"Kentucky" on the label

[cowdery]

One of the most persistent myths about bourbon is the one that says, "Kentucky is the only state allowed to put its name on the label." This is false as stated, since there is no such rule in the Federal Standards of Identity, except for the general requirement that statements of origin must be truthful.

I have, however, heard rumors that there is some relevant Kentucky statute, for which I have searched in vain. It's not exactly on point, but thanks to Paul Tomaszewski writing in the "Blending Bourbons from different DSPs” thread, I was able to find the nearest thing there is. (Emphasis added by me.)

244.370 Whiskey to be aged -- Exception if not labeled as Kentucky whiskey.

No whiskey produced in Kentucky, except whiskey the barrel containing which is branded "Corn Whiskey" under the internal revenue laws, shall be bottled in Kentucky or removed from this state unless such whiskey has been aged in oak barrels for a period of not less than one (1) full year; provided, however, that whiskey aged less than one (1) year may be removed from the state and bottled, or bottled in Kentucky, if the word "Kentucky" or any word or phrase implying Kentucky origin does not appear on the front label or elsewhere on the retail container or package except in the name and address of the distiller as required by federal regulation. For violations of this section, the department shall revoke the permit of the licensee from whose warehouse or premises such whiskey shall have been removed or in which such whiskey shall have been bottled.

Effective: July 15, 2010

History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 24, sec. 595, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 11, sec. 1. -- Amended 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 183, secs. 1 and 2. -- Amended 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 183, secs. 1 and 2. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2554b-169.

[porter]

For violations of this section, the department shall revoke the permit of the licensee from whose warehouse or premises such whiskey shall have been removed or in which such whiskey shall have been bottled.

Would be interesting to see how enforceable this really is. Courts all over the US have ruled against the idea of holding a gun dealer responsible for a buyer shooting someone with a gun purchased from the dealer, as long as the dealer didn't have prior knowledge of the intended use of the gun.

So...unless the out of state bottler told the in-state warehouse of their intent to lable with the word 'Kentucky' improperly on the label I really don't see how courts could uphold this part of the Ky law. Which really isn't good for us. The 'big boys' could actually purchase Ky bourbon and label as they want. They could in theory purchase an entire large warehouse stockpile with the intent to age further in their own containers and still lable as Ky bourbon. By the time the dust settled the bourbon is sold at a large profit, and since there isn't any Fed laws broken, they simply loose that warehouse licensing. Seen these things happen in other industries, just a calculated risk for the large firms.

A little more devious, blend 5% 1yr bourbon with 95% young bourbon and still be legal to label as Ky at a much reduced cost, at least according to this article since it doesn't have blending percentages listed as what constitutes KY labeled bourgon.

[Paul Tomaszewski]

From KY ABC's standpoint the only thing they would enforce is who in Kentucky that whiskey came from. So if you called me, wanted me to make you said whiskey, and it didn't fulfill that statute and I sold it to you, then you bottled it the wrong way, they'll come after me and revoke my license. At least that's what the law states. If they'd actually revoke a distiller's license for this offense is yet to be seen, but you will notice that the only whiskey that we make that is labeled "Kentucky" is our "White Dog" and "Black Dog," which are both corn whiskies. Since we haven't aged anything yet for a year or more (bourbon, malt, etc.), none of those have "Kentucky" or any other statement implying Kentucky origin other than our production statement on the label.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Now THAT is some obscure language and law. I have to agree it does not seem like something which would hold up in court if it was enforced; which may not be so much of a stretch these days given the proliferation of small distilleries making young whiskeys. It is conceivable some larger distiller, seeing the craft producer as a threat (camel's nose in the tent), might call the wrath of the Kentucky ABC down upon some small whiskey producer. And though the court might overturn a decision of the ABC when challenged, the cost of litigation for the small producer could break that distillery's bank and put it out of business, which would be the point after all.

This also seems to be something which WOULD hold up if HR 5034 were to be passed, giving that Kentucky law the assumption of correctness, unassailable.

The other side of the coin? With the sudden expansion of craft distillers, and the growing number of new products being introduced by small distillers across the US, the cache of the affiliation with Kentucky is likely to decrease in the minds of the consumers. Who cares if it comes from Kentucky, with all due respect of course? The world of whiskey is changing on a daily basis. The consumer's choices are expanding as we (craft distillers) educate the public. Everyone agrees it is one of the primary jobs of the new spirits producers to educate the consumer. And the better informed the consumer is (and the non-producer side of the industry, restaurants, bartenders, servers, retailers), the less inclined they will be to believe that Kentucky is the only place American whiskey is made, or that Kentucky whiskey is superior to any other by virtue solely of the fact of its Kentucky origin.

It should be interesting to see what happens.

[DrewKulsveen]

Very obscure statue which has always posed the following.

-If bottled less than one year old you can not call it Kentucky Bourbon, if you do they will revoke your permit. Even though it meets the Federal Regulations for Bourbon and by Federal Regulations you are required to claim the state of distillation whether or not if it is in the address (i.e. It can be stated Kentucky Bourbon by the Feds but not by KY it MUST state Distilled in Kentucky and Bottled by...

[cowdery]

Hey, Drew. Have you ever run into this thing or know anyone who has? I assumed its purpose was to keep people from calling something distilled in Kentucky but not aged there "Kentucky Bourbon," as a way to preserve KY's tax revenue, but it seems more intended to put a 1-year floor on aging. I wonder who got this passed and why? Apparently it originated in 1942. Odd.

[DrewKulsveen]

We've never had an issue with this as we've never bottled anything that young, it was just my interpretation. I don't see how it could legally stand up in court if someone chose to challenge it. I don't think it was intended to protect the revenue as it even goes to state that if it's bottled in KY and less than 1 year you can't call it KY Bourbon, it must have been a preventative measure for product less than one year hitting the market and keeping people out of the business who conformed to the extreme minimum quality standards, since technically it is bourbon (designate) once it hits the wood, the other part of the regulation regarding the taste and characteristics commonly associated with bourbon could have been challenged. How long it has to be in wood is up to the producer, except here in KY.

[cowdery]

I'm curious about the history because at some point during the early post-Prohibition period, the phrase "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey" became ubiquitous on bourbon labels and I have to believe it was a coordinated decision by Kentucky producers, probably led by the KDA, to position themselves vis-a-vis producers in Illinois and other states. Your grandfather would probably know the answer. Too bad we can't ask him. (Drew's grandfather was a major player back then.)