Now under new ownership, thankfully...
There have been a surprising number of major crashes in the whisky industry in relatively-recent times, most recently in the early 1980s, and there are many who believe that we're heading towards another in the near future. If you were to look at the long-term performance of whisky on a graph it would resemble a roller coaster, and both the climbs and dives will have gotten steeper every time. We're currently on a very steep climb, probably a record one. New distilleries are popping up all over the planet on an almost-weekly basis, including here in Australia, as interested parties want to get a piece of the pie while it's hot. But the pie may be cooling at a faster rate than many think, and it's quite likely that there will be a few left without a chair when the music stops. Aside from huge investments from the large multi-national corporations, including some new distilleries with astronomical production capacities, we also have a huge influx of small "craft" malt distilleries opening all over the planet, all searching for their unique selling point and attempting to carve out their niche in a market that is very likely heading towards saturation. The current state of the Australian gin industry comes to mind here, where there are dozens-upon-dozens of new brands popping up, with many relying on unique packaging and/or clever marketing to get them in the retailer's doors and onto the customer's shelves. Some are small and independent, and some are only presented as such, including quite a few that arguably do not actually produce their own product, or at least many that do not produce the base ingredient of their own product. And gin can largely get away with that, because it's often re-distilled anyway, but you may be surprised to learn that a similar problem is beginning to affect the whisky scene. Or rather that it's beginning to be uncovered in the whisky scene - it's been happening for years.
This sort of thing isn't unique to Japan of course, it's commonplace in many established whisky industries, particularly in Ireland and America, where those brands are often referred to as non-distiller producers. The difference is that those brands generally don't claim to be distilling their products, and they're sourcing spirit that is at least made in the same region or at least the same country, and spirit that complies with the relevant regulations of that country. There have been a few that essentially mislead their customers by claiming to make their own whisky, again either by omission or by misleading wording (calling themselves a distillery when they did not make their own product) - including one recent and deservedly controversial example in mainland Australia - but the vaguery of the whisky regulations in some parts of the world doesn't help. There's also the bigger question of when whisky is actually 'made'. Is it made when it comes off the still as new make spirit, where it cannot legally be called whisky? Or is it made when it has spent two or three years (depending on local regulations) maturing in casks? It's almost a "the chicken or the egg" question. In my opinion the answer is the egg, or rather the new make spirit, because the eventual result cannot exist without that first stage, and if the initial requirements (particularly the permitted cereal grains and the maximum distillation strength) are not met, then the end product after those two or three years of maturation is still not whisky. Which again reminds me of the very-shady past practices of that certain Tasmanian distillery...
So what to do about all of this? In my mind there's no question that stronger regulations are needed, particularly in these relatively "new world" whisky producing nations, as a first step. Then those regulations need to be actively enforced. And that's ranging from the base ingredients (preferably cereal grains) permitted, to any additives permitted (preferably none!), to labelling requirements and country of origin requirements. The majority of the quality producers around the world tend to follow the Scotch whisky regulations anyway, so why not simply copy those regulations and implement them in these new world countries? That would help to weed out some of the shady types, and help the local industries regulate themselves, with a little help from regulatory bodies or customs oversight needed (but no increased duty rates, thank you very much). It would also put the international whisky producers on an even playing field with what will always be the dominant team in the game. And don't think that such a move would stifle innovation. Even those Scotch whisky regulations, the most recent version of which was implemented by the Scotch Whisky Association in 2009, can be amended - as they were just this year with regards to permitted cask types. Even without the amendments, the potential for innovation within those regulations is almost limitless. And they still do what they were intended to do, which is to ensure that Scotch whisky produced in Scotland is actually whisky, and they're protecting the entire Scotch whisky industry from potential risks and potential damage in the process. I'd even argue that those regulations help form the backbone of the industry. And a strong backbone is crucial for supporting both short- and long-term growth. So where's the harm in that?
As for the rest, until those crystal balls finally hit the market we'll just have to enjoy the climb, savour the fresh air and enjoy the views from these new heights. I don't see things slowing down just yet, but what goes up...
Cheers!
In 1876 a book was published called 'Truths About Whisky' by the 4 largest whisky distilleries of the time;
ReplyDeleteJohn Jameson & Sons, Bow St, Dublin
William Jameson & Co, Marrowbone Lane, Dublin
John Power & Sons, John's Lane, Dublin
George Roe & Co, Thomas St, Dublin.
In the book they railed against a new invention - the Coffey or Patent Still - that was beginning to threaten their pre-eminent position.
The only true whisky in their eyes was what we now call 'single pot still' - preferably Dublin made - the output from Coffey stills was described as 'sham whisky'.
Tales of nefarious underhand practices and dubious manufacturing ploys abounded.
Demands for tighter regulation were loudly proclaimed.
It's remarkable how similar your blog is to that publication.
Nearly 150 years later those 4 distilleries are museum pieces.
Irish Whiskey is only now recovering by embracing that 'sham whisky' - it's what we call 'blended whisky'.
Scotland took to blended whisky with gusto - the consumers lapped it up and propelled Scotch to pole position.
It seems to me you are echoing the sentiments of the book by labeling the emerging nations output as 'sham whisky' and the only true whisky as Scotch.
I'd read a bit of history to see how that went.
Sorry for the delayed response. You a bit off the mark there to be honest, I could care less where a whisky is made, or if it is blended or not, or what grains it is made from, provided it is well-made and follows some basic regulations. If those Irish distillers had been using Scotch whisky and labelling it as Irish whiskey, then yes that would be the case, because that is then sham whisky (as you say) in my opinion. Likewise if something was labelled Scotch whisky but contained Irish whiskey.
Delete