Menu
Bourbon and American Rye are expecting a new baby brother sometime in the Fall/ Winter of this year. In late July, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was added to the Federal Register by the United States Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB). The rule being considered? A definition for the category of American Single Malt Whiskey as a uniquely American form of whiskey, to be protected by government-backed assurances of quality and transparency. American Single Malt Whiskey, made in some form since the late 80’s, will finally enjoy the same protections as other unique forms of American whiskey such as bourbon, rye, corn whiskey and others.
What does this mean? The NPRM also set into motion a 60-day public commentary period during which anyone can lodge their opinion on the various details being taken into consideration when forming this definition.
This announcement is yet another milestone crossed in no small part due to the efforts of the American Single Malt Whiskey Commission and its producer members. The Commission, founded in 2016 by nine distilleries, has grown to over 200 different producing members. Their efforts since then to lobby for this new category have been multi-faceted. Its producer members all have agreed to make American Single Malt Whiskey in accordance with the definition proposed by the American Single Malt Whiskey Commission since its founding in 2016. According to the ASMWC, to be an American Single Malt, a whiskey must be:
According to the National Register, the definition being considered by the TTB aligns neatly with the ASMWC’s recommended guidelines. There are subtle differences, however. We’ll get into these a little later. As of September 27th, when the public commentary period ends, it remains to be seen how long the body will take to ratify the agreed upon set of rules. Optimists believe that the new and protected status of American Single Malt Whiskey could indeed exist before the end of the year. Pragmatists will remind of the old axiom that the wheels of government turn slowly.
Because there are certainly merits on both sides. First, one often hears of the belief that over-regulation and rigid definitions have been the enemies of innovation in Scotch Whiskey. To those who ascribe to this opinion, please consider the plight of Japanese whisky in the years following the “boom” of the late 90’s/ early 2000’s. Without a strict set of laws to protect the term “Japanese Whisky”, greedy opportunists exploited all sorts of loopholes and shady marketing techniques to get money from the wallets of Japanese Whisky hunters. The Japanese Whisky market is still trying to recover from that loss in confidence, with many whisky lovers now only trusting the products of a select few Japanese distilleries.
American Single Malt Whiskey as a category only naturally should want to avoid confusion about what the product in the bottle truly is. The sheer growth in participation in the ASMW Commission seems proof of that. It’s often said that Whiskey is a collegial industry- and the cooperation and unity of ASMW producers in the US is a great example of this. Approaching any of these producers at any whiskey festival, you’ll often be urged to try any ASMW. To quote another axiom- the tide raises all ships.
This one is no surprise, (one might think). The Scotch Whisky Association (the governing body over the legal definition of Scotch Whisky) also defines a single malt whisky as one made from 100% malted barley. So it stands to reason that ASMW should seek that same definition However, if you get a chance to go to an ASMW tasting, you may encounter a whiskey made with 100% Malted Rye. This is a notoriously difficult and messy process, with a unique set of flavor profiles all its own. Indeed, many of the comments being offered on the NPRM do not support this rule, arguing that modern malting techniques allow almost all grains to be malted. And as the ASMW’s proposed definition do not restrict the use of artificial enzymes, their argument would seem to hold water- at least in terms of a literal definition. The argument being that a whiskey made at a single distillery from 100% malted Quinoa should be considered an American Single Malt. Unless they are able to convincingly make their arguments heard, producers of these styles of whiskies may have to contend with exclusion from the new definition.
Pretty standard definition here as well. Whiskey lovers will still have to explain to newcomers that the “Single” in Single Malt refers to the single distillery, and not to a grain acting alone.
Not entirely surprising either, although one notices the conspicuous absence of the word “bottled”. Should American Single Malt Whiskey be required to be bottled in the USA? Another argument is that the grains should be sourced only in the USA as well. This argument has already come up in the public commentary period, but it would be surprising if it gained any momentum. The rules for Scotch Whisky also allow (and perhaps depends upon) the at least supplemental use of imported grain. After all, the three things that Scotland is best known for is whisky, golf, and crumby weather. The latter might make it difficult to depend upon exclusively Scottish or even UK-only sources of barley. But isn’t the US the land of “amber waves of grain”? It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out, although there are certainly a few distilleries that are already compliant if the wind blows in this direction. They just may have a head start after ratification…
Well here’s an interesting one. Why such a stipulation? Isn’t that just proof that these rules are carbon copies of SWA rules governing Scotch Whisky? Why do we need such rules in ASMW? Well, the best counterpoint heard on this subject (subtly) points to the recent entrance into the ASMW market by one of the top-producing American beer companies. What would stop one of these huge companies from building a 20-story oak cask? How could the rest of the industry compete?
Also very nearly verbatim to the regulations for Bourbon, although the definition set forth for bourbon also includes that bourbon should enter the cask as no higher than 62.5% ABV. The ASMWC’s proposed definition currently has no such requirement of barreling strength. Disparately, the SWA’s rules for Scotch Whisky allow for a distillate of nearly 190 proof, or 94.8% ABV. (No wonder there are so many distilleries with huge fires in their history…). Distilling to higher than 80% pure alcohol by volume and placing no limits on barreling strength would also have an impact on wood extraction, which occurs at a faster rate with a higher strength new make spirit. It would seem that the reasoning behind the 80% limit in bourbon and perhaps now in ASMW is to maintain an essential flavor set that consumers can come to expect a consistency from, which perhaps also lends some credence to the wider variety of climate in the USA as compared to Scotland.
I think it goes without saying that whiskies in the USA should maintain a minimum ABV, though 40% is a little too weak for my blood. That being said, any weaker than that, and most consumers would find it difficult shelling out good money for any juice lower than 80% ABV. Interestingly enough, choosing to bottle at 40% does also knock you out of exporting to certain export markets (at least as a whiskey). For example, South Africa doesn’t allow whiskies below 43% abv to keep the word whiskey on the label. While there will always be proof-snobs out there, the general consensus will have little to no argument on this stipulation.
Based upon the TTB’s language in the NPRM, it seems likely that they have, for the most part, accepted the guidance of the ASMWC when forming its definition. There are a few specific departures, nonetheless, and we haven’t forgotten our promise to touch in on at least a few of them…
The opinions on this have loomed large in the public commentary, with most who have weighed in against allowing the use of distillers caramel or other “blending materials”. But, it was interesting that the ASMWC chose not to mention prohibiting color in their recommended definition… perhaps they decided that this was not the hill they’d die on. While the rules of Scotch whisky allow for the use of color “within the naturally occurring spectrum associated with whisky”, the argument has always been that the use of color can also deceive the consumer into a misguided belief of longer maturation.
The use of new or used casks has always been a bedrock principle of the ASMW movement, but the prospect of playing around with uncharred casks could not only introduce us to new flavor profiles, but also make for some interesting symbiosis with American Corn Whiskey!
There’s also the matter of those whiskies that might call themselves an ASMW currently, but may no longer be able to once this definition is adopted. How long should a grace period be allowed for those labels that need undergo change after these rulings? That’s tough- should certain brands be “grandfathered in”? Should the TTB allow enough time for the existing product to sell through? This could take a while…
And yet another interesting point: should the TTB allow adding the term “straight” to an ASMW label when that whiskey that has been matured for a minimum of two year, and has forgone the addition of any added color or flavors? The ASMWC’s proposed definition requires no minimum age statement, but the use of the term “straight” in American Whiskey has been an accepted, if often misunderstood practice. It also leads the mind to considering the possibility of the “Bottled-in-Bond” American Single Malt Whiskey…
We simply don’t have time to list all of the questions that face the TTB when establishing a definition for ASMW, it promises to be fascinating discourse for us whiskey nerds! You can follow the public commentary by clicking the link here.
However exciting the prospect of making new American Whiskey history, there’s also the small matter of acceptance by the American drinking public. The ASMW movement has indeed grown- touted in numerous articles and brand PowerPoint decks as the fastest-growing category of American whiskey, nonetheless sales in the ASMW category have been a bit slower, to put it mildly. While a certain few brands are starting to see some real success in terms of case sales, others have kept producing ASMW out of what seems like tenacious passion and optimistic foresight. While the whiskey boom has continued to trend upward, other categories are dominated by the meteoric growth of bourbon in louder and somewhat more belligerent circles of whiskey buyers, who look at their 10x SRP Weller Full Proof store pick finds as a medal of valor to be pinned on their breast.
The point is to say that if the bureaucracy of these here United States can accept a new and uniquely American form of whiskey into the American vernacular, shouldn’t anyone who loves whiskey be willing to explore, to see if their particular palate may have found a new home in this new style? We hope the whisk(e)y public will make their voices heard, not only during the public commentary period, but also post-ratification. Find your American Single Malt Whiskey brand- whether your choice be based on your flavor camps or on the locality of your distillery of choice, or any other reason. You also have just a few days left -Remember- September 27th- to make your voices heard. Be a part of this interesting time in whisk(e)y history!
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Websites store cookies to enhance functionality and personalise your experience. You can manage your preferences, but blocking some cookies may impact site performance and services.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
You can find more information in our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.