The Campaign for Real Whisky

[Nick Brown]

nice try, but no. You're chasing chimeras Nick, you'd be better watching the skies for reindeer.

Let’s look at the evidence:

I have argued that if the campaign is to be meaningful, it needs to be about the quality of whisky - perhaps against colouring and chill filtering if people think that affects quality

viewtopic.php?f=278&t=4095&start=225#p55319

Mark and others have argued that the campaign should not be about colouring and chillfiltering – it should be about putting more information on labels

viewtopic.php?f=278&t=4095&start=225#p55350

Look at your post and ask which of the two positions most closely matches your own.

As for arguments like this:

No viable argument has been proposed for supporting the use of artificial colouring nor chill filtration so let us continue our call for 'real whisky'. Those who have dissented, we thank your contribution.

Frankly, it won't get you anywhere. The industry takes these additional (and costly) steps because they believe it will result in better sales and better profits. They don't add extra steps into the production process just to spite their customers. Unless you acknowledge the sound reasons for current practice you are unlikely to make headway in changing it. Just telling your opponents (although actually we're on the same side, aren't we?) to go away is the stuff of the playground.

[Anster]

The campaign is for clear labelling, which I fully support. as all my posts make explictly clear. I support this cause because of the reasons I have stated directly above. If you want me to agree with you, I shall, but you're going to have to agree with me first. Stop stirring and get cooking, it's Christmas Eve over here.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

Nick, with all due respect (and I hope you know that doesn't mean what it usually means), I'm telling you to go away because you equated listing E150 on labels with listing the number of staves in the cask used. That was such utter nonsense that I didn't even finish the post--if there was a better point in there, it was lost on me.

You're splitting hairs. There are some here who think "real" whisky is uncolored and unchillfiltered. There are others who accept that colored and filtered whisky will always exist, but would like to see labeling which will allow anyone who cares to make an informed choice. Many here have advocated that we get behind an effort to require listing coloring as an ingredient on the label, as it is in virtually every comestible other than whisky, as an easily attainable goal that we can all get behind. No, most whisky drinkers don't care. Most beer drinkers didn't care about real ale, either, and in fact most beer drinkers still don't care about real ale. But CAMRA can only be counted a smashing success, because they educated enough drinkers, and got them to care enough, to make a difference. When you can get a proper pint of Deuchar's in North Uist, that is a victory. Maybe someday as large a segment of the whisky market will be uncolored and unfiltered as the beer market is cask-conditioned, and an educated public will be able to choose from a wide array of standard OB uncolored unfiltered malts, if they so choose. Maybe not. Again, if you don't care about it, fair enough. Just let those who do go take their shot. And stop with the silly slippery-slope arguments about wanting to label every possible influence there could possibly be on whisky. It doesn't have anything to do with that.

[Mark C]

I really need to reply to a lot of points in this thread but I'm struggling to find the time right now.

In essence I see us as a consumer voice for all matters regarding whisky. The campaign to get colouring/chill-filtering on the label will be the first aim of this group, not the only. In the future moves to have caramel removed altogether might be something that we look at but for now the target should be labelling.

There are a lot of comments that I would like to reply to but some are just getting silly (see water and staves).

My argument for having these two processes labelled on the bottle, especially the colouring, is simply that as consumers it is our right to know what producers are doing to the liquid in the bottles that we buy. It really is that simple and if there is a loud enough voice then it can happen. I could use various analogies from the food world but that will just start further posts which will go too far off at a tangent.

I buy whisky and I want to know whether it is coloured. I have a right to know. It's that simple.

Really, it is the industry who should be arguing as to why it shouldn't be on the label.

[Jamie Milne]

Apologies to all for my "smoke", "mirrors", "nonsense" and "distractions" which have generally wasted your time.
I certainly feel as though I've wasted mine and it's obvious that any further attempt to generate debate would be destructive. If you want my opinion again in future (though I can't imagine this will happen), Mark knows where to find me.

In the spirit of other playground level retorts, I shall now take my ball and flounce out of the playground.

Have a Merry Christmas and the very best of luck with your campaign.

Jamie.

[Mark C]

If you want my opinion again in future (though I can't imagine this will happen), Mark knows where to find me.

Especially if there is any more of that uncoloured and unchill-filtered Snow Phoenix going...

Thanks for the comments, even if I disagree. That's what forums are all about. Have a good one and see you soon.

[olikli]

it's obvious that any further attempt to generate debate would be destructive.

...

In the spirit of other playground level retorts, I shall now take my ball and flounce out of the playground.

I feel a bit sorry to have to post this, but coming up with the silly "Then you'd have to list any other influences as well" agument certainly did help to pull this dicussion down to kindergarten sandbox level.

I for one am not really messianic about the E150a and CF issue, but I do fully support the initiative for proper labelling.

It speaks volumes that whisky industry representatives try to ridicule an issue that has been commonly accepted EU wide practice with other foodstuff for decades.

[Jamie Milne]

My final post, as this is really important, but it obviously hasn't quite made its mark.

As I said at the outset, and repeated during subsequent postings, I did not post any of this as a whisky industry representative. I posted it in my own time, and it's my opinion.

Have a great Xmas all.

Jamie.

[bernstein]

(...)In the spirit of other playground level retorts, I shall now take my ball and flounce out of the playground.

What an elegant way to bow out of the room...

[olikli]

My final post, as this is really important, but it obviously hasn't quite made its mark.

As I said at the outset, and repeated during subsequent postings, I did not post any of this as a whisky industry representative. I posted it in my own time, and it's my opinion.

Jamie, this we all have well understood, I think. It is your personal view being a representative of the whisky industry. Of course you don't act as an official spokemsan of your employer here. But as others have pointed out, your statements without a doubt show the mindset of a certain part of the whisky industry.

And the fact that there are also industry members supporting this issue makes it clear that the demand for proper labelling is not as stupid as you want it to look like.

[Peat Sampras]

That's great, Serge. This sign should be on all whiskies containing the dreaded caramel! There could be a sulphur-version as well... Although, the little devil almost looks to cute to put punters off

[Malt-Teaser]

Merry Christmas everyone!

[Frodo]

By the way, with all the bashing Jamie's getting here, I just want to say Well Done Jamie for at least being prepared to stand up and put the alternative views.
I may not agree with all you say, but I have to admire the courage of coming onto the forum into this debate and putting your points.

Plus one

Plus two.

I really enjoyed your contributions to this thread Jamie and am glad that you took the time to stimulate this debate despite some less than enthusiestic reception in it. I understand that you are speaking as an individual not as an Ambassador, and I think your point of view helped identify tactical stubling block for the campaign. I look forward to reading the post on your blog that you alluded to.

[Frodo]

I like to know how long it has spent in a Chateau Cheap Plonk cask...

OK I just fell off my chair laughing at that one.

RG bump for you!!!

[rollhead]

The campaign is for non-chill filtered and non-colored.

It doesn't include cask strength?

Curious if there is any plus to having non-cask strength whisky.

Or, put another way, is non-cask-strength whisky anything other than just diluted whisky?

[Mr Tattie Heid]

I don't think anyone wants to mandate that all whisky be cask strength, and there's already perfectly clear labeling in that regard.

Seems to me the broad purpose of this is to give consumers a voice in matters that affect whisky. Coloring is simply the first issue to be addressed.

[C57]

I don't think anyone wants to mandate that all whisky be cask strength, and there's already perfectly clear labeling in that regard.

Seems to me the broad purpose of this is to give consumers a voice in matters that affect whisky. Coloring is simply the first issue to be addressed.

I agree. And a bottle of lower alcohol in the UK at least, should in theory be cheaper because duty is charged per measure of alcohol and there's less in a standard sized lower strength bottle

[rollhead]

Good point, Mr. Haid.

Okay... I am no lawyer, BUT. It seems that the U.S. ATF has regulations that REQUIRE that coloring be listed on bottles.

§ 19.649 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.
The presence of neutral spirits or coloring, flavoring, or blending materials shall be stated on labels in the manner provided in 27 CFR part 5.(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85–859, 72 Stat. 1356, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5201))

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 20&idno=27

[galg]

i'm with you on this.
lovely idea!

G.

[13th]

...Ok,

I've just read this whole thread from start to now. after the second page I poured myself four drams to help me think the matter over. Fettercairn Fior and Dalmore rivers Tay for the definitely (highly?) coloured. Bruichladdich 12yo and arran 15th anniverssary for the definitely uncoloured... later I went for another couple coloured dram that I dont mind, Dalmore 12yo and then a Glenmorangie 10yo.

I think i've identified the e150a, not on the nose but more on the palate. I find it unpleasant in the tay and fior, somehow more acceptable in the dalmore 12yo but i cant be sure if i'm getting any at all in the glenmo.

There was a common taste to the 3 darkest coloured whiskies that isn't in non coloured whiskies. That'll probabbly be the e150a. i didn't like that taste in its higher concentrations, in the fior and Tay.

The glenmorangie is a lot paler and one would assume that means it has a lot less e150a in it. I didn't perceive what I beleive to be the taste of e150a.

Personal opinion. The e150a was higher in the fior and tay. Seems a deliberate attempt to cover up on poor whisky with artificial flavour. Dalmore 12yo also seems to still have quite a bit of e150a yet I quite like it, It works with the style. Despite knowing the glenmo 10 uses e150a for batch colour consistancy, I didn't notice what I beleive to be the taste of e150a in the whisky and still like it.

so;
*A use of high levels of caramel to mask a poor whisky.
*A use of caramel which compliments a whisky.
*A use of minimal caramel, which isn't noticeable, for batch consistancy.

Oh, and on the batch consistancy/ customer CONFIDENCE argument used. Tay 2011 is a one off batch. why does it need e150a? or are we talking brand consistancy? Not that I know for sure its been tampered with but i'd bet money on it.

[13th]

On a more practical level. Does e150a pose any kind of a threat to people with dietary intolerence. i beleive that stating if wine contains sulphites came from such a concern. here we go...

Sulfite Allergies
A group of sulfur-containing compounds known as sulfites occur naturally in wine and beer, and they help inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria. Vintners sometimes add additional sulfites to wines as preservatives. In susceptible individuals, sulfites can trigger asthma attacks or even anaphylactic shock.

from http://foodallergies.about.com/od/livingwithfoodallergies/a/alcohol.htm

Are Celiacs natrual allies?

http://www.celiac.com/gluten-free/topic/40204-scotch-whisky/

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7008028-lupus-with-celiacia

Caramel coloring may be derived from a variety of source products that are themselves common allergens, such as lactose (from milk), dextrose (usually derived from corn), starch hydrolysates (from corn or wheat), or malt syrup (generally derived from barley). As such, persons with known sensitivities or allergies to food products are advised to avoid foods including generic caramel coloring or first determine the source for the caramel coloring before consuming the food.[6][7]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramel_color

TBH, its all a bit inconclusive.

With all the other stuff on the back of a whisky bottle, which few people read anyway, it's not asking a lot to have the use of "spirit caramel" stated.

Mabye it could go above the pregnant lady drinking, next to the recycling symbol, across from the abv, next to the number of units in a bottle, just below the statement of 25ml=1 uk unit, and just next to the uk health departments recomendations for daily intake of alcohol for men and women, near the barcode.

Ah, I see the real problem. If there was any more compulsory information then there wouldn't be enough space for the tax stamp

[C57]

Ah, I see the real problem. If there was any more compulsory information then there wouldn't be enough space for the tax stamp

Despite knowing the glenmo 10 uses e150a for batch colour consistancy, I didn't notice what I beleive to be the taste of e150a in the whisky and still like it.

Glenmorangie use E150a only in the Original, according to Lumsden. And that, an absolute minimum. That's one reason why it's so lightly coloured - they use no more than necessary to get the darkest it comes from the cask (after vatting of course).
It doesn't surprise me that you don't notice it so much in Glenmo as in the others therefore.

[Mark C]

I looked into the Celiac stuff at the start but it was all pretty inconclusive with the distillers stating that the amounts present were too small to cause any reaction.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

They also tell you you can't taste E150.

[Mark C]

I agree but without conclusive evidence you can't use that argument.