Bourbon vs. Whiskey vs. Whisky - A Primer (“Actually, it’s about ethics in whisky journalism”)

[dan_the_tax_man]

While I’m still working on the third, and therefore final, part of my three-part series discussing the issues and controversies(?) surrounding No Age Statement (NAS) whiskies, it appears that I write better - and faster - when something has irked me…and something has indeed irked me.

A couple of days ago, a Brand Ambassador for an international whisky conglomerate (which shall remain nameless) sent out a tweet containing a link to an [old] Huffington Post article entitled “Bourbon vs. Whiskey: How to Know What’s What”. Calling it an article, however, is overly generous, because what it really was - despite purporting to answer the ‘age-old’ question of “…when it comes to bourbon vs. whiskey vs. whisky, what's the difference?” - was just a short paragraph followed by an infographic prepared by Maker’s Mark.

When I replied to the tweet, and pointed out that there were some serious flaws and misleading statements in the infographic, I was told that perhaps I’d been too literal in my interpretation of the infographic, and that the infographic accurately depicts the difference between bourbon whiskey and other whiskies, although this claim was later abrogated to a statement to the effect that “…it was just a promotional infographic defining Maker’s Mark and how it fits into bourbon as a category. #iswhatitis”.

But the reality is that neither of these statements are true, as that is not how the infographic was being used in the story it had been attached to. To me, this article, and its use of the infographic as its only source material (the author doesn’t seem to have done any research, fact checking, or analysis), is a perfect example of ‘Yellow Journalism’. And what, you ask, is ‘Yellow Journalism’? It’s “…when the truth isn't there [and/or] the facts are missing or twisted…[and] the internet makes yellow journalism even easier. You can post anything you want without checking facts.”

For another example, please see Jason Debly’s skewering of another biased and poorly researched article, here; however, I think it is accurate to say that most whisky bloggers are intimately familiar with the poor quality of many whisky-related articles that find their way into the mainstream media, so the lack of accurate information in the Huffington Post isn't really that surprising. What was surprising to me was that the article was being retweeted by a Brand Ambassador, someone who you would have thought would know better than to disseminate misinformation and/or misleading statements just to promote a brand: 'The Truth' shouldn't hurt a brand, so why conceal it behind technically correct, but misleading, statements...or am I being naive in thinking this?

So, seeing as how my day job is to un-pack and analyze things, let’s take a closer look at this infographic, shall we… (if you follow the link to the original article, you can view the infographic at its full size)


“All bourbon is whisky. Not all whisky is bourbon” - True. No issue with this statement.

Legal Definitions:
“Must be made in America” (Bourbon) vs.
“Seriously. This is the actual law: ‘[t]he distillate must possess the taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to whisky.” (Whisky)

True, but Bourbon can only claim its ‘Made in America’ status, as defined by s. 5.22(b)(2), because international trade agreements and legislation introduced in other countries have defined ‘Bourbon’ as a product of the United States (U.S.), made in accordance with the U.S. standards of identity (and the U.S. has reciprocated by including in its own standards of identity clauses to the effect that Scotch, Irish, and Canadian whiskies sold in the U.S. are distinctive products of their respective nations, manufactured in compliance with their own legal frameworks). Further, making the claim that Bourbon is 'Made in America' automatically implies that 'Whiskey' and 'Whisky' are not necessarily 'Made in America', but can be made elsewhere.

As for the second part of the comparison, the line that has been quoted in the infographic is actually part of s. 5.22(b) of the U.S. standards, which defines whisky, and this definition also applies to Bourbon [which is further defined at 5.22(b)(1)(i)]. Conveniently, the infographic does not address the fact that ‘Tennessee Whiskey’, which by error(?) of omission gets lumped in with ‘whiskey’ and ‘whisky’, is in fact a Bourbon that has simply gone through an additional filtering process (although there is a move in Tennessee to codify what constitutes ‘Tennessee Whiskey’).

If we go further afield and take a look at the regulations governing whisky distillation in other jurisdictions, such as Canada, Ireland, and Scotland, on the grounds that the infographic is being used to compare bourbon vs. whiskey vs. whisky, and later makes a direct reference to country of origin with respect to whether it is ‘whiskey’ or ‘whisky’, we’d note that all of those countries have pretty clear legal definitions of what constitutes whisky [and s. 5.22(b)(7) through (b)(9) - which are subordinate to s. 5.22(b), above, which is used in the infographic itself to define non-Bourbon 'whisky' - provide definitions for Scotch, Irish, and Canadian whiskies]; although, admittedly, Canada’s definition is rather weak, as it simply states that Canadian whisky shall “…possess the aroma, taste and character generally attributed to Canadian whisky.”

Mashbill:
“Must be at least 51% corn” (Bourbon) vs.
“…a spirit distilled from grain” (Whisky)

True, but this conveniently omits the fact that in the U.S., rye, wheat, malt, and rye malt whiskies must also contain a minimum of 51% of the specified grain (rye, wheat, etc.), and that the remainder of the mash can be made up of other grains. Looking internationally, we see that Canadian, Irish, and Blended Scotch whisky do pretty much fall under the “…spirit distilled from grain” requirement, as their respective legislative regimes are non-specific, with the exception of Scotland, of course, where all Scotch whisky must contain some malted barley, and single malt Scotch whisky must be manufactured using 100% malted barley.

Distillation:
"Distilled to 80% ABV max, barrelled at no more than 62.5% ABV" (Bourbon) vs.
"Distilled to 90% ABV max, ‘bottled’ at no less than 40% ABV" (Whisky)

True, if we’re talking legal definitions, but it’s important to note that the final part of this comparison is actually between ‘barrelled at’ and ‘bottled at’, which are completely different things and can’t be compared at all, as the provision for bottling at no less than 40% ABV, as contained in the U.S. standards,  also applies to Bourbon. Moreover, this omits, again, that the standards for Bourbon also apply to rye, wheat, malt, and rye malt whiskies, and that there is, in fact, no minimum requirement for barrelling, only a maximum.

In Scotland and Ireland, the only distillation restriction is that the spirit cannot be distilled to more than 94.8% ABV, while in Canada there is no limitation (it is generally accepted that the base whisky spirits used by Canadian distillers are distilled to no more than 94.5% ABV, and the flavouring whiskies to around 80% ABV). With Scottish single malts, the distillation strengths differ by distillery, but new make spirit usually comes off the stills at around 70% ABV, and is then diluted to around 63% prior to barrelling.

Aging Requirements:
“Must be stored in new, charred oak containers” (Bourbon) vs.
“Must be stored in oak containers” (Whisky)

True, Bourbon must be aged in new, charred oak containers, but so must rye whisky, wheat whisky, malt whisky, and rye malt whisky. In the U.S., only ‘Light’ whisky and 'Corn' whisky, which are separate classifications under the standards, are treated differently. Interestingly enough, both 'Corn' and 'Light' whiskies can be stored in new, uncharred oak. The Irish, Canadian, and Scottish regulations only refer to ‘oak’, and place no restriction on whether the oak containers employed are new, used, charred, or uncharred, and many distillers employ both used and virgin oak.

Further, while the infographic is correct in that there are no minimum aging requirements for Bourbon, or other types of whisky produced in the U.S., most other jurisdictions do have a minimum age requirement: in Canada, Ireland, and Scotland (and the U.K. in general), it is three years. The U.S. does requires a whisky whose mashbill contains at least 51% of a single grain (corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, etc.) to be aged at least two years in order to be designated a “Straight” whisky, but otherwise the only age requirement the U.S. seems to have is that if a whisky has been aged less than four years, the distiller is required to tell you how long it has been aged; if it has been aged for more than four years, there is no requirement for an age statement on the label.

Additives:
“No added flavors, coloring or blends of different whisky types.” (Bourbon) vs.
No Claim (Whisky) [although by making no claim, there is the inherent implication that other whiskies do contain flavouring and/or colouring agents, and may be blended with other types of whisky.]

True, the U.S. standards are clear that no flavouring or colouring agents may be added to 'Straight' Bourbon (or 'Straight' Rye, Wheat, Malt, etc., etc.), although the recent dust-up surrounding Templeton Rye and the use of flavouring agents in that particular whisky has revealed that flavouring and colouring agents are allowed in whisky that hasn’t been designated as ‘Straight’ whisky. But here’s the rub, just because the regulations allow for something to be done, doesn’t mean that it has been done. For example, the Irish whiskey regulations are silent on additives (although the Canadian regulations on what constitutes ‘Irish Whiskey’ specifically allow for the addition of caramel to Irish whiskey imported to Canada), and while the Scotch Whisky Regulations allow for the addition of colouring agents (e150a), not all distillers add it to their whiskies. Similarly, in Canada, even though the regulations specifically state that caramel and flavouring are allowed, the famed “9.09%” rule is generally only exploited for Canadian whisky that is destined for export to the United States.

“To ‘E’ or not to ‘E,’ that is the question”:
As is clearly stated in the infographic, the decision on which spelling to use is “[s]imply a…preference typically from country of origin.” In general, whiskeys - including bourbon - produced in the U.S. and Ireland use ‘Whiskey’, while whiskies from Scotland, Canada, and Japan use ‘Whisky’. Of interest here is that Maker’s Mark actually uses ‘whisky’, and not ‘whiskey’, in honour of their founders’ Scottish heritage. By including this definitional issue, the infographic further implies that the comparison it makes isn’t just about Bourbon vs. other types of American whisky, but rather it is comparing / contrasting Bourbon with other whiskeys and whiskies, which includes, by definition, Scotch, Irish, Japanese, and Canadian (and any other whiskey/whisky that may be produced elsewhere, such as India, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, France, etc., etc., etc.). To argue otherwise, especially when the article that uses it as reference material specifically states that it is examining the differences between bourbon, whiskey, and whisky, is disingenuous at best.

Summary:
I like Maker's Mark, I really do. It's possibly one of the only bourbon's I've tried that I've actually been able to enjoy (my love/hate relationship with bourbon will be the subject of another entry at another time), but I'm really disappointed with the fact that:

1. the infographic itself is filled with misinformation and/or misleading statements;
  2. a journalist would rely solely on an infographic produced by a single distillery as the basis for such a comparison; and
  3. a Brand Ambassador would circulate the article without questioning the content and/or accuracy.
A more accurate infographic, that could lead to a more informed discussion would be something like this:



(For those who are wondering, this is, indeed, sarcasm)

Thoughts? Disagreements? Comments?

Maker's Mark Review:


Colour: deep copper

Nose: oak, maraschino cherries, some vanilla, burnt / caramelized marshmallows, and cinnamon.

Taste: oily, quite thick and mouth coating, with brown sugar, some baking spices (nutmeg), vanilla, oak, a hint of dark cherry changing to sweet corn with butter, and then fading to salted caramel at the end.

Finish: hot and lingering, with very pleasent, but spicy oak flavours.

Balance: nicely balanced - not too oaky, not too powerful - a nice middle ground...in other words, bourbon that I'll actually drink, instead of using it solely for baking and bbq sauce after having one glass.

For other thoughts on Maker's Mark, please see the following:

• About Food;
• the Scotch Noob; and
• The Whiskey Jug;