Proposed standard: Straight Canadian Whisky

@Nelom, interesting. Certainly it would be useful to have Canadian whisky which is held to a no colouring, no additives standard. Any move to declare additives, or to do away with them altogether would be a very positive step for Canadian whisky. Such a designation as "straight" would still apply to only a fraction of the Canadian whisky market. The usual "Canadian Blended Whisky" style would likely still prevail in Canada, at least for a long period of time.

@Victor

I agree with what you say.

I'm all for regulations to make things easier for the consumer but I don't like the ones presented here. They appear geared primarily to this gentleman's specific craft distillery, not the Canadian industry in general. Kind-of like when Stephen Harper changed the election laws in such a way that they benefited his party to the detriment of all the others.

I am not sure how far this will go. Realistically, there would need to be a law. And my suspicion is that the regulations for this would probably fall under provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution (unless the argument was made in terms of export rules). You'd need to convince every province that this was important AND ensure they all passed the same laws. Ouch!

@Victor,

I suspect this to be the same guy who is selling "whisky" which is less than three years old...less than two years old?

@paddockjudge If you're referring to "First Barrels" by Toronto Distillery Co, then yeah, that would be the guy.

For those unaware of what we're talking about: A few weeks ago Toronto Distillery Co (TDC) announced a new drink they call First Barrels and the label says it is "Straight Canadian Whisky" - so far, so good. The trouble is that according to Canadian law, a whisky have to be aged for 3 years in wood in order to legally be whisky. And according to the label for First Barrels their spirit is aged "between two and 26 months" - meaning it can't be called whisky by Canadian law.

Now for another wrinkle: both of the founders of TDC are lawyers, and they claim to have found a bit of a loophole in the law that says they can call it Canadian whisky as long as it's not shipped across provincial borders. So far this assertion hasn't been challenged by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or any other governmental institution, so all we know is what we've been told by TDC themselves.

My own take on this is that while I really dislike the way TDC went about doing this (in particular their factually incorrect disparaging comments about Canadian whisky in general) I do think that establishing a new Canadian whisky category that eschews additives would be a good thing for the industry.

I also think the proposed standard should have stricter aging rules, and perhaps also stricter grain content rules, but this is at least a step in the right direction.

Here's a more in-depth write-up about the First Barrels controversy from whsky.buzz: whsky.buzz/blog/…

@Nozinan With regards to "how far this will go" my impression of the game plan is this:

As a founding member of the Ontario Craft Distiller Association, the Toronto Distillery Co decided that the best way to get a discussion going around a new standard would be to simply flaunt or bend the law and release a "whisky" that falls under that proposed standard and label it accordingly.

This was First Barrels. And it did indeed generate some drama and discussion in the Canadian whisky community.

Once that drama gave them some attention, the OCDA released the details for their new proposed standard, all of which First Barrels adhered to.

As long as the government doesn't give TDC any grief over the release of First Barrels, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see some or all of the 14 other members of the OCDA follow suit and release their own versions of "Straight Canadian Whisky" - only for sale within Ontario in order to stay within the legal loophole I mentioned in my previous post.

Fast forward a bit, and maybe by virtue of Ontario distillers continuing to make and release "Straight Canadian Whisky" other distilleries across Canada might follow suit. Perhaps even bigger ones. And then once there's enough players on the market who are all following this new proposed standard, the laws could be amended to allow for sales across provincial borders.

Call it the Uber approach if you will. Make business moves that fly in the face of existing laws, hoping that they will gain enough popularity among voters that lawmakers turn a blind eye as well as change existing laws.

Again, this is just my impression of what's happened and what TDC and OCDA is hoping will happen.

@Nelom. It worked for cannabis, at least here in BC. There are more "illegal" pot shops per square mile here than anywhere on earth. Apparently about 90% of the population here has some medical issue that can only be controlled by smoking fat spliffs all day long.

There is a trend these days for people to just go ahead and do what they want and see where the chips fall as far as legality is concerned. At the snail-like pace at which the Canadian justice system moves, these entrepreneurs have established their products or services beyond the point of no return by the time the lawmakers and law enforcers get around to paying attention, especially if what the entrepreneurs are offering has been widely embraced by the public.

@Nelom

I don't disagree with your interpretation of events. However, I'm not sure I like the way they are going about "setting" a standard. Such "facts on the ground" are not always in the best interest.

Look at video - Beta was much better than VHS but lost out. Cell phones - Blackberries are more durable and secure than iPhones (but I accept they are less useful as cooking tools than Samsung Galaxy 7) but they came late to the party and they will disappear eventually, and no one will benefit from that.

I like the idea of standards. But to call something "Straight" suggests somehow it is better than the non-appellation version. So the standards should require equal or MORE aging, not less. And traditional Canadian whisky is often made in previously used casks....so whisky made in fresh, charred casks may not bring about the familiar Canadian style.

So I think that there is a lot of work, and there should be a coming together of interested people from within and without the industry (no marketers please) to come to an consensus, which is a Canadian way of doing things.

I suggest the next "Ontario Summit" invite people from all over Canada to participate in creating a more rational, unbiased, CANADIAN set of rules.

The only thing I think is easily agreed upon from the rules as presented is the one on additives. I would allow no additives at all, including e150a.

@Nelom,

Free publicity is the best advertising. These guys are sharp and will get excellent advertising from this adventure. Last time I checked, all provincial borders remain inside Canada. Canadian Whisky is three years old. This will be fun to watch.

@paddockjudge You said it. In the end, this may end up not going anywhere and only serve as publicity for them. And while I do hope they'll be successful in creating an additional standard, I would prefer it if they tightened the aging requirements. And someone suggested also changing the grain requirements, which is an idea I also quite like.

Anyway, I posted this thread to try to bring some awareness to this effort and perhaps get some folks from here to comment in that Reddit thread if they have any feedback. It remains to be seen if that feedback will result in anything, but I figure it couldn't hurt.

There's been a response in the Reddit thread, and they've officially changed their stance on aging to a minimum of 2 years.

Still not the 3 years we've come to expect from Canadian whisky, but I for one am reasonably happy with the trade-off of having a standard that guarantees no additives, and being at most 1 year younger.

The additives thing has never really bothered me, seeing how it's not really used that much, but it's also a source of a lot negativity surrounding Canadian whisky, so I'm happy there's movement towards an additional standard that removes the possibility of additives.

@Nelom

I don't feel a need to trade standards. No additives, 3 years, and identify the type of cask. Not that I'm keen on drinking a 3 YO, but I would consider it...