Comments on: New Scotch Whisky Regulations Take Effect

By: Neil Fusillo

Neil Fusillo — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:45:34 +0000

Ah, the glory of political backlash. These are all reactions to press that Scotch has had recently — the Pure Malt disaster, the discussions of the possibilities of offshoring malts, etc. For the most part, I see them as a step in the right direction, although, as with most reactive regulations, they’re always going to screw SOMEone.

The one I really don’t understand is the pot still requirement. What’s wrong with getting creative with still design? Is that some sort of affront to the nature of Scotch? That one really confuses me.

By: Michael Fraser Milne

Michael Fraser Milne — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:58:56 +0000

I like Scotty have no problems with the new regs, a bit sad to see “vatted” go but glad to see the back of “Pure”, it’s all good for the consumer as far as I can see, comment 3 has hit the nail on the head.

In regard to “Distilled in Scotland” query I think the act already has that well covered as well as numerous court cases.

By: Scotty Freebairn

Scotty Freebairn — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:14:11 +0000

I don’t have any problem with these new regulations, and it does not bother me that a few Scotchs are bottled in the US. (Clan MacGregor comes to mine from the most highly esteemed William Grant.)

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:33:10 +0000

I just looked at the document and you’re right TH. Nix my statements about being surprised that Diageo allowed the bottling regulation to go through. I bet that in the next decade we’ll see a lot of blended scotch bottling operations going outside of Scotland.

By: MrTH

MrTH — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:04:38 +0000

Why the bottling stipulation for single malts, but not for blends? If a malt bottled outside Scotland is not legitimately Scotch whisky, how can such a blend be? I have a hard time shaking the notion that this has been done purely to make things more difficult for independent bottlers.

By: John Hansell

John Hansell — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:40:08 +0000

Thanks guys, for clarifying everything before I had a chance to respond. Anyone else have any other questions?

Steffen, I think most of us know what a pot still is, but I’m not sure of the exact definition. Did you go back to the link of the official regulations? Maybe it’s there?

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:11:00 +0000

Oh yeah, Two Bit. Meant “blended malt.” Surprised I overlooked that.

By: two-bit cowboy

two-bit cowboy — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:09:33 +0000

How about the Speyside distilleries, Glenfarclas is one, that labels its malts as “Single Highland Malt Scotch Whisky.” Will they have to replace Highland with Speyside now? Or does the section that follows the definitions of the five regions allow them to still say Highland?

By: two-bit cowboy

two-bit cowboy — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:04:54 +0000

Red_A…

Thanks for that, but John Glaser won’t be able to use the term “pure malt.” There’s a paragraph that specifically prohibits its use. I still have some Johnnie Walker Green that says Pure Malt, too.

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:27:01 +0000

What’s the exact definition of a pot still by the way ?

Macdeffe

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:26:20 +0000

“Speyside finest” isn’t a distillery name so it’s free to use. Using Cardhu (Cardow) as name for a blended malt won’t be allowed thou as Cardhu is name of a distillery. Diageo tried to do that a few years back

Macdeffe

By: Del Sneddon

Del Sneddon — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:50 +0000

“A ban on the use of a distillery name as a brand name on any Scotch Whisky which has not been wholly distilled in the named distillery.” – how will this work for independents like Douglas Laing who are obliged to change Glenfarclas to “Speyside’s finest?”

By: Steffen Bräuner

Steffen Bräuner — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:42:43 +0000

They can still label their product “whisky” and “malt whisky”, they just have to omit the word “scotch”
One question! anyrhing prohibiting an entrepeneur like Couvreur labeling his product “Distilled in Scotland” instead of Scotch ?

Macdeffe

By: lawschooldrunk

lawschooldrunk — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:25:43 +0000

what happens when you blend a single grain whisky made from 100% wheat with a single grain whisky made from 100% barley? Is it called a blended grain scotch whisky or a blended scotch whisky? what if the wheat was blended with 100% oat, rye, spelt, corn, or rice?

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:12:31 +0000

Any new law, no matter what its intentions, is gauranteed to mess with someone’s business, Two-Bit. Typically, quality control regulations establish standards that conform to the programs that big players already have in place. Small, individualistic and nonconformist enterprises suffer along with the those who allegedly produce inauthentic, low quality goods.

For instance, what will Michel Couvreur, who ages malt scotch in Burgundy and then vats it, do now? Let’s hope that he can come up with a new brand concept that allows him to continue doing the individualisting thing that he does and still make a profit.

And what about John Glaser? He sold all of his products as “vatted malt.” It’s now illegal to for something to be branded simultaeneously as both scotch and vatted malt. I guess he’ll have to use the term “pure malt.”

Loch Lomond’s already been mentioned. I have absolutely no idea how things will turn out for them. I’m sure there are others, who will also be adversely and unjustly affected.

Generally though, I think the regulations regarding bottling and maturation are for the best. The outsourcing of these two aspects of scotch production could be extremely profitable for big spirits conglomerates like Diageo and that means that it’s a serious threat. Speaking of which, considering Diageos massive clout in the SWA, I’m a little suprised that the bottling and maturation regulations stayed in at all.