The CDC Is Out of Control

In the recent movie 'Contagion,' the good guys are the doctors and other professionals at the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In real life, we mostly hear about the CDC during flu season and whenever there's a new contagious disease scare.

So no one would have expected the CDC to suddenly become the scourge of demon rum, peddling junk science to advance a neo-prohibitionist agenda, but that's exactly what's happening. Their most visible campaign has been in Pennsylvania, where they're dishonestly pushing a position that isn't even credible, that liquor privatization will inevitably lead to significant upticks in alcohol abuse.

According to a new story in The Weekly Standard (so new it's dated July 8th), that's just the beginning. Between the stimulus bill and Obamacare, billions are being funneled to the CDC to do health promotion. That's a very broad mandate and for reasons unknown, CDC has decided to throw a lot of that money at alcohol, not by funding alcoholism treatment programs, or information programs urging people with alcohol problems to seek help, but instead by, as Pennsylvania governor Gifford Pinchot put it in 1933, trying to make purchasing alcohol “as inconvenient and expensive as possible.”

The article points out why it is probably illegal for CDC to even take sides on a controversial political issue like Pennsylvania liquor privatization.

The CDC has been politicized before, as when they dragged their heels in the early days of AIDS, supporting the Reagan administration's denial agenda.

If the administration wants to do something useful involving alcohol, they might do well to send some of CDC's money to the Treasury Department's Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which has an actual job to do, which it has had trouble doing due to an explosion of new label approval applications. Used to working with large corporations who have a vested interest in staying within the rules, the TTB is now working with hundreds of small producers, some of whom don't know what they're doing, some of whom are deliberately trying to deceive the public, and most of whom try to push the envelope wherever they can.

President Obama is known to enjoy a beer now and then, but there appear to be many in his administration who harbor the old Progressive belief that humans can be improved, even when they don't want to be, through the benevolent intervention of the government. That's exactly what led to Prohibition the first time around. No one should be looking forward to the sequel.

A Standards-of-Identity Brain Teaser

Riddle me this, Batman. When is whiskey not whiskey?

Arguably, when it's sorghum whiskey.

Queen Jennie Sorghum Whiskey is a product of the Old Sugar Distillery in Madison, Wisconsin. The rules say whiskey is "an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain." The U.S. Grains Council describes Sorghum bicolor, the species in question, as the "fifth most important cereal crop grown in the world."

So no problem, right? Sorghum is a cereal, i.e., a grain, so sorghum spirit is whiskey. The Federal regulators obviously agree, because Old Sugar got its label approved and is selling the product now. 

But Old Sugar's product, like other distilled spirits made from sorghum, is not made from the plant's seeds--as is the case with whiskeys made from corn, barley, wheat, rye, etc.--but rather from a sweet liquid derived by squeezing the plant's stalk, much like sugar cane.

Sugar cane, it should be noted, is also a grass, like corn and the other cereals, but spirits made from its sugary juice are classified as rum, not whiskey. Phil Prichard, he of the Tennessee distillery that bears his name, has argued that sorghum spirit should be classified as rum. Unfortunately, the rule for rum is explicit. The source must be sugar cane.

But since the sorghum plant's seeds are not used to make sorghum spirit, it's clearly not made from "a fermented mash of grain," and so shouldn't be classified as whiskey either.

Old Sugar follows the rules. Their sorghum whiskey is aged in charred oak barrels. It's not clear if those barrels are single-use, as required for bourbon, et al, but let's assume they are. It certainly is a legitimate distilled spirits product, but is it whiskey?

All spirits made from grain go through a process in which enzymes are used to convert grain starches into sugar, so fermentation can take place. Sorghum juice is sugar already, like cane, and so doesn't go through that process. The resulting liquor tastes more rum-like than whiskey-like, so someone expecting whiskey characteristics might be disappointed.

So, what do you think? The Batputer fried its circuits on this one.

What's in a Name? If It's "Tennessee Whiskey," a Lot

Chapter fifteen in my book, Bourbon, Straight, is about Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. The chapter title is, "The Elephant in the Room."

Why? Because the best-selling bourbon in the world isn't a bourbon, which tends to set off a cascade of confusion and misinformation. Jim Beam is correct when it claims to be the world's best selling bourbon, even though Jack Daniel's sells more, because Daniel's does not claim to be bourbon, preferring instead the classification 'Tennessee whiskey.'

And yet Jack Daniel's adheres to all the rules for bourbon-making, the rules binding Jim Beam and the rest of the bourbons, every single one of them. Why then isn't it labeled as bourbon?

Because it doesn't want to be.

About 70 years ago, the federal regulators said that was okay, but they did it in the form of a letter. Since they did not write it into the rules, there is no universal legally-binding definition of Tennessee whiskey. Today, the principal federal regulator is the Tax and Trade Bureau of the Treasury Department (TTB). All it requires is that claims of geographic origin must be true, so Tennessee whiskey must be made in Tennessee and, of course, it must be whiskey. That's all TTB cares about.

The Office of the U. S. Trade Representative recently tried to fill the gap. In treaties where the U.S. seeks protection for the terms 'bourbon' and 'Tennessee whiskey,' it has defined Tennessee whiskey as "straight bourbon whiskey made in Tennessee."

Does that  prevent someone from making corn whiskey in Tennessee, and calling it 'Tennessee whiskey'? Corn whiskey doesn't have to be aged. It's what many people call 'legal moonshine.' If it's whiskey made in Tennessee, TTB is satisfied. It's inconsistent with the treaty definition, but what can the Trade Representative do? Their job is to make sure other countries don't abuse the term. They have no power in Tennessee.

The Tennessee legislature, most likely at the prodding of a certain big contributor to the Tennessee economy, has decided to step in and protect the integrity of its state spirit. A new law expected to take effect in June will define Tennessee whiskey as, essentially, bourbon that has been filtered through maple charcoal before aging.

This is a good idea. It's good because it gives the term 'Tennessee whiskey' a meaning it would not otherwise have, a meaning consistent with the public's understanding of the term, and there isn't any Tennessee whiskey product that would not benefit from some charcoal filtering.

Phil Prichard, a Tennessee micro-distiller who has been making an unfiltered Tennessee whiskey, was given an exemption.

The law simply requires that the spirit be "filtered through maple charcoal prior to aging." It doesn't require the whole process JD uses. It doesn't say how much charcoal or for how long, so it shouldn't be prohibitive for small producers. They don't have to do it if they don't want to, they just can't call their product 'Tennessee whiskey' unless they do.

A more onerous requirement is the one about aging. Consistent with the TTB definition of bourbon, the Tennessee law requires that Tennessee whiskey must be "aged in new, charred oak barrels in Tennessee." Here again, it doesn't say for how long, and such aging can only help, but new barrels cost money.

The new law has teeth because the penalty for violation is a one-year suspension of the distiller's state distilling permit.

So the feds will prevent 'Tennessee whiskey' from being made outside of Tennessee, and Tennessee law will take care of producers within its jurisdiction.

Without this law, Tennessee whiskey simply means whiskey made in Tennessee. It does not, as it should, define a unique regional whiskey style. Micros in the state have been exploiting this loophole. The new law also prevents a Tennessee producer from buying bulk whiskey made outside of Tennessee, bottling it in Tennessee, and claiming that as 'Tennessee whiskey' merely because it was bottled in the state.

The new law covers the terms 'Tennessee Whiskey' and 'Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,' whether 'whiskey' is spelled with or without the 'e.' Will the law apply if the producer makes a corn whiskey and wants to call it 'Tennessee Corn Whiskey'? That remains to be seen.

Just like the TTB's rule, this law doesn't tell any distiller what they can make or sell, it just regulates what they can call it. This is good for big producers who already comply with the law, of course, but it will be good too for any micro who chooses to make Tennessee whiskey according to the new rule.

Beam Cuts Old Grand-Dad Proof Without Protest

Compared to the recent hubbub about cutting the proof of Maker's Mark, which was subsequently rescinded, drinkers have largely been silent about the cut from 86° proof (43% ABV) to 80° proof (40% ABV) for the lowest-proof expression of Old Grand-Dad bourbon.

Although the change took place more than six months ago, it has only recently appeared on the radar, thanks to folks on the straightbourbon.com discussion board.

Old Grand-Dad's bottled-in-bond (100° proof/50% ABV) and 114° proof (57% ABV) expressions remain unchanged. In fact, the culprit in the proof cut, according to Beam, is the bond.

Asked to comment, Beam provided the following statement: "This was an adjustment that happened mid-year 2012 to address certain factors particular to the Old Grand Dad brand, including maintaining a competitive retail price amidst higher input costs, while continuing to meet surging demand among bartenders and consumers in Old Grand Dad Bonded – which is 100 proof and one of very few bonded products out there. It should also be noted that Old Grand Dad’s signature high-rye mash bill – which has certainly set the brand apart from most other Kentucky Straight Bourbons in the last few decades – has not changed (and will not change)."

Incidentally, 80° proof  is effectively the floor for straight spirits such as whiskey. Producers are permitted to bottle whiskey at lower alcohol levels, but are required to label it 'diluted whiskey.' That tends to be off-putting to consumers, even though virtually all whiskey sold is, in fact, diluted for bottling.

Old Grand-Dad is a brand established in the late 19th century. After Prohibition, it returned as part of National Distillers. It became a Beam brand when the two companies merged in 1987. Of the many bourbons Beam acquired in that transaction, the original recipe was retained for only one; Old Grand-Dad. The rest (Old Crow, Old Taylor, etc.) became Beam juice.

The Old Grand-Dad recipe was retained because its mash bill contains about twice as much rye as Jim Beam and other standard bourbons, and a consequently smaller proportion of corn. It was also, at the time, commanding a premium price, so the higher cost of preserving its integrity was deemed acceptable. The Old Grand-Dad recipe is also used for Basil Hayden bourbon, which Beam recently announced saw sales surge in 2012.

When bourbon sales collapsed in the 1970s and '80s, brands whose names start with 'Old' took the biggest hit. It remains conventional wisdom among producers that legacy brands, especially the 'Olds,' deserve only minimal support, as they are only bought by long-time fans and aren't capable of attracting significant numbers of new consumers.

That may or may not be true, but if you're a bourbon enthusiast and haven't tried Old Grand-Dad yet, you should -- while you still can.

In Praise of Straight (It's Not What You Think)

The advent of products such as Kansas Clean has revealed a shocking truth. Distilled spirits that contain as little as five percent whiskey are allowed to call themselves whiskey. They can whiskey-this and whiskey-that all over the place, but is their product really whiskey? By law, yes. By common sense, no.

But law will trump common sense every time.

For you as a consumer, it shouldn't be necessary to memorize the Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits just to buy a good bottle of hooch, and it's not.

There is a simple, one-word solution, but the word to remember and look for is not 'whiskey,' it's 'straight.'

'Straight' is a modifier that applies primarily to American whiskey and not to most other types of distilled spirit. It means that certain specifications have been met, including aging in new, charred oak barrels for at least two years. It doesn't guarantee that the product will be good but it does guarantee that it will be what most people understand to be whiskey.

We're talking about American whiskey here, like bourbon or rye, not scotch, Canadian, or Irish. They have their own rules and peculiarities.

Straight whiskey (or straight bourbon, straight rye) is what most people mean when they just say whiskey. If asked to elaborate, they might call it 'real whiskey' or even 'pure whiskey,' but those terms are forbidden, at least on whiskey labels. That's okay as long as you know that the alternative is 'straight.'

If you want to blame someone for the semantic awkwardness of all this, the person you want is William Howard Taft, the 27th president, whose Taft Decision in 1909 allowed products that contain liquids other than whiskey to call themselves whiskey. It created different types of whiskey, the most whiskeyish of which is straight whiskey.

Unfortunately, there are a few straight whiskeys that don't have 'straight' on their label. Jack Daniel's doesn't and possibly can't, even though it meets all the key requirements. Even so, remembering to look for 'straight' is a good tip for anyone who wants guidance but doesn't want to get bogged down with details. 'Straight Bourbon,' 'Straight Rye,' and 'Straight Whiskey' are the terms you want to see. 'Straight Wheat' too, but there's not a lot of that around.

If you don't see 'straight' on the label, either find out why, or simply move on.

Kansas Clean. What Is This Stuff?

"Kansas is a new whiskey for new whiskey drinkers," says the ad, replete with pictures of attractive 20-somethings and at least one unattractive geezer. Kansas, aka 'Kansas Clean,' aka 'Kansas Clean Distilled,' is a distilled spirit product that has been around for about a year. It is the first product from a company in Rochester, New York (not Kansas), called Fabulous American Beverages.

They want $30 a bottle for it.

The bottle is clear and the product inside is clear too, so how can it be whiskey? Doesn't whiskey always have to be aged? Haven't dozens of micro-distilleries, and at least one giant (Jack Daniel's), gotten into trouble with federal regulators for trying to call an unaged grain spirit whiskey? Then what's this stuff?

Spirit whiskey.

What's that? Well, under U.S. rules, 'spirit whiskey' is a distilled spirit that contains at least 5 percent whiskey, with the remaining 95 percent neutral spirit, aka vodka. The whiskey component can be anything that meets the legal definition of whisky, so it can be very nearly neutral and very lightly aged itself.

The very hip/now/with-it Kansas web site tells you none of this.

The spirit whiskey classification exists because right after Prohibition there was so little fully-aged whiskey available, and whiskey was what people wanted, that the feds accommodated producers by creating categories of 'whiskey' that were mostly vodka.

That way, producers could stretch what little whiskey they had and still give people something with a little bit of whiskey character.

In the intervening years, and especially after the 'light whiskey' fiasco of the late 1960s, it became conventional wisdom that no one wants a whiskey that is barely there. Drinkers who want a neutral spirit buy vodka, which is the largest distilled spirit category. There is very little demand, seemingly, for a slightly non-neutral spirit with a modicum of whiskey character. At least there is very little demand for a spirit with less whiskey character than Canadian Mist or Seagram's 7 (the Bud Lights of whiskey).

That is, until now. Whiskey is now hip. There are, or so the makers of Kansas believe, many people who want to drink vodka but say they're drinking whiskey. They don't so much want the very slight whiskey flavor that (at least in theory) differentiates the product from vodka, as they are willing to tolerate it for the privilege of calling it whiskey.

In the rest of the world this isn't an issue, because following the guidance of the Scotch Whisky Association and the lead of the European Union, their rules say whiskey must be aged for at least three years. In the U.S., whiskey has to be aged, but no minimum duration is stated and products that contain as little as five percent whiskey are able to call themselves whiskey.

The rules are written to protect consumers but also to accommodate producers. In this case, both probably would be better served if the 'spirit whiskey' classification was abolished. Sorry, Kansas. (Not really.)

Jack Daniel's Rye Now 'Spirits Distilled from Grain'

The other shoe has finally dropped on the saga of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Rye, as the product is now appearing in stores. A quick recap follows, but if you want to read everything go here, then here, and most of all here. If you want to get into the 'white whiskey' question a bit more generally, go here.

The gist of the story is this. Back in October, Jack Daniel's announced that it was launching an unaged rye, a straight-from-the-still preview of what, in the fullness of time, will become a properly aged Jack Daniel's Straight Rye Whiskey. They said it came off the still at 140° proof (70% ABV), yet the label on the prototype bottle classified it as 'neutral spirit.'

That made no sense, since 'neutral spirit' is vodka and the sample they sent me definitely was not vodka. So I inquired. In response, spokesfolk for Daniel's stated that, "By this ruling, it is assumed that the TTB considers all whiskies (except corn whisky) to be neutral spirits until they enter the barrel for maturation. Jack Daniel’s packaging and legal departments argued that the Tennessee Unaged Rye should be labeled as an 'unaged whiskey' which we felt more accurately described the nature of the product to the consumer, but the TTB ruled against this proposal and would only approve the label under the category 'neutral spirit.'"

The TTB, however, took a different position in correspondence with me. Thomas K. Hogue, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, wrote that, "The regulations are pretty straight forward. Whisky is defined ... as an alcoholic distillate from fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof that must be stored in oak containers. Neutral spirits must be distilled at 190° or higher. A product that is made from fermented mash of grain and produced at less than 190° of proof but not stored in oak containers would be a distilled spirits specialty product, as it would not meet any of the standards of identity." It could, according to Hogue, be labeled as 'spirits distilled from grain.'

The product has finally been released and here is the actual label.

So, does this mean The Chuck Cowdery Blog forced mighty, mighty Jack Daniel's to change a label? You can decide that for yourselves. The evidence is before you. By the way, when this all began to unravel I asked the Jack Daniel's spokesfolk to comment, but they haven't. They let their new label do the talking for them.

Diageo Launches Bulleit 10, Surprising No One

In recent years it has become almost impossible for alcoholic beverage producers to keep their new products a secret until launch. So it is that the new 10-year-old iteration of Bulleit Bourbon was announced today with plenty of fanfare but not much excitement, since everyone has known about it for months.

The U.S. Treasury Department's Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is part of the problem. Labels for alcoholic beverages have to be approved in advance by the TTB. Each approved application--formally known as a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA)--is public information and easily found on the TTB web site (ttb.gov). COLA trolling is a popular hobby among some enthusiasts.

In addition, producers will often test market their new products, or announce them well in advance to trade audiences such as distributor sales forces. Today, with social media and a camera in every pocket, a new product that makes a brief appearance in Walla Walla, Washington, will have its image broadcast around the world in minutes.

For reasons that are increasingly hard to fathom, company PR departments and their agencies steadfastly refuse to confirm the new offerings until the official release date. The ancient practice of giving favored journalists the first taste has become an empty gesture.

So it is that today marks the official launch of Bulleit 10, which made its first appearance on StraightBourbon.com on November 10th. It should begin to appear on store shelves, at about $45, toward the end of this month. It will be ever-so-slightly higher in proof than standard Bulleit, 91.2° proof (45.6% ABV) instead of 90° proof (45% ABV).

Here's a fun game you can play. The press release mistakenly states the Bulleit 10 ABV as 45.5%. Let's see how many 'journalists' fail to catch the mistake. (ABV is always proof divided by two.)

Since the standard Bulleit Bourbon expression is NAS (no age statement), it's impossible to know how much older the 10-year-old version even is, but it's bound to be good. Bulleit Bourbon is made for Diageo by Four Roses and everything they make is good.

Tips On How To Label An Unaged Rye Whiskey.

A micro-producer writes, "just read your whiskey blog concerning the new Jack Daniel's Unaged Rye Whiskey. This is very interesting. My husband and I own a small artisan distillery and have had our labels in for approval with the TTB. We received our second rejection and, lo and behold, it's about the wording for our Unaged Rye Whiskey."

It seems a shame that while modern distillers can make a product their ancestors would have called rye whiskey, we can’t call it that today.

Until the second half of the 19th century, most whiskey was not aged. Folks probably didn't call it 'rye whiskey,' they probably just called it 'whiskey.' But it was spirit straight from the still. You can make such a product today, but you can't call it 'whiskey.'

By the time Federal rules about the standards of identity for distilled spirits were being written, early in the 20th century, the aging of whiskey in oak barrels had become so common and expected that whiskey was defined as a distilled spirit made from grain that had been stored in oak containers. Rye whiskey, furthermore, had to, among other things, be aged in new and charred oak barrels.

Before you start to complain about damned government regulations, recall that these rules were written to protect consumers from dishonest or misleading labeling and they have worked pretty well. The problem is one typical of government regulation. It has a hard time keeping up with changes of attitudes and ideas among the people it's supposed to protect.

Setting aside the desirability of unaged rye whiskey, it is a historically legitimate style and not that hard to understand, so the possibility of consumers being confused about it is small.

We've learned from the recent Jack Daniel's experience that the only suitable classification available from TTB is 'Distilled Spirits Specialty,' which is a catch-all for any distilled spirit that can't qualify for one of the other existing classifications.

Although it makes sense that there should be an 'unaged rye whiskey' class, none exists. Since spirit classified as ‘rye whiskey’ must be aged, ‘unaged rye whiskey’ is a regulatory impossibility. Many people have blithely said TTB should just create and define such a category, but it doesn't work that way. It might actually require an act of Congress. Maybe not, but it certainly requires going through a long and arduous regulatory rule making process.

Part of TTB’s problem is that for the first 70 of its 80 years of existence, it dealt mostly with big companies, with compliance departments and lots of lawyers, who were making me-too products. Consequently, TTB is not well equipped to deal with hundreds of small producers who are, in many cases, trying to push the envelope on everything.

But all is not hopeless. Here's how other producers have solved this problem.

When the folks who run Washington's restored distillery at Mount Vernon wanted to sell unaged rye whiskey, they actually aged it, very briefly, in new, charred oak barrels.

This is called gaming the system or, more charitably, finding a work-around. Under the rules, although aging is required, the length of time is up to you (24 hours is plenty) as is the size of the barrel. It just has to be new, which means you can use it only once for rye whiskey. It also has to be oak and charred.

This can, of course, be expensive and you have to pass that cost along to your customers. The folks at Mount Vernon didn't care, they planned to charge a lot anyway.

Another alternative is to age in a used barrel. Again, how long it’s in the wood doesn’t matter. You can't call it 'rye whiskey' but you can call it ‘whiskey,’ as the class, and use ‘rye’ in the name, you just can’t put the words ‘rye' and 'whiskey’ together. You can, for example, call it 'Chuck's Old Rye, An Illinois Whiskey.'

This way is much less expensive because not only does a used barrel cost about 40 percent less than a new one, you can use the used barrel an unlimited number of times, so you only need one no matter how much whiskey you make.

Another alternative is to make corn whiskey instead of rye whiskey, since corn whiskey is already an exception in the rules. It doesn't have to be aged at all.

One idea no one has tried yet is getting a cooperage to make cheap, piece-of-crap oak containers. Essentially, disposable barrels. Since TTB doesn't care how long the spirit is stored in the container, how good does is have to be? It doesn't even have to be a barrel. The rule just says, 'charred new oak containers.' Any vessel that meets those requirements and can hold the whiskey for even a few seconds should pass TTB muster.

Then you can knock the containers down and burn them to fire your boiler.

TTB Says Jack Daniel's Unaged Rye Isn't Neutral Spirit After All, Sort Of.

Jack Daniel's is one of the world's best known and best selling whiskeys, arguably (depending on which survey you use) THE top dog. It is also one of the world's most powerful brands, built on whiskey, but sold on everything from t-shirts to menu items at T.G.I. Fridays.

All of that makes Jack Daniel's Unaged Tennessee Rye a very important new product. Everyone wants to know what it means for both the rye whiskey and white (i.e., unaged) whiskey segments. Most people don't care that it has also created a controversy involving one of the principal regulators of the beverage alcohol industry, the U.S. Treasury Department's Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

TTB's main job is collecting taxes. The tax burden on alcohol is second only to tobacco. No matter how poor you are; if you drink, you pay a boatload of tax to all levels of government, the federal government most of all.

TTB's second most important job is regulating the way beverage alcohol products are labeled and marketed. In return for all the millions we drinkers pay in taxes, TTB makes sure the products we drink are what they claim to be and are marketed responsibly. Its rule book is in the Code of Federal Regulations, where you can look it up. The part covering distilled spirits is Title 27, Chapter 1, Part 5, Subpart C, and is called the Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits ('the Standards').

One of the rules is that every distilled spirits product has to fit into one of TTB's established classes. Whiskey, for example, is a class. Each class is strictly defined in the Standards. Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey is classified as whiskey. That's why people who care about such things were shocked when Jack Daniel's Unaged Tennessee Rye was classified, not as whiskey, but as neutral spirit.

As anyone who has tasted the product will attest, it's not neutral. So why is it labeled that way? Here's the explanation from Jack Daniel's spokesperson Rob Hoskins, "Jack Daniel’s packaging and legal departments argued that the Tennessee Unaged Rye should be labeled as an 'unaged whiskey' which we felt more accurately described the nature of the product to the consumer, but the TTB ruled against this proposal and would only approve the label under the category 'neutral spirit.'"

Strange, since the Standards define neutral spirit as, "distilled spirits produced ... at or above 190° proof." Mr. Hoskins says Tennessee Unaged Rye is produced below 140° proof and is destined, after aging, to become straight rye whiskey. It is, therefore, not neutral spirit.

But then what is it?

All of this was pointed out to TTB and Thomas K. Hogue, their Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, responded. "The regulations are pretty straight forward," wrote Hogue. "Whisky is defined ... as an alcoholic distillate from fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof that must be stored in oak containers. Neutral spirits must be distilled at 190° or higher. A product that is made from fermented mash of grain and produced at less than 190° of proof but not stored in oak containers would be a distilled spirits specialty product, as it would not meet any of the standards of identity."

It could, according to Hogue, be further labeled as spirits distilled from grain. He noted that corn whiskey is an exception, since it need not be stored in oak containers, but must be at least 80% corn grain.

So that means Jack Daniel's Unaged Tennessee Rye is going to change its label, right? "Any time there is a concern that an approved label does not accurately reflect the contents of the bottle, that is something that we address directly with the label holder," writes Hogue.

A comment from Mr. Hoskins at Jack Daniel's has been sought.

Jack Daniel's And TTB Redefine Neutral Spirits, Or Do They?

When is a neutral spirit not a neutral spirit? When it's a Jack Daniel's product, apparently.

The young saga of new Jack Daniel's Unaged Rye has already gotten curiouser and curiouser. The story begins with Friday's post about two new 'white whiskey' products from Jim Beam and Jack Daniel's.

Looking at the photograph of the Jack Daniel's package provided by the distillery, inquiring minds wanted to know how a product distilled at 140° proof (70% ABV), as they described the product, could be labeled 'neutral spirit,' considering that the regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department's Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) clearly state that neutral spirit is a distilled spirit distilled at more than 190° proof (95% ABV). (The exact wording is reproduced below.)

Well, that apparently is not what 'neutral spirit' means if you're Jack Daniel's. Below is the explanation from Jack Daniel's PR agency. I'm flabbergasted, but there it is.

Mr. Cowdery,

Good afternoon. Thank you for your inquiry. Per the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations describing neutral spirits (vodka) and whiskey copied and provided below, vodka has to be distilled at or above 190 proof and “without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color. Whiskeys must be distilled at less than 190 proof and “possess the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be stored), and bottled at not less than 80 proof.”

The net of this is that our unaged rye did not satisfy the “Class 2; Whiskey” requirement of being stored in an oak container, therefore the TTB ruled that it should be labeled as a “neutral spirit” even though it was distilled at 140 proof and obviously violates the stated vodka requirement of being “without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.” By this ruling, it is assumed that the TTB considers all whiskies (except corn whisky) to be neutral spirits until they enter the barrel for maturation. Jack Daniel’s packaging and legal departments argued that the Tennessee Unaged Rye should be labeled as an “unaged whiskey” which we felt more accurately described the nature of the product to the consumer, but the TTB ruled against this proposal and would only approve the label under the category “neutral spirit”.

Jack Daniel’s understands this category classification can certainly be a point of confusion. The Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Unaged Rye is a fermented mash of 70 percent rye, 18 percent corn, and 12 percent malted barley that was distilled at 140 proof and charcoal mellowed, but it was never entered into an oak barrel.

Again, thank you for your inquiry. Please let me know if you have more concerns or questions.

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms PART 5—LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

Subpart C—Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits § 5.22 The standards of identity. Standards of identity for the several classes and types of distilled spirits set forth in this section shall be as follows (see also §5.35, class and type):

 (a) Class 1; neutral spirits or alcohol. “Neutral spirits” or “alcohol” are distilled spirits produced from any material at or above 190° proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80° proof.

(1) “Vodka” is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.

(2) “Grain spirits” are neutral spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain and stored in oak containers.

(b) Class 2; whisky. “Whisky” is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

Thanks,
Rob Hoskins
Jack Daniel’s Media Relations

As I replied to Mr. Hoskins, the definition of ‘neutral spirits,’ as a class designation, is distinguishable from the definition of vodka, which appears below it as a type designation within the class of neutral spirits, much as ‘rye whiskey’ appears as a type designation within the class of whiskey. The definition of ‘neutral spirits’ as a class, while it does not include the "without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color" requirement for vodka, does clearly state that the spirit must be distilled above 190° of proof. The ruling as described would seem to undermine the definition of neutral spirits for more purposes than just the labeling of this one Jack Daniel’s product.

In case you haven't detected this yet, I consider this outrageous. 

I have made my own inquiries to TTB. Stay tuned.

New Larceny Bourbon Is A Mystery Times Two.

These are the labels for a new bourbon from Heaven Hill. The story they tell is true. It was revealed in a book published in 1999. It is about John E. Fitzgerald, the man after whom the Old Fitzgerald brand was named.

The Old Fitzgerald brand was created by Charles Herbst, a pre-Prohibition wine and spirits wholesaler, based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was made at a distillery Herbst owned near Frankfort, Kentucky, called Old Judge (now long gone).

When Herbst created the brand he made up a story to go with it, that Fitzgerald was a distiller in Frankfort who, starting in 1870, made a fine bourbon whiskey that he sold only to railroads, steamship lines, and private clubs.

It was all fiction, but Fitzgerald was a real person, a U.S. Treasury agent. Treasury agents in those days, and up until the early 1980s, controlled access to all whiskey warehouses, the better to ensure that all taxes were paid and all whiskey was made to government standards. This made the local 'government man' very powerful and there was little a distiller or distillery owner like Herbst could do if the agent assigned to his distillery helped himself to a taste now and then.

Fitzgerald had a reputation among the Herbst folks for being a particularly good judge of whiskey. The barrels that received most of his attention almost always turned out to be exemplary, and it became an inside joke to refer to a particularly good barrel of bourbon as 'a Fitzgerald.' The joke was immortalized when they chose John E. Fitzgerald as the fictional producer of a brand they called Old Fitzgerald.

No one knew the true story until author Sally Van Winkle Campbell and her historian consultant, Sam Thomas, uncovered it. Campbell is the granddaughter of Julian 'Pappy' Van Winkle, who acquired the Old Fitzgerald brand from Herbst during Prohibition.

The label above was discovered through a different kind of sleuthing. It didn't come from Heaven Hill, which owns the Fitzgerald brand today. Instead it was discovered by a COLA troller. COLA stands for "Certificate of Label Approval." All alcoholic beverage labels have to be submitted to the Treasury Department's Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for approval, and when approved they become matters of public record and are posted on the TTB's web site.

COLA Trollers are enthusiasts who search the TTB web site for clues about new products. Label approval doesn't necessarily mean a product is imminent, or that it will be released at all, but they can be tantalizing, as this one is.

A Plea To American Whiskey Producers: Don't Give Up On Age Statements.

Recently, W. L. Weller Special Reserve lost its 7-year-old age statement. Before that it was Weller Antique (7 years), Evan Williams 1783 (10 years), Evan Williams black label (7 years) and others. Knob Creek has always been 9-years-old but the new Knob Creek Rye is NAS (No Age Statement). It hasn't happened yet, but Beam has gotten a new NAS label approved for Basil Hayden's, which has been 8-years old since its introduction 20 years ago.

What is an age statement? It is a declaration of the whiskey's minimum age that appears on its label. 'Minimum' means that the stated age has to be that of the youngest whiskey in the bottle. Older whiskey is okay but nothing younger than the stated age is permitted. Age statements are regulated by the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau, a branch of the U.S. Treasury.

In American whiskey, age statements are required for any product that is less than 4-years-old, so the absence of an age statement means the product is at least 4-years-old.

Only age statements on labels count. If the producer tells you the age of something, but it's not on the label, well, let's just say that's not the same thing.

For producers, age statements are a double-edged sword. Without them, the producer has more flexibility. Age, after all, is just a number. The maturity of the whiskey as reflected in its taste is what matters. These days, when most producers are struggling to meet demand, age statements can seem like more trouble than they're worth.

But there are good business reasons to keep using age statements. Whiskey enthusiasts are a small cadre but we buy a lot of whiskey. We like age statements. We know they aren't the only measure of a whiskey's quality or character, and we know older isn't necessarily better, but it's like any other information. Assuming it is factual and reliable, the more information you have about something, the easier it is to make a purchase decision.

It seems to be only American producers who are turning away from age statements. In the scotch segment we're seeing more, not fewer.

What companies forget is that if you tend to like, for example, bourbon that is more than 6 years old, you will look for age statements that give you that information when you are looking for something new to try, and ignore all NAS products unless you are already familiar with them. It is, therefore, often a criteria for someone who wants to try something new, a quick way to reduce the number of candidates. If you're a producer, don't you want that trial? Isn't attracting new customers usually one of the pillars of successful brand growth?

The producer counts on regular drinkers of the newly-NAS product to either not notice the change or not care. They may be right, but that doesn't mean going NAS is cost-free. To the extent that age statements are important to attracting new customers, you give up some percentage of your potential growth when you go NAS. Is that good business?

One hopes the companies know this and have just decided, for cost reasons, to set the bar for age statements a little higher, above 8 years, maybe, or 10. Let's hope that's the case because if producers have decided they can't risk age statements at any level, they're making a mistake that could be fatal to the continuing profitable growth of American whiskey.

Musings On A Couple Of Recent Posts.

Reading back through some recent posts, I had a few thoughts that seemed to be worth sharing.

On the subject of the Old Fashioned, I know what I'm about to say is blasphemy, but whiskey and Sprite, with a few dashes of bitters, is a reasonably authentic shortcut for an Old Fashioned. The only really inauthentic thing is the carbonation. After all, the drink is whiskey, water, bitters, sugar, and citrus. To keep it, again, reasonably authentic, you have to use a light hand with the soda. A ratio of about one-to-one seems to work pretty well, and I'm also generous with the bitters.

Most recipes that call for bitters call for a 'dash.' Gaz Regan taught me to disregard that. Watching him make a Manhattan once, I counted 14 dashes. The folks who have looked into this sort of thing say bitters are essential, both in the drinks that traditionally call for them, and in many that don't. I find the bitterness is what gives the drink its sophistication.

On the subject of 'legal moonshine,' I did notice since I made that post that Short Mountain's label describes a spirit made at least in part from sugar, which I've seen in a couple of other labels and label applications, but have never actually seen on the street as a product.

Several of my critics say I'm behind the times. That people want a legal moonshine product and thus they shall have one. The problem remains, however, that there is no agreement about what moonshine is as a spirit type. Most real moonshine is made using 100% table sugar as the fermentable substrate. This has been true for as long as cane sugar has been plentiful and cheap.

Remember, moonshine isn't about 'craft' or 'quality.' It's about making money, which means making spirit as quickly and easily as possible without getting caught.

One hears about corn being added in some recipes but unless there is cooking involved, and the introduction of enzymes, the corn is just for show. You need to cook corn to get the starch to dissolve, then you need to add enzymes to convert the liquified starch into sugar. If you don't, the corn is just a prop. It has no effect on the final product.

Most of the products that have made it to market labeled as moonshine, such as Junior Johnson's Midnight Moon, from Piedmont Distillers, are either vodka or corn whiskey. Midnight Moon is vodka, distilled from corn. Georgia Moon, a venerable product made by Heaven Hill, is corn whiskey.

Short Mountain isn't the only micro-distiller toying with the 'real' moonshine (i.e., sugarjack) idea, but unless they distill it out to something like vodka, it's probably going to taste awful. That's what people expect from moonshine, they think (mistakenly) that the bad taste means it's strong. (It doesn't, it just means it tastes bad.) It remains to be seen if people will actually buy a true sugarjack product and, most importantly, buy it again.

Under the rules, a distilled spirit made from cane sugar is rum. If it's not 100% cane sugar, then you probably have to call it a 'distilled spirit specialty,' which is a catchall category for products that don't fit any of the established types.

It should be noted that no product made from cane sugar, nor any product distilled above 95% ABV (i.e., vodka) is whiskey. Even the Piedmont product, which is made mostly from corn, is not whiskey because they distill it to vodka alcohol levels and, in fact, it is classified as vodka; which it says, in very small type, on the label.

And, as vodka goes, it's not bad.

But it's not whiskey, and it's not moonshine.

That's another thing that has been going on with the mirco-distillery movement, people griping that they want to call things whatever they want to call them and that the rules should be changed so they can. People have always wanted to do this, and that's precisely why the rules (laws, actually) exist.

I hasten to add that not all micro-distillers are this way. There are some terrific people running small distilleries, people who do things the right way, who are steeped in both the science and the history, and who work their asses off. It has been a pleasure for me to get to know many of them. The poseurs, we reassure ourselves, will surely wash out and go away in time.

It can't happen soon enough.

Mistruth In Alcoholic Beverage Marketing.

Mistruth, if it’s even a word, is an interesting one.

You won’t find it at Merriam-Webster Online. It’s not in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) either. MS Word is okay with it but Blogger's spell checker is not.

Scrabblefinder and similar sources say it is a legitimate Scrabble word, but they don’t provide a definition for it. Lexic.us defines it as “a lie” and offers examples of its use dating back to 1823. Wiktionary defines it as “untruth, falsehood.” You can find many examples of its use and, from context, that is how most writers seem to mean it, as synonymous with lie.

Only Urban Dictionary defines it differently, as “a statement that is true yet misleading.” They give as an example of its use, “Our web site is dedicated to dispel the mistruths propagated in their campaign.” That’s a pretty lousy sentence and it could easily be taken either way.

Still, we need a word like mistruth, the way Urban Dictionary defines it. Statements that are technically true but misleading are mainstays of political rhetoric and all forms of marketing, for whiskey and pretty much everything else. Marketers can be punished for untruths but mistruths (again, as Urban Dictionary defines them) get a lot more slack.

Advertising regulation in the USA, such as it is, is done nationally by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As a practical matter, someone has to complain before the FTC will investigate and act. The law says advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and advertisements cannot be unfair.

Usually it is competitors who bring the complaints.

Advertisers do not have to submit their advertising for review and approval. Enforcement is strictly after-the-fact. FTC actions usually result in the marketer voluntarily changing the offending message. The FTC can impose penalties if marketers refuse to abide by its findings.

The FTC is very lax about enforcing its own rules. One of the best examples is the word ‘free.’ It is supposed to mean “devoid of cost or obligation,” but you constantly see it used (with impunity) to mean “included at no extra cost with purchase.”

When this column takes a whiskey producer to task it’s usually over a mistruth, not a clear untruth. Whiskey marketers usually won’t lie outright, but they can be misleading as hell. Everybody does it, large and small, distillers and non-distiller producers.

Alcoholic beverage marketers have to clear a higher hurdle than most marketers. They have to submit all product labels for approval by the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which is part of the Treasury Department. The ‘label’ is everything attached to or printed on the container (i.e., bottle, can, wine box). Alcoholic beverage marketers do not have to submit other marketing materials for approval, such as advertising, just the labels.

Alcoholic beverage marketers, both large and small, complain that TTB is inconsistent, even capricious. The big guys usually have the resources to work the system until they get a favorable outcome. The little guys usually don’t.

It would be a shame if TTB’s reputation declines to a point where people can’t trust the labels. That will be a victory for mistruth.

U.S. Defines TN Whiskey Through Back Door.

This information came via comments posted on an old thread, here. Go there if you want to get deep into some American whiskey esoterica.

It's about to get geeky over here too.

Most striking is a statement contained in Canada's Food and Drug Regulations (C.R.C., c. 870), which define different kinds of alcoholic beverages, in this case Tennessee whiskey.

"Tennessee whisky...is a straight Bourbon whisky produced in the State of Tennessee and manufactured in the United States as Tennessee whisky in accordance with the laws of the United States applicable in respect of Tennessee whisky for consumption in the United States."

That's a mouthful and, legally, it only applies within Canada, but it's interesting because it codifies the definition of Tennessee whiskey, something the United States Treasury Department's Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has never done.

TTB is keeper of the Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits, which is the law of the land in terms of how distilled spirits are defined in the USA.

Note that the Canadian regulation does not define Tennessee whiskey as "straight bourbon whiskey that has been filtered through charcoal prior to barrel entry," which is what makes Tennessee whiskey unique according to the makers of Jack Daniel's.

Brown-Forman's Jack Daniel's and Diageo's George Dickel are the only Tennessee whiskeys, except for some emerging micros, but Jack is the best-selling American whiskey in the world and George is no slouch either.

The background for this is that the United States has trade agreements with various countries, such as Canada and Mexico, and entities such as the European Union, to recognize certain distinctive national products. In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, we recognize Canadian whisky and Tequila as distinctive products of Canada and Mexico, respectively, and they recognize bourbon whiskey and Tennessee whiskey as distinctive products of the United States.

NAFTA's wording is similar to the Canadian rule: "Tennessee Whiskey...is a straight Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only in the State of Tennessee."

So even though TTB has never defined Tennessee whiskey, the U.S. government has, albeit indirectly, which should help you shut up a few know-it-alls and maybe win a bar bet or two.

It's also potentially significant for the micro-distilleries in Tennessee who want to make Tennessee whiskey because it puts them on notice that, contrary to that 2009 post, Tennessee whiskey isn't any whiskey made in Tennessee. The whiskey must meet all of the requirements for straight bourbon whiskey and be made in Tennessee to qualify.

Be Careful With High Proof Whiskey.

At this time of year, when people like to treat themselves and their friends, it's common to buy whiskeys you normally don't, probably because they're too damn expensive.

Many people are enamored of barrel proof or cask strength whiskey, whether it's Booker's Bourbon at 63% ABV (alcohol by volume), McCallan Single Malt at 58% ABV, or the 2007 George T. Stagg Bourbon at 72.4% ABV. If you give or receive any of these this holiday season, or anything else above about 55% ABV, be careful.

Of course, you always need to be careful with straight spirits. Most whiskey is sold at 40% ABV, which is about four times as much alcohol per ounce as wine and more than eight times as much as most beers.

The most important part of self-control in an alcohol consumption context is being aware of exactly how much alcohol is going into your body; not the volume of liquid, the volume of alcohol.

With very high proof beverages there are additional risks.

Gentle sipping of small quantities of very high proof spirits probably won’t hurt you. It depends on your personal sensitivity. Drinking—as opposed to sipping—alcohol at very high concentrations risks damage to any and all of the tissue it encounters along the way: mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach.

A pour of straight Stagg, for example, contains 75 percent more alcohol than Jack Daniel’s. If you’re not paying careful attention to how much you consume, you risk alcohol poisoning, which can be fatal. Those are the primary risks, tissue damage and alcohol poisoning.

On the other side of the risk there is no reward. High proof alcohol tends to deaden or anesthetize the sense receptors, reducing your ability to taste or smell the whiskey. No fun in that.

Whiskeys aren’t bottled at high proof so you can drink them that way. They’re usually expensive and are bottled that way so you pay for whiskey, not added water, and can prepare it for drinking as you see fit. I recommend reducing the proof with room temperature water to about 50% ABV.

I hope this isn't a downer. Have a great holiday, including your favorite adult beverages. Just be adult about it.

Revised TTB Rules? Be Careful What You Wish For.

Some craft distillers are frustrated by the Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits, a set of labeling rules enforced by the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) of the Treasury Department. They think the rules squelch creativity and should be changed.

This is a story about an effort more than 40 years ago to do exactly that. It was supported by some of the largest and most powerful companies in the distilled spirits business. There were no micro-distilleries then, but those arguing against the proposals were the relatively smaller, family-owned distilleries that specialized in straight bourbon, straight rye, and Tennessee whiskey.

It was a battle between modernizers and traditionalists, and the traditionalists won.

The changes were proposed in response to foreign competition. The argument was that the whiskeys of Scotland, Ireland, and Canada had significant cost advantages because they were generally distilled at much higher proof (ABV), entered into barrels at higher proof (ABV), and aged in used barrels.

American producers could make a similar product, but the rules required them to label it in ways that diminished its marketability. There were certain terms they were not allowed to use in regard to such a product, such as ‘straight bourbon whiskey’ and ‘straight rye whiskey;’ and certain terms they were required to use, such as ‘aged in used cooperage.’ The imports merely had to be labeled here the same way they are labeled in their home countries.

So the big companies tried to get the Federal government to change the rules, so they could make American whiskey more in the foreign style, but still label it ‘straight bourbon,’ etc.

They wanted the top distillation proof raised from 80% ABV to 95% ABV, and the rules regarding maximum barrel entry proof and new charred oak barrels eliminated altogether. They wanted to relax the standard for straight whiskey to permit blends of straight whisky, even of different types, to be labeled as straight whiskey without the words ‘blend’ or ‘blended.’ One petitioner wanted a new rule requiring a minimum aging period of two years, another proposed a four-year minimum.

In January, 1968, the agency rejected most of the proposals and explained its reasoning in a nine page Industry Circular (No. 68-03).

It said that spirits made in the proposed way would “generally lack the distinguishing characteristics of such whiskies.” To call these products ‘straight bourbon’ or ‘straight rye’ would be misleading and not “in the interests of the consumer.”

The agency found that higher distillation proof “produces a distillate containing less pronounced natural flavoring components (both desirable and undesirable ones).”

On the minimum age requirement proposals the agency observed that, “there are no appreciable amounts of immature whiskies currently being sold,” a statement that is not true today. They did note, however, that “the present regulations protect the consumer by requiring all whiskies less than four years old to bear a true age statement.”

The most surprising fact about the 1968 circular is the extent to which the agency concerned itself with the balance and flavor of American whiskey. Although the regulators usually insist that their sole interest is truth-in-labeling, not quality per se, that does not appear to be the case here.

Perhaps there was some tasting involved.

Most Micro-Distillery Whiskeys Are Illegal In California.

This is fascinating! Apparently, nearly all micro-distillery whiskeys are illegal in California. The law there says that a distilled spirit labeled as 'whiskey' has to be at least three years old. (That's the rule in Europe too, by the way, which has been giving mirco-distillers fits.) That's the rule in California but no one, including California's alcohol regulators, seems to know about it, because many <3-year-old whiskeys are sold there.

California also appears to require charred barrels.

The pertinent section also uses the term 'straight whiskey' without defining it, which seems like an indirect acknowledgement of the federal Standards of Identity, where it is defined. The term 'straight whiskey' is used nowhere else in the 376-page law.

Presumably, if this rule were to be enforced it could be challenged on the grounds that the federal rules control, and the federal rules have no such requirement.

Here is the relevant section.

25175. Age of whiskey. Any person who sells at retail any potable spirituous liquor product labeled as whiskey, including blended whiskey and blends of straight whiskeys, except products containing 20 or more percent of straight whiskey or whiskeys which have been aged in charred oak containers for three or more years after distillation and before bottling is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that this section does not prohibit the sale at retail of unaged corn whiskey, when so labeled, or the sale at retail of gins, brandies, rums, cordials, liqueurs, bitters, or other distilled liquor products or products compounded of distilled spirits and other materials, when in no wise labeled as whiskey or blended whiskey or blends of straight whiskeys, or the sale at retail of Scotch whiskeys, or spirit whiskeys containing not less than 5 percent straight whiskey, three years old or older.

Is It Time To Retire ‘Proof’?

I have long been accustomed, when writing about distilled spirits, to state alcohol concentrations in degrees of proof, e.g., 80° proof. The alternative is to state the percentage of alcohol by volume (ABV). Often I state both.

But I’m starting to change.

The proof system serves no actual purpose that I can identify, except it is traditional and in the world of drinks and drinking, we like tradition. If there is anything else to it, I don’t know what it is. Most of the world doesn’t use it and they don’t seem to think they’re missing out on anything important.

Part of my sentimental attachment has to do with the concept of proof itself, with proof—a corruption of ‘proved’—being considered the correct alcohol concentration for a distilled beverage. This idea that a 50 percent alcohol, 50 percent water solution is ideal for drinking also suggests a balanced approach to alcohol consumption itself, the ability to enjoy its pleasures while guarding against its risks.

It also has the feel of a secret language, understood only by initiates, though a lame one since the code can be broken by anyone able to divide by two.

Sadly, the reality today is that very few distilled spirits are even sold at proof and the term is rarely used that way. Instead, proof is just an archaic way to state alcohol concentration. Because it is archaic and much of the world doesn’t use it, most of us who do feel compelled to state the ABV as well. Increasingly, that redundance seems ridiculous.

There is another archaic notion which holds that the alcohol content of various drinks is better left unstated, lest people use that information to pursue intoxication. In most states, brewers are prohibited from printing alcohol content on their labels, yet vintners and distillers are required to.

Does this assume some fundamental difference, in basic literacy perhaps, between beer drinkers and drinkers of other alcoholic beverages? If that is the case, and if it was ever accurate, it surely is outdated by now.

Perhaps proof was viewed as just obscure enough to prevent those same people from fully grasping its meaning. Again, that seems irrelevant today, since almost nowhere is proof used exclusively. The only place where it is used, on the labels of American distilled spirits products, you always see the ABV too.

The advantage of the ABV system, of course, is that it is easy to understand. Even if you don’t fully grasp the idea of alcohol concentration, or the difference between fermented and distilled beverages, most people can understand that 20 percent alcohol is twice as much as 10 percent alcohol, or that 3 percent alcohol isn’t very much but 72 percent is.

The problem with hiding this is that the information you need to pursue intoxication is exactly the same information you need to avoid intoxication. Perhaps there was a time when it was inconceivable that anyone would choose to drink, and enjoy drinking, while also trying to avoid intoxication, or let’s say excessive intoxication, but that is what many drinkers do today.

I have encountered a few idiots who claim they drink for flavor only and wish they could avoid the alcohol effect altogether, but such delusions are easily dismissed. Of course we enjoy the alcohol effect, but that’s not the same as getting drunk. Many, possibly even most drinkers today want to enjoy some effect short of intoxication. To modulate your drinking along those lines, you need to understand alcohol content.

ABV is the best system for that and proof just muddies the water.

So what am I going to do? Rather than adopt a policy, I’m just going to see what happens, but I am leaning in favor of retiring proof altogether. What do you think?