Rum and flavour agents added, age statements

[M.R.J.]

For the longest time there's been some discussions on how & where does rum get its flavours from, as some of the commercially available, big brand rums just seem so...artificial in their taste. As someone who's been promoting rums since 1987, I have had a great interest in finding out the truth behind these discussions.

Look at the flavour of some rum brands: There is just no way all the vanilla, fruit, sweetness, etc comes from distillation (particularly since most are distilled in column stills to a fairly neutral spirit) and aging in an oak cask. Pyrat, Diplomatico, Brugal, Angostura 1919, Zacapa, Zaya...the list goes on.

The age statements have also baffled many: Zacapa Centenario used to state "23 anos" (years) on the label, and then it became "23 Solera".

We have to bear in mind that rum is produced in roughly 150 countries all over the world, so legislation of what can be added and done with rum, and how the age must be marked, varies very much. Rum is very much a produce of old colonies, and in many cases the local legislation still has its roots in the old laws of the "mother country" (from the time when the break-off took place). Ex-Spanish colonies for instance have laws that derive their origin from the 19th century Spanish laws, and ex-British colonies legislation may still contain traces of the WWII British laws.

Flavour agents or additives is a very sensitive topic in rum circles. I have seen this first hand, when a fairly well-known American author of a rum book (and a rum businessman) first agreed with my sentiments on how rum producers should stop the hiding of facts and come out to tell the truth, then quickly changed his views on the matter, and banned me from his forum as a "rum hater" who could not prove his "accusations" against rum industry. The very ungentlemanly emails from him told a clear story of panic. This same person has indentified Brugal as a non-pure rum, and then said he had done no such thing (and deleted his own message).

No doubt this fellow got a lot of heat from his friends in the rum industry - but fact is, rum producers describe their processes of making rum very much in the manner of making whisky. What some fail to mention is the part where "macenated fruit extracts / fruits, honey, nuts / essences are added to the new make spirit, in order to give it a more tasty profile. They also fail to mention possible use of oak extract, and of course, copious amounts of sugar added to the spirit, to make basically a dry spirit taste ever so sweet.

At this point, some may say so what - whisky uses cask finishes for example, same same, no difference. I beg to differ.

The use of cask finishes, filtration and such - all ok in my books. These are industry standard practices, which no one tries to hide even in rum world. No need to, since they are widely accepted even for whisky for instance.

But macerated fruit extracts, other spirits or juices, oak extracts, essences, tons of sugar? I believe the rum industry is well aware of the fact that such practices are NOT accepted by the general public. Especially when the products are NOT sold as "spiced rum", but instead as super-premium top-range rum, selling for a good amount of money. People pay far less for a spiced rum than for a premium product. This is why such practices are NOT part of the process description given to the world outside.

An American "rum expert" Robert Burr recently stated in a response to a review of Venezuelan rum Diplomatico that the taste (super-sweet, syrupy) comes from the producers adding a liqueur based on cane juice, Hacienda Saruro, to the rum.

http://inuakena.com/spirit-reviews/rum-review-diplomatico-reserva-exclusiva/#comment-739

In other words, Diplomatico Exclusiva is not a pure rum at all, and should, by all standards, be sold as a "spiced rum" Rum Matusalem surfaced recently to the spotlight of things, as a result of a family feud for the rights of using & owning the original recipe. In the court case documentation, which is public in USA, the evidence seems to clearly point out that Matusalem is in fact a spiced rum, which derives flavour from macerated fruit extracts.

"Assuming that Inc. substituted commercial extracts for the natural prune and vanilla bean macerations required to make its rums, it is impossible to establish from the record any time frame for these events.

Federico Abascal (Vice President of United and son of Ricardo Abascal) testified that Inc. began making its own macerations at the beginning of 1983, using "the beans and the prunes" (R13-1119), and that this continued until about one year before trial. Gerardo Abascal testified that when the formula bought from Limited ran out in 1983, Inc. began to make its own formula.7

James Hammond, the general manager of the bottler, Jacquin-Florida Distilling Company, testified that Jacquin had equipment and facilities for macerating whole prunes and vanilla beans on its premises, but could not recall if the equipment had been used. (R9-307, 308)."

and:

"The district court found that Inc.'s deviation from the letter of the secret formula was so minor as to render any finding of injury to Matusa negligible:
20

With regard to the use of the formula, the only evidence or the only conclusion that I can draw is that the formula used by Inc. and United was substantially similar to the formula, the original formula that the grandfather put in the book. Both parties have exchanged these formulas and I have heard nothing to indicate that they are not similar.
21

With regard to the substituting of extracts for the original vanilla and prune macerations, it's difficult to tell from this evidence if there is any change in the ultimate results."

http://rumproject.com/rumforum/viewtopic.php?t=890

Now I have seen the Rum Matusalem marketing materials and presentation, and never was it mentioned that the rum would get any taste from anything other than great distillate, and barrel aging. Interesting. I would call this highly misleading.

It seems to me that there are rum producers out there that are not exactly honest about how their product gets its taste. Lets bear in mind that for an allergic person, this kind of information might actually be vital.

Similarly, the age statements are whatever. In many cases they may refer to the oldest distillate in the mix. In some cases, the manufacturer says that they labeled the product as 12yo, because "they feel it has a profile of a 12yo product". In the case of Zacapa, the original (false) age statements of 23yo was dropped after the distillery was bought by big business, and changed to 23 Solera - because they say the olders spirit in their extremely strange and unconvincing solera is - 23 years old. The actual rum in the bottle is more likely to be between 3 - 7 years old.

The case of "flavour enhanced' premium rums that should by all means be actually sold as spiced rums seems to concentrate in the ex-Spanish colonial countries. I have been told for example that Venezuela's laws allow all sorts of additions, and the same has been said of Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Guatemala. In some cases rum blends coming from countries that ban flavouring of spirit still contains flavoured rum, because the makers navigate around the law by purchasing already-made bulk rum from the international markets, and blend it into what they make in order to make a product.

Rum producers have met many times on an international scale, and they have not even been able to agree so far on the very founding definition of rum, i.e. that it is a spirit derived solely from sugar cane. This is very disappointing. WIRSPA has been trying to promote this view, but on the other hand, WIRSPA's own range of rums includes one Pyrat - and Pyrat's falvour profile tells me that it is clearly a spiced rum, even if it is not sold as such. The product tastes more like orange liqueur than anything else.

To many consumers, rum is a sweet, sweet drink. Anyone who has sampled pure rum from a cask knows it is not, it is a dry spirit. Most commercial, big brand rums are drowned in copious amounts of sugar added. Again, this is not mentioned. As is, the consumer's view of rum is seriously distorted I feel.

Someone might ask whats the point, and why this matters? Well, I think it does. We would not accept similar practices from Scotch, Irish or American whisky makers. Canada allows additions to the spirit, but this is NOT A SECRET. It is publicly known fact.

Rum is often promoted as the "next big thing" after whisky. BUT: The whole point is that certain rum producers are misleading the public, and selling spiced, flavoured product as a pure rum for a big price. They do not admit or tell that they spice the spirit. They maintain a practice of secrecy, and in doing so tarnish also the reputation of those rum producers who DO NOT achieve the flavour of their rum with similar tricks. When caught and cornered, they appeal to traditions, or that they never claimed that their product is a "pure" rum, or - most ridiculously, that nobody cares, since rum is a fun drink, and the rum drinking people are "fun". Well, I think the biggest fun & laughs are had by the producers of a 3yo spirit from a column still, gaining most of its taste from extracts and essences, sugar, sold with a label of 12yo, costing a penny to make, with a purchase price of 50 GBP.

In any case fine, do sell the product and make it as you wish, but there's really no excuse for not telling the truth about the product and how it is made.

I am an avid rum fan. No, I am not a fan of those adulterated, spiced rums that are sugary sweet and false in every way. I am a fan of real, pure rum. Rum that tastes like rum. Rum bottled by the likes of Bristol Spirits, Cadenhead's, Duncan Taylor, Luca Gargano, etc. Rum distilled by Richard Seale in Barbados. Martinique's rums. Reunion's rums. Honest RUM sold as such. I put my money into these also.

I promote rum and every time I do a lecture, my audience does hear about the issues of spiced rums sold as premium products. I believe that through education of the crowd, we can change things, and make the producers hear that we do not approve of misleading the public. Be honest in what you do is my motto. If macerated fruits makes your product special, then by all means mention this, and sell the product as a spiced rum. But do not lie and market it as a pure super-premium rum, with a nice story that omits the stage where the flavours come from.

I wish that more people would send a similar message to the rum producers, because it might just start to make a difference. Educating the public and making then aware of things is a powerful tool.

[bboivin]

I've always wondered about some of these rums (sickly sweet/syrupy, or tastes like Orange - Like Pyrat), and what you are saying seems to confirm it.

I think this is going to happen more and more with whisky, leading to tricky wording on the labels and a trend towards younger spirit being sold as something more (as aged becomes more scarce due to demand outstripping supply). I was fooled into buying some new Canadian releases a little while ago (until I opened and tasted them) but I won't be fooled twice.

This is a deceptive practice, it should be CLEARLY labelled if they dump in flavourings and who knows what else...and then no one will have a problem. The deceptive labelling and marketing needs to stop.

Another separate issue is that I've noticed some bottles of premium rum NAS bought now (won't name them because I don't have poof other than my own tastebuds and experience), are in no way the same as they were 5-10 years ago, with the main problem being that in the past some aged rum probably made it into the vatting and now they are clearly using mostly younger spirit. Prompted by trying one of my old favourites recently (from Venezuela) that didn't taste at all like I remembered (and quite rough), I compared it with a bottle purchased around 10 years ago, and the difference in taste/quality was overwhelming. The bottle purchased over 10 years ago tasted like what I would imagine a 12-15yo to taste like, and the new one tasted like a 3yo.

I should add that due to the above nonsense going on with Rum, over the past several years I've almost stopped buying any premium rum whatsoever (the new version of the Venezuelan Rum was given to me as a present)....except for the odd Cadenhead's bottle.

I've been told that we are all brainwashed by the SWA, as there is nothing wrong with vatting-in flavours after the fact whatsoever. That's a valid point I guess...(as long as it is clearly labelled)...but my brainwashed-self will stick to buying Japanese, Taiwanese, Scottish, and Irish whisky where they all appear to be "brainwashed" by the SWA as well.

[Pete Smoke]

Excellent post MRJ. And you're quite right it does matter. What i find particularly disturbing is the addition of sugar. Sugar in liquid form is quite harmful. If sugar is added it should be labelled as a liqueur, such is the distinction between a liqueur and a spirit drink.

It's very rare i bother with rum for all of the above reasons. I have however made note of some of the more authentic options noted above.

[enzot]

Excellent post M.R.J.

As you seem to know your rum could you please give me more information on 2 of my favourite rums....the El Dorado 21 and the Appleton 21.Please tell me there's no added sugar or flavourings.I also have to mention one of my all time favourites... the older version of the Zacapa 'Black label' from around 10 years ago.

Cheers,
enzot.

[M.R.J.]

Thank you for the comments. I do believe that those manufacturers, blenders and sellers of rums that are not "pure" rums should be transparent about the methods used, and additives that they put into their rums. From the point of allergies alone, this would help many consumers.

From the viewpoint of honesty, well...its a fairly clear cut case, I feel. If you omit an important step of the process from your story of production purposely, I do not think it can be called anything but deliberate lying to the buying public. This statement has upset many in the rum world, but we certainly do have the proof of such cases now, so denial is no longer feasible nor sensible in my humble opinion.

It is good to highlight that what is done is not against the laws of those countries where rum is flavoured with macerated fruits, extracts or such. But selling such products as non-spiced rums in the EU for example borders intentionally fraudulent action, I feel. EU has specifically classified rum as "a spirit drink exclusively produced by alcoholic fermentation and distillation, either from molasses or syrup produced in the manufacture of cane sugar or from sugar-cane juice itself and distilled at less than 96% vol.”

Interestingly, some rum producers still claim that this definition does not exclude the use of macerated fruit extracts, glycerol, sugar, or essences, as seen from this quote from a chat forum:

"I read it to understand that no fermentables other that suger cane, such as grain, are to be used. I see nothing prohibiting additives.
__________________
Daniel Watson
Temptryst Rum "

That's one way of looking at it...I suppose.

My key points:

- I have no objection to traditional hispanic manufacturing methods of rum, i.e. the use of additives described above. But they should be named, the manufacturers should inform of the methodology openly, instead of hiding facts with intent to do so, and any such rum should be sold as a "Spiced rum" instead of premium rum. Hiding facts from the customers is not the way ahead, and does not help rum being taken as a "noble" spirit.

- An effort to distinguish Pure Rums *(free of such additives) should be made internationally, in order to be fair to those makers of rum that do not use additives in their rums. This would aid the consumers in choosing what they want to purchase, and enjoy. EU should start enforcing their definition of rum in a far more strict manner.

- Not all rum bottlers or makers use additives, but as others do and hide their practices, the situation is very confusing, and very unfair to all. Martinique rums for example are made without any such additives, and the legislation of many ex-British colonies seems to ban the use of additives as well. Indy bottlers in UK and Italy have done a fantastic job in giving the world a taste of real rum. Lets keep in mind that not all rum is spiced up - and support those who are honest, open, and give us rums that are "the real McCoy".

[M.R.J.]

Excellent post M.R.J.

As you seem to know your rum could you please give me more information on 2 of my favourite rums....the El Dorado 21 and the Appleton 21.Please tell me there's no added sugar or flavourings.I also have to mention one of my all time favourites... the older version of the Zacapa 'Black label' from around 10 years ago.

Cheers,
enzot.

Please forgive me, but I have no definite information on Appleton and El Dorado. I do think that the country laws of Jamaica and Guyana forbid additives other than sugar, but I have not seen the actual text of law.

El Dorado is made by Demerara Distillers Ltd. and in Guyana, it is apparently traditional to colour the rum with a lump of burned/roasted sugar added to the cask already. On top of this, I do think that the standard bottlings of El Dorado have received added sweetness from sugar, because the spirit is much sweeter than any single cask / indy bottling of Demerara that I have tasted. Lately, the El Dorado 21yo seems to have gone even sweeter than before (it used to be quite dry, much drier than 15yo).

Appleton 21yo is much drier, so added sugar...perhaps none.

The age statement of both is a bit of a mystery, as a tropic-matured rum the spirit is very, very old at this age. Certainly I believe both have been charcoal-filtered for more palatable taste, but again, I am making assumptions here. Is 21yo the youngest distillate in the bottle? Not sure. When I visited one of their competitors on a different island, the staff there seemed to think that the age statements are not referring to the youngest distillate.

Zacapa is and has been certainly sugarized with a heavy hand, I feel. Nothing else explains the sweetness of the spirit. Other additives? None have been admitted, but...I would make a guess that Guatemalan law does not ban the use of additives.

[mongo]

if the laws of production and sale in the countries where these rums are produced allow the use of flavourings/additives why should they answer to your preferences?

[portwood]

if the laws of production and sale in the countries where these rums are produced allow the use of flavourings/additives why should they answer to your preferences?

Good point.

Unless told otherwise by a reputable company, assume they take full advantage of whatever is allowed by law*. The Scotch industry is no different wrt e150a, chill-filtration, cask "finishing", etc.

* I suspect the laws have been written to fit the needs and practices of those very companies!

[The Third Dram]

I suspect the laws have been written to fit the needs and practices of those very companies!

Which, in turn, provide a significant boost to the economies (and employees involved in the rum industry) of those countries.

[M.R.J.]

if the laws of production and sale in the countries where these rums are produced allow the use of flavourings/additives why should they answer to your preferences?

I do think that you are missing the point here.

Whatever The UK law allows for Scotch whisky to do (i.e. cask finishing, chill-filtration, dropping alcohol percentage of original cask content, caramel colouring, etc) is done - but the industry is quite transparent, and is NOT trying to hide these details.

Rum is made in over 150 countries, and the legislation varies. Some of these countries (and I repeat, they seem to be mainly those sharing a colonial past with Spain), such as Venezuela, Philippines and Dominican republic, allow the use of macerated fruits, extracts, whatnot in the making of rum. Now here's my main point: Unlike Scotch whisky industry for example, the companies making the product with such methodology are NOT at all transparent. They have done their best to hide the fact that they use extracts, glycerol, added sugar, essences, macerated fruits etc. in the production of rum. They present a false image of the process they use in their marketing materials, as anyone can see by browsing their websites for example. No book, no such source makes a mention of this being done. In other words, they are deliberately misleading consumers. They sell their rum that does not conform to EU's classifications as "pure" rum, not SPICED RUM. That's a big difference in my books.

Canadians can add flavouring to their whiskies. The law allows this. But they are NOT trying to hide this from the public, we know they do this.

I am not trying to be pompous here and demand that rum producers of the world only use methodology I personally accept. At the same time, as a consumer and a customer, I think that some of them are being dishonest, and selling spiced rums to us, while telling us everything about their traditions, great knowledge and skilll, distillation and maturation - but omitting the use of "other" flavouring ingredients. i think this is dishonest, and a real shame.

What if a Scotch whisky company would be caught for

- selling a 5yo product as a 20yo, because "it may contain a few drops of whisky of that age"
- using essences or fruit extracts to get their flavour profile fixed, but did their best to hide such a practice?

Needless to say, we would all be outraged, I believe.

In the world of Rum, a mere mention of these practices, which professionals whisper about privately, but never educate the public about, has been known to lead to heavy-handed hatemails, public namecalling, and being ostracized from the communities. The "code of silence" has made certain that even books written about rum make hardly any mention of such practices - so strong is the retaliation, I can only gather? What a shame. I object to such a culture, and feel it is not worthy of the true spirit of Rum, for which I have the highest respect and regard.

Sadly all the bullying and code of silence means also that the truth is NOT out there - yet.

Matusalem's court case documentation, and some now visible statements from Burr (organizer of Miami rum fest) etc. prompted me to open the discussions, because at least in this case, there is clear evidence, and I am not the only one who has opened my mouth about this. i hope rum industry starts to address this issue seriously, and spiced rums are sold as such for example.

[M.R.J.]

Unless told otherwise by a reputable company, assume they take full advantage of whatever is allowed by law*. The Scotch industry is no different wrt e150a, chill-filtration, cask "finishing", etc.

I beg to disagree. Sctoch whisky industry (and American Bourbon too) are among the most transparent, and they have not hidden these practices from the public. This is why we know about it, and why it is also discussed, described, and debated about.

Some members of the rum industry have gone to great lengths to hide the use of additives from the public. Imagine, no rum book or article even makes a clear mention of this methodology! I have personally seen how far some individuals involved in rum business are ready to go in order to silence the discussions, and believe me, it makes me wonder about a good few things.

That is the big difference - the code of silence. If Scotch whisky industry acted in the same fashion, we would not even know that cask finishes exist. It isn't about what laws allow - it is about being honest towards the consumers, and not mislabeling products. Similarly, if a practice is kept a big secret, imagine how difficult it is to monitor and control. This means that we really do not know what goes into a bottle - and I think this is quite troubling as well.

[mongo]

if the laws of production and sale in the countries where these rums are produced allow the use of flavourings/additives why should they answer to your preferences?

I do think that you are missing the point here.

Whatever The UK law allows for Scotch whisky to do (i.e. cask finishing, chill-filtration, dropping alcohol percentage of original cask content, caramel colouring, etc) is done - but the industry is quite transparent, and is NOT trying to hide these details.

no? how many whisky drinkers know that there is caramel colouring in almost every whisky on the market?

as you say, rum is made in over 150 countries--there is, therefore, no central authority for setting regulations as there is for scotch or bourbon. now if you want to decide what "rum" should mean in all these different countries i think you are going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of the basis on which you should get to decide. if the regulations of a country where a rum is produced do not require them to note the presence of fruit/sugar there is no need for them to "disclose" these (and it should be noted that if in these countries these ingredients are allowed then they are not additives per se but ingredients).

as for this bit:

They present a false image of the process they use in their marketing materials, as anyone can see by browsing their websites for example. No book, no such source makes a mention of this being done. In other words, they are deliberately misleading consumers.

yes, this is lame, but it is what every spirits industry in every country does*. come on over to the u.s and explain to your average bourbon drinker that the name on their bottle does not connote an actual distillery.

They sell their rum that does not conform to EU's classifications as "pure" rum, not SPICED RUM. That's a big difference in my books.

as for eu regulations, perhaps they could start by being stricter with the labeling requirements for one of their own prized products: cognac. or perhaps you want to argue that your average cognac drinker knows all about boise because the industry is so open about it.

but yes, the code of silence among journalists and writers is problematic and worrying. on that bit i agree completely with you.

*and not just spirits. see coffee, chicken, milk etc. etc..

[mongo]

here is a very interesting analysis of the regulations covering rum in the united states.

the regulations are rather complicated and seemingly contradictory. here though is the crux for this discussion here:

(2) There may be added to any class or type of distilled spirits, without changing the class or type thereof, (i) such harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as are an essential component part of the particular class or type of distilled spirits to which added, and (ii) harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials such as caramel, straight malt or straight rye malt whiskies, fruit juices, sugar, infusion of oak chips when approved by the Administrator, or wine, which are not an essential component part of the particular distilled spirits to which added, but which are customarily employed therein in accordance with established trade usage, if such coloring, flavoring, or blending materials do not total more than 2 1/2 percent by volume of the finished product.

i wonder what the eu's regulations look like when examined closely....

at any rate, i don't think the issues are as clear cut as you suggest. clearly, there is marketing malarkey at work, but when isn't there?

[M.R.J.]

no? how many whisky drinkers know that there is caramel colouring in almost every whisky on the market?

Actually, quite many at least here, I'd say. Anyone who bothers to buy a book about whisky, do a google search or such, will find out the truth really quickly, as information is readily available. Many whisky makers also make a specific mention when they do NOT have caramel colouring in their product. In Germany and other countries, it is mandatory to mark this to the bottle (mit farbstof).

Try finding out about additives in rum, and you will not find a book, or internet full of information to help you.

as you say, rum is made in over 150 countries--there is, therefore, no central authority for setting regulations as there is for scotch or bourbon. now if you want to decide what "rum" should mean in all these different countries i think you are going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of the basis on which you should get to decide. if the regulations of a country where a rum is produced do not require them to note the presence of fruit/sugar there is no need for them to "disclose" these (and it should be noted that if in these countries these ingredients are allowed then they are not additives per se but ingredients).

Again - I do NOT want to be the one to decide what each rum from each country contains. It really is quite simple though - I DO WANT that rum producers are honest, and give us the whole story of how their rum is made, from each country. I do want them to stop selling spiced rum as not spiced rum to us. I do want honest number on an age statement.

Spiced rum is a different category all together, made for the very purpose of separating spiced and flavoured rums from those that are not such. Makes sense to me at least. Just as you have whisky liqueur not being sold as pure whisky. Again, if you are allergic to prunes, nuts, or other things, you would want to know if the product contains them, yes? As is, you go to a store and pick up a dark rum, thinking you know what it is - and may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

as for this bit:

They present a false image of the process they use in their marketing materials, as anyone can see by browsing their websites for example. No book, no such source makes a mention of this being done. In other words, they are deliberately misleading consumers.

yes, this is lame, but it is what every spirits industry in every country does*. come on over to the u.s and explain to your average bourbon drinker that the name on their bottle does not connote an actual distillery.

Well, again this is different. Any one of those American bourbon drinkers can hop into the internet or buy a book, and find out where the Bourbon is made at, and see all the distilleries. The information EXISTS. Try find out about which distillery uses additives in their rum...or which country allows this. I assure you, it isn't in the same league of ease...

as for eu regulations, perhaps they could start by being stricter with the labeling requirements for one of their own prized products: cognac. or perhaps you want to argue that your average cognac drinker knows all about boise because the industry is so open about it.

I agree!! Use of oak extract, boise, sugar in Cognac is something that should be addressed in more detail. But even for this practice, most cognac house ambassadors I have met admit that such practices are used, and also for instance in some European countries the amount of sugar in cognac is mentioned as grams/litre. And a simple google search finds much more talk on this. Rum and additives? Well..It's a fairly silent world still.

but yes, the code of silence among journalists and writers is problematic and worrying. on that bit i agree completely with you.

*and not just spirits. see coffee, chicken, milk etc. etc..

I have been amazed at how the topic of additives in rum is generally dismissed in literature completely, or with a vague one-liner that hints to some such things.

I once approached WIRSPA with an email, and asked them if all the rums in their portfolio can be said to be 100% made from sugar cane (molasses included) as original raw material, receive their flavour from distillation and cask aging only, with sugar and colouring as the only additives (I included sugar, because leaving it out would have cut the conversation there). I mentioned that I am interested in this, because some rums such as Pyrat Xo and Angostura 1919 contain flavours which, to my palate at least, are of such nature, that I cannot see them coming from even the most clever use of casks, but suspect that the flavour profile is achieved by the use of additives. I received a friendly and good-natured response, but no definite answers. Actually I thought most highly of WIRSPA just for answering me in the first place! But the rums...well, I am still left wondering what gives them their flavour profile. It isn't ex-bourbon casks, thats for sure..

[mongo]

yes, this is lame, but it is what every spirits industry in every country does*. come on over to the u.s and explain to your average bourbon drinker that the name on their bottle does not connote an actual distillery.

Well, again this is different. Any one of those American bourbon drinkers can hop into the internet or buy a book, and find out where the Bourbon is made at, and see all the distilleries. The information EXISTS. Try find out about which distillery uses additives in their rum...or which country allows this. I assure you, it isn't in the same league of ease...

this seems like a meaningful distinction but really isn't. the vast majority of bourbon drinkers are not going to jump on the internet or buy a book to check anything because the marketing very successfully convinces them of the transparency of the misleading label information. ditto for scotch and caramel--there is no labeling in most countries, almost no one knows there is anything further to research (whisky geeks such as are found here are a tiny fraction of the market). and let's not forget that most of the american whiskey (not bourbon) sold in the us is also flavoured vodka but never presented as such.

now, you keep saying:

I do want them to stop selling spiced rum as not spiced rum to us

but the regulations in the u.s at least do not suggest that what you call spiced rum can't simply be called traditional rum. reading the regulations i linked to above (and the analysis by the far more informed author of that page) makes it clear, i think, that there is nothing shady about the rums you decry as spiced rum being marketed as just rum in the u.s. perhaps the eu's rules are different; i have not seen them. but given the latitude they allow with cognac (where boise and sugar are allowed) i doubt they are very different.

[M.R.J.]

Briefly - The US 2,5% regulation is known to me. I don't think EU has the same. (I do wonder how they derive though that macerated fruit extracts, and other additives are not above 2,5%? Seems to me this law is not enforced or monitored particularly well)

In any case, the main point here is not to say the companies are breaking the laws of their country, your country, or my country. My main point is that they hide facts on purpose from the public about where the rum gets its taste from, and what ingredients OTHER than sugar cane or molasses are used. They tell you all the details about casks, distillation, blending, etc - but additives are a big no-no topic, and there simply isn't any information source available that would deal with this topic, unlike with all other aspects of rum.

I think it is meaningful, if information on something either exists or not. Sure, I do believe there are many ignorant people everwhere, who do cannot google things, let alone read books, but if information does not exist, it means that even those who do wish to find out facts, simply cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, the US rum law is a very relaxed one. What is spiced rum? Rum, that derives its flavours from something else than cane juice distillate, aged in a cask. If the rum gets its flavour from added juice, extracts of fruits, vanilla-pods etc - I would call it a flavoured rum. If the US law doesn't think so, well - so be it. Common sense and law are not the same thing. (Funnily enough the legal part about age statements has never been enforced in rum either, since for example Zacapa blatantly marketed their 3 - 7 yo product as 23 yo for years and years in the USA!)

Here's some food for thought: If there's nothing unacceptable, or somehow odd in artificially improving your rum by builing its flavour profile with essences and extracts instead of it getting it from the methods all rum distilleries are keen on promoting (distillation, aging, quoality casks etc), then why is the use of additives Rum's best kept secret, systematically and categorically forgotten from the story, and an aspect of the process that nobody wants anyone to discuss, or write about? Go figure.

Talking about it on any venue quickly gets people to tell you that you are wrong, and who the heck are you to demand the rum industry to change anything, etc etc.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

this seems like a meaningful distinction but really isn't.

Except it really is.

Are you arguing in your spare time, mongo?

[mongo]

a little bit*. but no, it's not really a meaningful distinction, except in a narrow, legalistic sense that has no bearing on how people actually relate to the marketing of these products. rum producers may go to great lengths to keep arcane knowledge of their production process away from their market, and bourbon/whisky producers may make this available to those who a) know to ask and b) know where to ask, but the fact of the matter is all of them seek to keep their market in the dark, and overwhelmingly succeed. (and please let me know if you or anyone else has ever found out what signatory means by a "wine-treated cask".)

as for why fewer rum geeks know about these things than do whisky and bourbon geeks about the arcana of their spirit of choice: it may simply be the case that a) rum connoisseurship is less mature than whisky/bourbon connoisseurship; and b) that some rum producers are nervous that their traditional methods of production (involving fruit flavouring etc.) may be judged by the standard of "purity" of other spirit categories; this may be a market calculation and not an "admission of guilt". and if rum of a certain kind (or from certain places) has always had certain things added to it to balance or create its flavours i don't see what is to be gained by talking about "pure rum" as though this is some universal category that means the same thing everywhere. there is nothing neutral about the use of the word "pure" here. and nor is there anything actually purer about a rum made entirely from the distillate of sugarcane or molasses (and why should sugarcane or molasses not be seen as more or less pure than each other?) as opposed to having (a small amount of) pure fruit juice added to it. (and remind me again of how much bourbon or sherry or port or wine is still in the barrels in which malt whisky is matured.)

*you might think of me as trying to get m.r.j to improve his/her arguments.

[M.R.J.]

Thank you for trying to get me to improve my arguments, but I do not see this coming through from your messages. You are claiming that all spirits industry wants to keep customers in the dark, and hide all facts, I am saying this is not at all true. You are trying to say that secret use of hidden additives (which we do not even know, what are they in all?) is ok and fine, I am thinking quite the opposite.

a little bit*. but no, it's not really a meaningful distinction, except in a narrow, legalistic sense that has no bearing on how people actually relate to the marketing of these products. rum producers may go to great lengths to keep arcane knowledge of their production process away from their market, and bourbon/whisky producers may make this available to those who a) know to ask and b) know where to ask, but the fact of the matter is all of them seek to keep their market in the dark, and overwhelmingly succeed. (and please let me know if you or anyone else has ever found out what signatory means by a "wine-treated cask".

As far as I know, and talking to an importer who imports Signatory and knows owner of Signatory well, the 'wine-treated cask' refers to a standard used cask which has been (pressure-)filled with wine for a short time (do not know for how long), in order to revitalize it, and it is then used briefly for finishing a whisky. I can ask a more precise answer, if you like.

I think it is very meaningful if information exists for those who look for it, versus information being kept hidden, and people ostracized agressively if they dare mention such things. But each to their own..

I would NEVER go and say that the good people in Bourbon or Scotch whisky industry are trying to hide things and keep the public in the dark. The companies and people I have had the honour of meeting have been extremely open, eager to share information, and honest. No question has been met with belligerence. Again, I want to state this as a clear difference to rum world. Your somewhat cynical view, and the message that "they are all the same" just is not true in my experience. There's a HUGE difference.

as for why fewer rum geeks know about these things than do whisky and bourbon geeks about the arcana of their spirit of choice: it may simply be the case that a) rum connoisseurship is less mature than whisky/bourbon connoisseurship;

If you read my messages, you will see this argument does not hold water at all. Anyone who asks the wrong questions is quickly attacked verbally and silenced with threats and unpleasantries. It's got little to do with the maturity of the hobby!

and b) that some rum producers are nervous that their traditional methods of production (involving fruit flavouring etc.) may be judged by the standard of "purity" of other spirit categories; this may be a market calculation and not an "admission of guilt".

Rum producers are WELL AWARE of the fact that if the cover of their supposed "super premium" products gets blown away, and the public finds out that the taste is based on additives instead of finest raw materials, distillation, careful cask aging using finest casks etc - all what they DO TELL to customers - people will not buy the same product for the same price any more. Spiced rum sells for far less - and thats a fact. It is easy to offer amazing flavours with spiced, young products. Not so easy (or as cheap) to do the same just by using the methodology that they themselves CLAIM to use.

and if rum of a certain kind (or from certain places) has always had certain things added to it to balance or create its flavours i don't see what is to be gained by talking about "pure rum" as though this is some universal category that means the same thing everywhere.

Actually, my definition of "Pure Rum' is based on the very same thing that these rum marketers state about their production methods!! In other words, the process they DO DESCRIBE - leaving out the "nasty" bits which are hidden (for a reason). Additives are a shortcut, and they know it. That is why they make damn sure all such measures are well hidden, and not discussed even by rum writers.

Constantly downplaying this, and trying to push the message that "it doesn't matter" makes me now wonder about your motives somewhat.

there is nothing neutral about the use of the word "pure" here. and nor is there anything actually purer about a rum made entirely from the distillate of sugarcane or molasses (and why should sugarcane or molasses not be seen as more or less pure than each other?) as opposed to having (a small amount of) pure fruit juice added to it. (and remind me again of how much bourbon or sherry or port or wine is still in the barrels in which malt whisky is matured.)

I disagree here 100%. I'd love to be selling spirits to you personally, because I could pass to you an Ardbeg 10yo, change the label to say 21yo, and add sherry, sugar and vanilla extracts to it, and amaze you with the flavours - because a spirit treated like this is "no less pure", right? And you'd gladly pay 600 euros for this "super premium concoction", yes?

Seriously - I am amazed to find such view among whisky enthusiasts. I would personally never condone to this statement, and find it very odd indeed.

Use of molasses or cane juice is fine by me, because effectively both are the same - raw material derived from sugar cane plant. Originally rum was made from sugar cane juice, but then nearly everyone started making it from molasses, which is, as we know, a by-product of sugar cane production. Even the French islands used molasses to make rum, the only reason they changed back to cane juice is history - Napoleon was visionary in investing to sugar beet study, and France was the first nation to turn to beet for their sugar needs. As is, the islands were full of cane, but there was little need to turn it into sugar any more, so they started to make rum again from cane juice directly on a large scale.

In any case Mongo, this discussion between us does not seem to develop anywhere - you seem to hold the view that additives are fine, making premium products with essences, extracts, sugar and other shortcuts, and selling them for top price with false presentations on how they actually have been made, and where they get their flavours from is ok, and that since US regulations make a mention that rum can indeed contain 2,5% of additives, all is ok also.

I think not. The code of silence that surrounds the topic says it all - they know it is NOT ok, and thats why additives are not admitted openly, and are for sure not in the presented lovely stories of how rum gets its amazing flavours.

I also think there is a gigantic difference between Bourbon, Scotch and Irish whiskey business in how they deal with transparency to their processes, methods, and also to questions on topics. I would not agree on this cynical view on this at all. What ever little details may be omitted from the standard presentations or marketing materials, they do not come even close to what some folks in the rum business are doing on a grand scale. There's just no comparison whatsoever.

I see little point to continue this discussion further, unless someone else has comments or questions - which I am happy to answer or discuss.

[mongo]

I see little point to continue this discussion further, unless someone else has comments or questions - which I am happy to answer or discuss.

now, who's shutting down discussion?

but since you're ascribing erroneous positions to me, and also raising problematic issues which you don't seem to recognize let me take one more stab at this:

As far as I know, and talking to an importer who imports Signatory and knows owner of Signatory well, the 'wine-treated cask' refers to a standard used cask which has been (pressure-)filled with wine for a short time (do not know for how long), in order to revitalize it, and it is then used briefly for finishing a whisky.

please ask this person if they are willing to share test results with you which examine how much wine goes into the wood as a result of this pressure treatment and subsequently mixes with the whisky being finished in the cask. i fail to see in what substantive way this is different from adding flavouring. it's just that one industry hides this practice in plain sight and another hides it completely.

but the fact that the rum industry hides this fact doesn't necessarily mean that there is something obviously wrong with the practice. the comparison to scotch, on the whole, doesn't work because scotch, like bourbon, is the product of one country and is centrally regulated. with rum, there is no precise definition of the product or of the process of making it. you may wish to, and the industry may wish to talk about "pure rum" as rum that is made only from the distillate of sugarcane juice or molasses (you, probably because the notion of purity suggests some original practice, and the industry, probably because there is more money in marketing purity). but if traditional practices of making rum in many places have from the beginning involved the use of flavouring agents (which seems to be recognized in the u.s regulations) then the notion of purity is a bit of a red herring. it is simply not feasible for there to be any central regulation or definition of a spirit made in so many different countries.

and nor am i saying that the scotch and bourbon industries "are trying to hide things and keep the public in the dark" in the same way that the rum industry is. i agree with you that shedding light on the practices and the intimidation/code of silence is a good thing. my point is only that there is little effective difference in the marketing which takes advantage of deliberately created fuzzy understanding of the process. in other words, there's little moral basis for praising one and critiquing the other: the confusion that the scotch and bourbon people are willing, as you say, to clear up is created entirely by them.

as rum connoisseurship matures it will probably become harder and harder for the secrecy to hold, and that's a good thing.

Rum producers are WELL AWARE of the fact that if the cover of their supposed "super premium" products gets blown away, and the public finds out that the taste is based on additives instead of finest raw materials, distillation, careful cask aging using finest casks etc - all what they DO TELL to customers - people will not buy the same product for the same price any more.

yes, exactly. but there is no necessary reason to distinguish between "additives" and "finest raw materials". "additives" could be "finest raw materials".

Spiced rum sells for far less - and thats a fact. It is easy to offer amazing flavours with spiced, young products. Not so easy (or as cheap) to do the same just by using the methodology that they themselves CLAIM to use.

and in the u.s at least regulations allow for a difference between rums that contain small amounts of flavourings in addition to sugarcane/molasses based distillate and something that is actually sold (very lucratively) as spiced rums.

[mongo]

I disagree here 100%. I'd love to be selling spirits to you personally, because I could pass to you an Ardbeg 10yo, change the label to say 21yo, and add sherry, sugar and vanilla extracts to it, and amaze you with the flavours - because a spirit treated like this is "no less pure", right? And you'd gladly pay 600 euros for this "super premium concoction", yes?

no, because, a) i wouldn't pay 600 euros for anything and b) as i said, under scotch regulation, this would be illegal. under rum regulation it is not. i am therefore willing to accept different practices for different categories, and don't see any reason why the principles governing the production (and connoisseurship) of scotch should be transferred to rum (or tequila or gin or canadian whisky).

Constantly downplaying this, and trying to push the message that "it doesn't matter" makes me now wonder about your motives somewhat.

yes, you got me. i am a stooge of the rum industry.

they know it is NOT ok, and thats why additives are not admitted openly, and are for sure not in the presented lovely stories of how rum gets its amazing flavours.

and the same is true of scotch and the use of colouring and the presented lovely stories of how whisky gets its amazing colours.

[Tim F]

I see little point to continue this discussion further, unless someone else has comments or questions - which I am happy to answer or discuss.

Nice try.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

but since you're ascribing erroneous positions to me....

Tit for tat.

[Mr Tattie Heid]

I see little point to continue this discussion further, unless someone else has comments or questions - which I am happy to answer or discuss.

Nice try.

Don't blame him...it's devolved into a totally circular argument.

MRJ: They should be honest about what they're doing.
mongo: It's legal so what's the problem?
MRJ: They should be honest about what they're doing.
mongo: It's legal so what's the problem?
MRJ: They should be honest about what they're doing.
mongo: It's legal so what's the problem?
MRJ: They should be honest about what they're doing.
mongo: It's legal so what's the problem?

[mongo]

no, no. i'm obviously not being clear. i completely agree that they should be more honest, just as all the spirits industries should be more honest. i agree that the industry should not intimidate those who seek more transparency (if indeed they consistently do) and that journalists who write about rum should press more on these issues. here is where i disagree:

*i believe the differences between what the rum industry does and what scotch and bourbon do in terms of marketing fudging are of degree, not kind.

*i believe the situation of rum (produced in a large number of countries under different codes) is fundamentally different from those of scotch and bourbon and that what we are used to with the regulation and production, and even definition of the latter cannot be transferred willy nilly to conversations about the former. (though again it is worth remembering that scotch which contains bourbon/sherry/wine from the casks it was matured in is not required to be labeled as "flavoured whisky" just as rum which contains flavourings up to a limit is not required to be labeled as "spiced rum" in the u.s.)

*i am not sure that there is any necessary basis for rums with permitted added flavourings (even if they were to be labeled more transparently, which i agree they should be--just as scotch producers should label the use of caramel colouring) to be considered something other than "pure rum". if traditional methods of producing rum in some countries have traditionally involved the use of flavourings then rums made that way now in those countries are "pure rums" as well. for reference, see canadian whisky, which allows flavourings, and also the term rye to be used to describe whiskies that may not have significant rye content in them.

does that help?