits et promotion des ventes > Appellations d'origine) .

Google translation (with a little fixing up):

Publication of the application for PGI Absinthe, the Green Fairy and The Blue

Berne, 3-31-2010

The Federal Office of Agriculture published today in the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce, the application for registration of protected geographical indication (PGI) of the names "Absinthe", "Fée Verte" and "La Bleue".

The three names designate a single product, a spirit drink produced from ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, water and a mixture of specific plants. Their recording as PGI's objectives is to avoid imitation and theft and to protect the reputation as the original product. The geographical area of transformation is the district of Val-de-Travers in the canton of Neuchatel.

Born in Val-de-Travers in the late eighteenth century, this product has quickly gained an important success that has contributed to economic development in this region. Beyond its intrinsic flavor characteristics, this product also owes its fame to several factors, including the complex rituals that accompany the tasting and the passion that prompted its supposed virtues and evils. Even the period of prohibition, which lasted from 1910 to 2005, was not enough to stifle the link between the product and its terroir of Val-de-Travers. Absinthe's reputation has grown steadily, according to her turbulent history and myths surrounding it.

The register of appellations of origin or geographical indications can protect geographical or traditional designating agricultural products and processed agricultural products whose identity and key characteristics are determined by their geographical origin. When a name is protected, its use is limited to producers of the defined geographical area, provided that they meet a set of specifications. The publication of applications for registration shall be subject to a public inquiry. Any person with a legitimate interest and the townships may oppose the registration for a period of three months.

The federal register of protected designations of origin and geographical indications currently records 27 registrations: 19 AOC and 8 IPG. The documentation is available at: www.blw.admin.ch (Themes> Production and Sales> Description of products and sales promotion> Appellations of Origin).

Swiss IGP Letter.pdf

Swiss IGP Document.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its completely absurd that this is even a threat. Why its even legal to reserve words for certain regions after well over 100 years of free use is beyond my understanding, it seems crooked on all levels.

I would love to fight this, as should anyone interested in producing Absinthe outside of Switzerland. As a new business owner 1000 EU is not something I can easily part with though. I imagine most readers stopped reading when they got to the please send $1000 euro part... Is there anything else those of us that are interested can do rather than throw money at this problem?

A viral video perhaps asking for more reasonable donations?

Google translation (with a little fixing up):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tuthilltown has initiated a challenge to the EU definition of "whiskey" or "whisky" that specifically includes American Bourbon and Rye whiskeys by name. The Swiss move to own the term "absinthe" is another example of EU protectionism. I am taking action now with our NY Senator Gillebrand and Congressman Hinchey to challenge these inappropriate prohibitions. Below is my letter to both offices. I invite anyone equally concerned to use it and contact their Federal and State officials to initiate their own challenges and support ours. At this rate what is next, a claim by the French that "brandy" can not be used by any but a French brandy?? Please contact your Senators and Congressmen and register your concern and protest.

Letter text follows:

Sent today: 5/29/10

We have been attempting to wage a minor skirmish with the EU over the definition of “whisky/whiskey”. I have described the problem in previous emails.

In essence, the EU regulation for the sale of “whisky” or “whiskey” (American spelling) in European countries includes a specification that it must be aged minimum three (3) years in oak. The definition specifically includes by mention “American Bourbon and Rye Whiskey”, thus redefining American whiskeys which in the US Regulations have no minimum aging period required for designation “whiskey”. The prohibition enforced by the EU makes it necessary for such as our distillery which exports to the EU to remove the word “whiskey” from our labels entirely. US code defines “Scotch Whisky” and “Irish Whisky” as being products of those countries and made under their laws and does not extend to any requirements under US code. It’s their product and they can call it what they want. We ask only for quid pro quo. So far no apparent forward motion has been seen on this topic, though it limits international trade and reduces the opportunities for new distillers in the US, and adversely affects the balance of trade in favor of the EU.

Now the subject comes up again for the term “Absinthe” which is a generic term used by many producers in the US who currently make this product.

Please visit this link: http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1060

The forum link describes the actions being taken NOW by EU to prohibit use of the term, extending by treaty to the US.

It is time for the US to challenge these inappropriate protectionist actions and take back our own whiskey definition as well as protect the use of the generic term by American producers.

Please review the comments and copies of the documents in this link and let’s discuss strategy for taking action to remedy this situation as soon as possible.

Ralph Erenzo

Tuthilltown Spirits

Gardiner, NY

End of Text

Five years ago I made the pilgrimage to the "home" of absinthe, Pontelier FRANCE (not Switzerland), near the Swiss border in the Jura. It is the location of the Absinthe Museum and at least four absinthe distilleries, none of which are Swiss. Perhaps Ted Breaux will comment since he has the deep institutional knowledge of Absinthe. Is it Swiss as the Swiss claim, or French in origin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original commercial distilleries for the product called absinthe began in the late 1790's in Switzerland. In Couvet, which is in the Val-de-Travers. Howver, by 1805, Henri-Louis Pernod had established a new absinthe factory in Pontarlier, France to avoid the French import duties that he was incurring by making absinthe in Switzerland. Pontarlier became the major absinthe producing area in the world by the 1860's, if not before. At the height of absinthe's popularity there were many many absinthe distilleries and manufacturers in Pontarlier and the surrounding area.

So for more than a hundred years, there was much more production of absinthe outside Switzerland than within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone confirmed that this letter actually came from the alleged senders? Because it reads like a scam, especially the requirement of submission (with substantial payment) through their representative.

While I am no expert on international trade agreements, nor on the interaction of those treaties with EU rules, it seems unlikely that the Swiss government could take an action unilaterally that would bind EU members and, even less likely, the United States. The United States has bilateral agreements with some countries as well as with the EU to protect reciprocally the names of specificdistinctive products of national origin. We require them to protect Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey, for example, and we agree to protect Cognac and Tequila and what have you. We have never made an agreement that gives the other side carte blanche to protect anything it wants, now and in the future. These agreements are mutually negotiated. At best, all one country can do is prevent importation of offending products into its jurisdiction and declare its intention to seek protection internationally. It can't claim international protection unilaterally.

There's something hinky here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How might you suggest we confirm this Chuck. You make a very good point here and before we go off and pursue this with our Federal officials, perhaps this should be vetted to ensure it's for real. Thanks.

I will do some research on it. Perhaps someone more qualified than I in international trade issues will take a look at this and see if it has legs.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have personally spoken in person with Ted Breaux regarding this. The letter is genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have personally spoken in person with Ted Breaux regarding this. The letter is genuine.

Then can you address the issues in my post above?

There is a lot of chatter about this on various absinthe discussion boards, but it's all based on the same letter. There is an IGP web site, but it is in German and French. I found a little bit of information from other sources that seems to say that when an area receives IGP designation, producers in that area are permitted to put an IGP logo on their products. It doesn't say anything about preventing anyone, in Switzerland or anywhere else, from calling a product made elsewhere 'absinthe.'

I can see why this might be a problem for Swiss absinthe producers who are not located in the protected area, as it might put them at a competitive disadvantage if absinthe from Val de Travers is perceived by the consumer (rightly or wrongly) as more authentic than absinthe produced elsewhere, but I feel confident in saying that the contention that this automatically takes the word "absinthe" out of circulation in the EU and USA is surely false.

There is no law they can pass in Switzerland that applies in the United States. They can't stop you from making absinthe in Wisconsin any more than they can stop you from making swiss cheese in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin ABC can and the TTB can, but Switzerland can't. (Except, perhaps, in New Glarus.)

I withdraw my concerns about "the requirement of submission (with substantial payment) through their representative." I didn't read the letter carefully enough. It is, in fact, a solicitation of contributions to join their effort to fight this. I still contend they are overstating the threat to American producers, however,

And my suggestion is still that no one write any checks until they have a lot more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke to an authoritative source about this today and he referred me to TTB Industry Circular 2007-5, entitled "Use of the Term Absinthe for Distilled Spirits," which describes the rules for using the term "absinthe" on a label in the USA. It hasn't changed.

He also mentioned that Swiss regulations require absinthe to be produced from wormwood, which means as a practical matter the Swiss product cannot be sold in the US unless the level of thujone in the finished product falls below the level that FDA considers to be “thujone-free” (less than 10 parts per million).

Separate and apart from the issue of Switzerland’s effort to establish absinthe as a geographical indication of Switzerland, the Swiss product may not even be eligible for sale in the U.S. as described above. Consequently, even if the EU and Switzerland reach an agreement regarding the term “absinthe,” it would not necessarily have any bearing in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no legal definition of absinthe in the US. The TTB does not recognize absinthe as a type or class of spirit because it falls under the generic type "Distilled Spirits Specialty". In fact, Circular 2007-5 specifically disallows use of the term absinthe on a label in such a way as to imply that it is a specific type or class of spirit. Not that every distiller/importer doesn't place the word on the label in order to describe to the consumer that what is in the bottle might be absinthe. At least in the opinion of the producer/importer.

I think most of the products that have the word absinthe on the label, and some that don't, all contain grand wormwood, e.g. Artemisia absinthium. This isn't a regulated plant or ingredient. Merely, any food or beverage product using any of the Artemisia spp. must meet the definition of "thujone free" which is 10 ppm or less. At the time circular 2007-5 was issued, this was also the regulatory limit in the EU (where there was also an exception for bitters where the limit could be 35 ppm; so, many absinthes containing more than 10 ppm were sold as "bitters" in the EU).

There are apparently various trade agreements that the US has signed that supposedly means US producers might be required to not use a protected name even on existing products. But you can still find Wisconsin feta and California champagne.

btw, at the present time, the IGP has not been granted. Only a request to grant an IGP has been submitted. It's unclear who the Swiss Agriculture department will listen to. Since they don't make it easy for non-Swiss to respond regarding claims. AFAIK, comments from the public can be made until June 30th, 2010. What happens after that I don't know. Do they meet in secret and deliberate for weeks, months, years?

Footnote: The 10 ppm limit is not very relevant to describing whether a product that uses grand wormwood is an authentic absinthe or not. Some actual pre-Ban absinthe has come down to us across the sands of history, and often they were below 10 ppm, and nearly all were below 35 ppm. So the hallucinations were due to alcohol withdrawal in chronic alcoholics that were taken to a sanitarium to dry out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are apparently various trade agreements that the US has signed that supposedly means US producers might be required to not use a protected name even on existing products.

All agreements of which I am aware specify the actual names to be protected by both sides. I know of no agreement that says the EU can just hand us a list and we have to stop our producers from using those names (and no sane country would ever make such an agreement). Each name is negotiated individually.

Here, for example, is article 313 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a tri-lateral agreement among the USA, Canada, and Mexico (1993) "For purposes of standards and labeling, provides that the Parties shall recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey as distinctive products of the United States, Canadian Whiskey as a distinctive product of Canada, and Tequila and Mezcal as distinctive products of Mexico."

Granting the IGP for absinthe will have no effect on American absinthe producers. It doesn't even indicate an intention by Val de Travers producers to claim exclusive worldwide rights to the name. I know Ted Breaux and David Nathan-Maister are well respected, but they are grossly exaggerating the threat to absinthe producers outside of Switzerland in order to raise money for their effort to defeat this proposal, which is a direct threat to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck raises an interesting fact about our agreements with Canada and Mexico which are not in sync with the agreement with the EU on the definition of certain American whiskeys. The comments on What John Knows blog following his report on our recent fortunate agreement with GRANT. The topic turned to a cordial debate on what is and what is not "whiskey". The topic is not unlike the discussion on the white whiskey on this forum.

I raised the issue, not the first time, that new American distillers are prohibited from calling their legitimately made and approved American Bourbon Whiskey and American Rye Whiskey in the EU till their whiskey is three years in oak. The addition of the three year minimum is not traditionally part of the law, it is a recent (Bush Administration) addition to EU law. Here is the applicable regulation defining "whisky" in EU law and applying to all spirits sold in the EU and able to be called "whisky" or "whiskey":

Whisky or whiskey:

A spirit drink produced by the distillation of a mash of cereals

- saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or without other natural enzymes,

- fermented by the action of yeast,

- distilled at less than 94,8 % vol, so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,and matured for at least three years in wooden casks not exceeding 700 litres capacity.

One of the comments in the thread also made the point whiskey is made of "cereals" and not rice for instance, but rice is a cereal grain (according to Merriam Webster) There appears to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement on the simple question: What is Whiskey/Whisky? Not whether or not white whiskey is a legitimate whiskey or whiskey at all, not what State it's made in or if the oak is charred enough or the oak is new. Many very vocal traditionalists feel there is only one authoritative voice on what the term "whiskey/whisky" means and that is European.

The discussion may be dismissed as semantic or pedantic, or (the ultimate diss) a marketing concern. And though all those characterizations are true, they are not a reason for dismissal but for discussion. With contradictions existing between our agreement with the EU on this score; and similar agreements with Canada and Mexico, the potential for export of new American whiskeys are likely to be limited. There is a need to open foreign markets, and not just for American spirit makers, it is a national economic problem: the balance of trade. And for the new distiller a willing foreign market may help make next month's payroll.

So looking at the US (and our American cousins to the north and south) and the EU definitions of "whiskey/whisky" what would be your definition? Does age matter in the definition? Does "new" or "used" oak matter? Is it from all cereal grains even including such as rice or millet, or be limited to specific cereal grains (and who will draw up the specific list of included cereal grains?) Perhaps it IS moot and all that matters to us is what the Fed regulations say; that is, till you want to ship your goods abroad.

This has the same implications as the alleged move of the Swiss to own "absinthe".

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise a lot of interesting points Ralph. I went back to some of the absinthe forums where some mention was made of some of the international agreements and I wanted to reference them here for those that want to look them up. I haven't. I not experienced enough to make a judgement on such matters. The references were to

• "The Swiss IGPs are also offered protection outside of the EU, since the Uruguay WTO round agreements, which have many signatories (including the US)."

• The Lisbon Protocol (or perhaps it's a treaty)

• A link to a Swiss government site describing mechanisms for granting Protected Geographic Indications, and including a list of protected designations in the EU. Basically this link was for the Swiss saying they were planning on extending the protected status to the included list, and you could email if you disagreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of agreements that all deal with different things.

For instance, the fact that U.S.-made products have to comply with EU rules to be sold within the EU has nothing to do with any agreements. That's called sovereignty. If you want to play in our (or, in this case, the EU's) house, you have to play by the house rules. Likewise the United States can protect "bourbon whiskey" or any other term unilaterally within the United States.

If Poland makes a bourbon (and they have), we simply don't let it in. But if we want the Polish government to stop Polish bourbon from being sold in Poland, we need an agreement.

The purpose of agreements is to get them to recognize and protect our unique products there, and we reciprocate.

Therefore, the United States has not and will not negotiate any agreements in which the other party gets to dictate to us what we have to protect. Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.

So getting back to the point of the original letter, if you are a United States-based absinthe producer and you want to help Breaux and Nathan-Maister in their efforts, by all means do, but you don't have a dog in that fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph, maybe this should be reposted under a new topic for discussion about the disagreement between the US and the Eu about whiskey? Or is there a discussion already? I may have missed it. I made a comment/asked some questions over on John's blog, adding to the whisky/whiskey discussion. It's waiting moderation there, but see below.

Chuck- I'd like your feedback on my questions as well.

http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/2010/06/04/tuthilltown-spirits-and-william-grant-form-alliance/#comments

"John Hansell, Chuck Cowdery, and any other historians and experts- Maybe you can help me out on this. When did Scotland and Ireland start aging whisky in barrels on purpose? Presently they age their products in used Bourbon barrels predominantly, and have for awhile. But isn’t barrel aging whisky/whiskey a relatively new thing starting in the 1830’s to 1850’s, and didn’t become a matter of course until the 1870’s?

Did barrel aging whisky start in the UK or the US? Or was it a fortuitous accident that happened in Europe and America at around the same time? I was under the impression that US Bourbon started barrel aging as a new style, sort of by accident, and that it caught on in Europe afterwards.

If so, then the US set the standards for whiskey.

Also when did Scotland move to the use of malted barley as the main ingredient in whisky? Isn’t that relatively recent? Before that wasn’t corn/maize the main grain used for a few hundred years? In addition, what was the main grain/s used in Scotland prior to corn? What about Ireland? Wasn’t it rye and maybe winter wheat?

(I can’t access my library since most of it is packed away from my last move, and I’m waiting for my new distillery to open to set it up again. So I don;’t have access to my information.)

"

Chuck raises an interesting fact about our agreements with Canada and Mexico which are not in sync with the agreement with the EU on the definition of certain American whiskeys. The comments on What John Knows blog following his report on our recent fortunate agreement with GRANT. The topic turned to a cordial debate on what is and what is not "whiskey". The topic is not unlike the discussion on the white whiskey on this forum.

I raised the issue, not the first time, that new American distillers are prohibited from calling their legitimately made and approved American Bourbon Whiskey and American Rye Whiskey in the EU till their whiskey is three years in oak. The addition of the three year minimum is not traditionally part of the law, it is a recent (Bush Administration) addition to EU law. Here is the applicable regulation defining "whisky" in EU law and applying to all spirits sold in the EU and able to be called "whisky" or "whiskey":

Whisky or whiskey:

A spirit drink produced by the distillation of a mash of cereals

- saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or without other natural enzymes,

- fermented by the action of yeast,

- distilled at less than 94,8 % vol, so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,and matured for at least three years in wooden casks not exceeding 700 litres capacity.

One of the comments in the thread also made the point whiskey is made of "cereals" and not rice for instance, but rice is a cereal grain (according to Merriam Webster) There appears to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement on the simple question: What is Whiskey/Whisky? Not whether or not white whiskey is a legitimate whiskey or whiskey at all, not what State it's made in or if the oak is charred enough or the oak is new. Many very vocal traditionalists feel there is only one authoritative voice on what the term "whiskey/whisky" means and that is European.

The discussion may be dismissed as semantic or pedantic, or (the ultimate diss) a marketing concern. And though all those characterizations are true, they are not a reason for dismissal but for discussion. With contradictions existing between our agreement with the EU on this score; and similar agreements with Canada and Mexico, the potential for export of new American whiskeys are likely to be limited. There is a need to open foreign markets, and not just for American spirit makers, it is a national economic problem: the balance of trade. And for the new distiller a willing foreign market may help make next month's payroll.

So looking at the US (and our American cousins to the north and south) and the EU definitions of "whiskey/whisky" what would be your definition? Does age matter in the definition? Does "new" or "used" oak matter? Is it from all cereal grains even including such as rice or millet, or be limited to specific cereal grains (and who will draw up the specific list of included cereal grains?) Perhaps it IS moot and all that matters to us is what the Fed regulations say; that is, till you want to ship your goods abroad.

This has the same implications as the alleged move of the Swiss to own "absinthe".

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is another discussion on this topic: TUTHILLTOWN SPIRITS VS THE EU. I will post a brief note to it to bring it forward, unless you want to simply merge these last bits with that thread.

Jonathon's comments are right on the money. Attempting to parse out the actual origins to practically anything with as long a history as spirits, spread out over so much geography and adapted as it has been to a wide variety of "local" agriculture is simply impossible. The production of spirits has undergone great change, certainly enough to render any single claim of origin questionable at best and outright theft at worst.

In NYS a recent law permits the sale of Soju at on-premise sites holding only beer and wine cafe licenses, it is the sole exception to the fermented products limits of the license; a distilled spirit. The law was amended at the behest of a single constituent lobby. A good thing? It would be if the sponsor had not defined it in the law as being "an import from Korea", thereby making it impossible for a NY distiller to make Soju, or Sho Chu as the Chinese call it, or any of the other dozen or so varieties in Asia which make up the general category of this raw distilled spirit; the single most popular spirit drink in the world. Of course in New York State only the Korean product is Soju.

Aging (Storage in the US), various grain bills, codification of particular handling as qualifications for various spirits have evolved over time depending on the prevailing methods and materials at those times. The way we define whiskey/whisky now is not the same as its definition 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. I'd be curious to see what Jonathon's research turns up, or the responses of Mssrs. Hansell and Cowdery.

Debating history and its context is one thing. Insisting your version is the only acceptable version of the truth is another thing altogether. When it comes to claiming ownership of an entire Class of spirits it seems a bit overreaching to me. If this were the case, why not the French extend their rights over Cognac to include all aged grape Brandy, worldwide? German brewers might claim Beer.

I believe the distinctions must be made at the Type level. Bourbon Whiskey is not the same as Scotch Whisky, is not the same as Irish Whisky; but all are whiskey/whisky as a general Class of spirits made from cereal grains and aged in wood. To be any Type, we look to the country of origin for the specifics.

Frankly, if the only true whisky comes from Scotland and Ireland, what have they to compare their wares too, each other? Themselves? We take particular pride in making American Whiskey one of which is a Single Malt, an American Single Malt made according to US regulations. It is not Scotch, we don't pretend it to be. In fact we say, "This is American Single Malt, it is NOT Scotch." But it is whiskey no less than Scotch Whisky or Irish Whisky or Welsh Whisky or Japanese Whisky.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe. Present-day Belarus, Ukraine, and parts of Poland and Russia were territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

When Lithuanians talk about returning their nation to her historical borders, guess which borders they mean?

That's the problem with appealing to the "historical" understanding of something. Why should the definition that applied, say, 200 years ago, be considered superior to the current one?

There was a piece of meaningless fluff on the Discovery Channel last night called "How Whiskey Made America." As far-fetched as their stories were, they were only fetched at all if you consider "whiskey" and "alcohol" synonyms.

After the Civil War, the growth of railroads and introduction of the column still transformed distilling from an extension of agriculture into a fully commercialized industry. Terminology was pretty simple then. If it was made from grain it was whiskey, just like it was rum if made from molasses and brandy if made from grapes.

People who took the newly-available grain alcohol (what we call vodka) and flavored it with tea, prune juice, tobacco, and other ingredients to resemble aged whiskey felt entitled to call their product whiskey too, since it was made from grain.

But the people who carefully crafted a rich, low-proof spirit and flavored it with nothing but oak felt they had the sole right to use the word. The grain alcohol flavorers, known as "rectifiers," were by far the larger block. The forces for "pure whiskey" were concentrated in Kentucky and Tennessee. The battle between these two groups raged until 1909 and the Taft Decision, which represented a victory for the Taylors, Browns, Motlows, Samuels, Beams, Dants, Wathens, Medleys and other whiskey-making families.

The Taft Decision codified the definitions of "whiskey," "straight whiskey," and "blended whiskey" as we know them today. Since then it has been the case that although "storage in oak containers" is required, no minimum aging duration has ever been specified.

As recently as 1968 a group of producers argued for the adoption of a three-year minimum, but the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (predecessor of today's Tax and Trade Bureau) rejected the proposal. The agency concluded that "it is preferable to permit the consumer an adequate basis for the selection of whiskies (even immature ones) than to limit his choice by banning them from the market. The mere desire to conform American regulations to those applicable in foreign countries is not sufficient justification for imposing the proposed limitation." (Industry Circular 68-03)

The American trade representative should argue that the United States is a major whiskey-producing country, has been for hundreds of years, and has a whiskey-making heritage that developed independently of other whiskey-making traditions. Current American rules are consistent with that tradition. It is not in the spirit of fair trade to expect American producers to change their authentic and long-held practices in favor of European ones. Nor is it in the interest of European consumers, who want access to authentic American products, not proxies reformulated to pass muster with the regulators in Brussels.

However, American producers need to be very careful about seeming to support changing the U.S. rules to eliminate the aging requirement altogether while simultaneously arguing that the EU should recognize American rules that require aging but conspicuously do not require a minimum aging duration. It would, however, be appropriate to argue that corn whiskey should be exempt from any aging requirement.

It is absurd that while the EU recognizes "Bourbon Whiskey" as a distinctive product of the United States, it doesn't accept the American definition of what Bourbon Whiskey is.

An acceptable compromise would be to allow that, in the EU, any product to be labeled "whiskey/whisky" only, with no modifier, must be at least three years old, but products labeled "American Whiskey," "American Blended Whiskey," "Bourbon Whiskey," "Rye Whiskey," "Corn Whiskey," etc., would only have to meet the requirements for use of those terms in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While i have nothing of real value to add to this thread... i just wanted to give out a golf clap.

This thread is a fascinating read, with historical and contemporary points. I am thankful to be part of a collective so rich in knowledge and passion for our craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An acceptable compromise would be to allow that, in the EU, any product to be labeled "whiskey/whisky" only, with no modifier, must be at least three years old, but products labeled "American Whiskey," "American Blended Whiskey," "Bourbon Whiskey," "Rye Whiskey," "Corn Whiskey," etc., would only have to meet the requirements for use of those terms in the United States.

Bang on the money Chuck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just received the following in response to my request the US INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION intervene in the "absinthe" issue:

Mr. Erenzo,

I wanted to inform you that an official objection letter has been submitted by the U.S. Government to the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture regarding the proposed designation of “Absinthe” as a protected geographical indication in Switzerland. We object because the proposed name for registration is generic.

We will stay in contact with you regarding developments.

Jen Levine

Desk Officer

Office of European Country Affairs

International Trade Administration

tel: 202.482.0431

e-mail: jen.levine@trade.gov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received the following in response to my request the US INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION intervene in the "absinthe" issue:

Mr. Erenzo,

I wanted to inform you that an official objection letter has been submitted by the U.S. Government to the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture regarding the proposed designation of "Absinthe" as a protected geographical indication in Switzerland. We object because the proposed name for registration is generic.

We will stay in contact with you regarding developments.

DISCUS also forwarded a note this morning from Debbie Lamb their senior VP of International Issues confirming the Dept. of Commerce has filed a formal notice of objection.

Great news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...