Regulation of Caramel and Chill filtering.

Check this: whiskywhiskywhisky.com/forum/viewforum.php/…

A few remarks:

1. I think both techniques are still valid for blends, where consistency is a key issue and quality requirements are lower anyway.

2. In general, I believe in a free market. I understand consumers want a "pure" product but in the real world everybody keeps buying Laphroaig or Lagavulin and thinks they are some of the finest whiskies available, right? If a significant amount of people would actually care, producers would certainly want to please them.

3. I do agree it should be mentioned on the label in any case, which is currently only the case in Germany and a few smaller countries.

4. There has been an experiment of placing the same whisky (CF / UCF and coloured / uncoloured) directly head-to-head. Guess what, everybody prefered the coloured whisky: www.maltmaniacs.org/malt-115.html Of course it may depend on the type of whisky, but I'm wondering whether we should prefer natural whisky or better tasting whisky?

Here's another interesting experiment: bit.ly/ghlvhg

@WhiskyNotes Thanks for some great information, and some realy good links! I still have to wonder why they insist on carrying out these steps in whisky production, when the reasons that they generaly give for both coloring and chill filtering fall apart when viewed in the context of whe alcohol market in general.

"If we have extremely pale whiskey consumers will think it has been watered down by bar staff" When was the last time you heard someone worrying that their completely clear vodka or gin had been watered down? "It gives consistency between bottles of the same product." If you compare non-caramelled whiskey from a couple of different bottlings, you will find that the variation in color is not generaly that great. I think that very few people would ever notice the variation unless they were doing a side by side comparisson, and in the real world, who does that? I mean apart from whisky freaks like us of course. "Chill filtering stops the haze from forming when very cold water or ice is added." Who cares about haze? Cointreau and ouzo, as two examples, dont just go hazy, but turn white when put with ice. Nobody cares, in fact its considered an accepted feature of the drinks.
To me the comparison makes a mockery of the standard answers given to the question "why color and chill filter."

Sure, but let's not forget most people still think darker whisky is older / better / more flavoursome, even "educated" amateurs. No matter how valid your arguments are, the sitation is that caramel is used by almost all blenders, so nobody will be inclined to take the first step and leave it out.

Let's face it, they would need seriously high budgets to educate customers again, and they would have to admit they've added it all those years. From a producer's point of view, why on earth would they change it when sales are roaring?

My point is that if they just stopped doing either or both processes, and didn't even bother to say or do anything, except possibly add a line to the description on their boxes, they would save money in production, and the only people who would notice would be the enthusiasts. And we would approve. The 95% of consumers who think they are being fancy by drinking Glenfiddich with their coke instead of JW red are not gonna stop buying it because it is a shade lighter.
I believe they are carrying out these processes out of a combination of bloody-mindedness, and incorrect assumptions. It has to cost them money, and it deprives us anoraks of an honest color, and of any extra taste that is lost thru the chill filtration.

I am far from 'pro-caramel-colouring' however I can clearly see that there are some very compelling practical reasons for its usage (outlined well in the links supplied by WhiskyNotes).

There should, in my opinion, be clearer labeling to state that caramel has been added. Like colouring in any other food or drink.

Chill filtration is a separate issue because it effects mouth feel and texture and impacts the consumer in a more tangible way. That is not to say that the same practicalities do not apply for producers, but it is all about consistency of the product.

I wanna see someone suggest to the head vitner of a winery that he should dye all of his red wine exactly the same shade of red, and explain to him that people do not want wine that has not got absolute continuity of colouring. They would think you are insane.

But you are correct, clear labeling would be a good start.

@monty I can see that what they are after is product consistency, I just wonder if it is worth the time, effort, money, and polluting of their product. I wonder when was the last time any of the distilleries did any major market research into how much of a factor consistency actualy is in whisky sales. And yes, I know I am beating my head against a brick wall. Personaly I find it slightly disapointing that the distilleries do these things, but mostly my reaction is one of bemusment because it seems pointless. They are trying to iron out the idiosynchrasies that other areas of the alcohol industry embrace.

We eat and drink with our eyes first. I'd prefer no artificial coloring and certainly non-chilled filtered (as one member mentioned this is the bigger issue). But I understand the marketing side of coloring being added.

If one wants to insure they are drinking a naturally colored whisky, Bourbon whiskEy might be an alternate choice to reach for in the cabinet. By law, Bourbon has no artificial coloring, so what you see is the result of time spent in the cask. It's about as natural to the eye as it is to the brain perception we have with our Scotch. With Scotch, we want to have that "aged, antique" appearance that goes hand-in-hand with the actual age statement.

We drink with our eyes and rustic color means "aged" and "quality".

@Peatpete Interesting you mention wine. They may not add caramel in regular wine (at least not often?) but vermouth is certainly coloured with caramel because it would suggest more spices and more character. Also, you might think of sulfites in wine in the same way: they are not natural (well, only to a certain extent) but they are added to create a more appealing (better preserving) product.

Forcing producers to state the addition of caramel, just like in Germany, is probably the only thing that's feasible for now. Allow the producer to do what he is (quite harmlessly) doing, but at least inform the customer.

@Peatpete, your arguments make sense only up to the point that the distilleries (or, rather, their owners) haven't done the market research. You haven't done it, but are convinced of your arguments. The distilleries undoubtedly have done it at some point, and are convinced of theirs. I'm willing to bet that they have done it recently, especially biggies like Diageo whose interest is only the bottom dollar. If they sold precisely the same amount of whisky (or more) and could save on the costs of E150 and chill-filtration, I'm certain they would.

One also does not have to believe the "consistency" argument for colouring to be a sensible decision. As @Whiskynotes pointed out, many people associate colour with age (something not entirely unreasonable in the world of uncoloured whisky), and if they want an "older" whisky, a darker one is a sure bet to an unwitting consumer when there is no age statement or information about the addition of colour. The consistency argument may be smoke and mirrors, but the utility of colouring to the distilleries can still hold.

I agree with @Monty that mandatory labelling of colouring would be nice, but I can see fair arguments otherwise. Chill filtering is another matter to me altogether: if the consumer doesn't care for the mouthfeel or some congeners seem "absent," the consumer simply won't buy it again. Colour is misinformation, whereas chill filtering is (possibly) a defect. I'm more concerned with the latter than the former, because the consumer has not been misled. It's the distillery's problem if the consumer doesn't care for their whisky.

As an aside, straight Bourbon and rye CAN be coloured, but it would have to be stated on the label. See Title 27, §5.39 (edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/aprqtr/…).