Pages
▼
Monday, March 6, 2017
Why Doesn't Four Roses Follow the Labeling Rules?
Four Roses is one of the most beloved distilleries among whiskey fans, and the annual Limited Edition Small Batch is probably their most prized release, but they have consistently ignored labeling rules for that release.
Last week, Four Roses cleared a label for this year's Limited Edition Small Batch. The label states that the bourbon is composed of a blend of four of their bourbons: 12 year old OBSF, 13 year old OESV, 15 year old OBSK and 23 year old OBSV. The problem is that they don't state the percentage of each bourbon in the blend.
Under TTB regulations, the age statement for a whiskey should be the age of the youngest whiskey in the blend. The TTB guidelines allow that a whiskey that is a blend of different aged components can list those components, but in doing so, it must also include the percentage of each component in the blend.
Most whiskey geeks like having more information and are happy to know the components of the Four Roses Small Batch, so what's the problem? Well, take this year's label for example. The big news here is that it includes a 23 year old bourbon. That's the oldest bourbon I've ever seen in any Four Roses bottle which is pretty exciting, but since we don't know the percentages, there could literally be a thimble full of 23 year old in the entire vatting. The purpose of the percentage requirement is to prevent companies from advertising the use of more aged whiskey without disclosing exactly how much old whiskey is in the mix.
Pursuant to the rules, Four Roses should either publish the percentage of each bourbon that went into the Small Batch or call it a 12 year old whiskey.
Doesn't high west do the same
ReplyDeleteThey used to. Last year, High West removed component age statements from its labels in order to comply with the rule. New labels give the age of the youngest whiskey, then usually say it's blended with an older whiskey but don't state the age of the older whiskey. High West does continue to use age statements without percentages on their website, which could be a violation as well.
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that they were particularly egregious- the double rye which is a great buy- said they had to keep the percentages secret...
DeleteHope they fix it. Not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteI wish John Glaser could just go around and punch the marketing director of all these distilleries in the face. What's so hard about understanding that transparency sells?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is in Four Roses' court, at least at the inception of the approval process, but why aren't the rules being enforced by the regulatory agency in charge of the approval itself?
ReplyDeleteGood question Sam!
ReplyDeleteWhich specific part of section 5.40 requires Four Roses to state the percentage of each whiskey used in the blend?
ReplyDeleteAnon, 5.40 doesn't say that, but that is the TTB's interpretation.
ReplyDelete5.40(a)(1) sets out the age statement for whiskey as the age of the youngest whisky, stated as "__ years old." That regulation alone would seemingly prohibit any other age statement, but the TTB created an exception which is spelled out in the Beverage Alcohol Manual (Chapter 8, p. 8-1), allowing age statements of older, component whiskeys in a blend but only if percentages are listed.
Is it instead that they're considering it a NAS bourbon by not listing a minimum age? Does the NAS loophole hold here?
ReplyDeleteAre regs harder, especially in this legislative environment, to enforce than law? Would be interesting to watch the litigation (with roses suing ttb) should ttb choose to respond punitively. With likely some absurdly small allocation for a major metropolitan area, I'd like to see the case made on harm.
ReplyDeleteTransparency and saving $1.00 is why I buy Rebel Yell Rye instead of Bulleit.
ReplyDeletebillyhacker, if TTB was going to enforce this rule, they would have rejected the label. They have no grounds to take any other action once they have approved the label.
ReplyDeleteFeels like Sam is on the money - you should be asking the TTB to enforce.
ReplyDeleteSKU you really ought to change your outrageously wrong and misleading title. I think you just admitted, above, that Four Roses is following the "rules" -- and it's only your interpretation or somebody else's (aka, not "rules") with which you have a beef. You are probably wrong on "interpretation," too -- because TTB has shown it's interpretation by many, many approvals over many, many years. The burden is on you to show a real rule, with an (exaggerated, sensationalistic??) headline as now: "Why Doesn't Four Roses Follow the Labeling Rules?" Does it not seem obvious that the government knows how to require stuff, nice and clear, and didn't do so here?
ReplyDeleteIt's not my interpretation. It's the TTB's interpretation. Here's the TTB's own FAQ which I cited in the post above:
ReplyDeleteHow should age be stated if the whisky consists of a mixture or blend of whiskies with different ages?
If the whisky contains no neutral spirits, the age must be stated either as the age of the youngest whisky, or as a statement that includes the age of each whisky in the mixture or blend, and the percentage of that whisky in the mixture or blend. If percentages are listed, they must be based on the percentage of the finished product, on a proof gallon basis, contributed by each listed whisky, and the percentages listed must add up to 100%. If the whisky contains neutral spirits, see 27 CFR 5.40(a)(2) for rules that apply to statements of age and percentage.
It's such a pity the TTB doesn't seem to have any interest in enforcing its own rules. Unlike with Scotch, which has all sorts of stupid rules that John Glaser rightly decries, the TTB's rules mostly make sense and encourage transparency.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know why the TTB sucks so much at actually enforcing compliance with its labeling requirements? Knowing nothing specific about the TTB, I would chalk it up to laziness, but I would love to hear from someone who is familiar with the agency.
The topic is good and interesting, but a lot of the assertions in the article and the comments are too simplistic. The blog post title mentions rules. Rules that somebody is lazy about or ignoring. But even after many comments, nothing above points to any such rule. Instead, the article and some of the comments keep pointing to a mere interpretation (instead of anything like a statute, or a regulation brought into force after notice, comment, debate, rulemaking). A FAQ is not a rule, especially if it's inconsistent with the actual rules. And we know the FAQ is wrong because it flatly says all whiskey (when made from a mix of whiskies having various ages) needs some kind of age statement; this is not true. It is directly in conflict with the regulation. The rules at 27 CFR 5.40 make it quite clear that not all whiskies need an age statement: "In the case of straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended, all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are optional." You guys should not be pointing any fingers at TTB or this brand, for being lazy or making mistakes, unless you are willing to look at the actual rules (rather than what you want them to be or assume them to be) and correct the mistakes above. Surely SKU you can see this distinction, between a real, actual rule, and something far less sturdy. I am writing this because I am genuinely curious about whether there really is a nice, clear rule (or even an interpretation that is not in conflict with the rules). One way or the other I hope SKU will correct whatever may be incorrect in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteIf an agency is going to promulgate an official interpretation of its rules, one would think the agency would bother to consistently enforce the official interpretation of the rule. As SKU, Chuck Cowdery, and many others have repeatedly pointed out, the TTB manifestly does not bother to do this, or even to enforce the rules themselves (not just with age statements but also state of distillation disclosures, required under 27 CFR 5.36(d), which seem to be routinely flouted, most notoriously by Templeton Rye and the many other bottlers of MGP whiskey that don't bother to put the word "Indiana" on the label).
DeleteNot knowing anything about the internal dynamics of the agency, I assume the problem is laziness or incompetence. But I'd love to hear an explanation from someone with insider knowledge from the industry or agency.
Anon, I really think I've made this quite clear. I'm basing my argument on the regulation and the TTB's written guidance on its interpretation of the regulation - Agencies that are charged with enforcing regulations interpret thsoe regulations. That's how they enforce them - because not every regulation is self evident or deals with every possible situation.
ReplyDeleteThe regulation in question, if read literally, is actually stricter than TTB's interpretation. It provides that when age statements are listed they shall be listed in a certain format noting the age of the youngest whiskey. The TTB has, in its written guidelines in the Beverage Alcohol Manual, and as described in FAQ, allowed for a more lenient interpretation such that multiple ages for components may be provided but only if percentages are given. (And I disagree that the FAQ is incorrect - if you go back and read the entire FAQ - to which I cite - this is one of a series of questions. The FAQ clearly states that age statements are not always required - the question I excerpted answers the question of how they should be stated, not whether they are required). In any case, the Four Roses label is improper under both the stricter standard that appears in the regulations, which requires only the age of the youngest whiskey, and the more lenient standard that TTB has outlined, which allows multiple age statements as long as percentages are provided. If you disagree, kindly point out to me how you think this complies with the language in the regulations and TTB guidance.
And I will add that the important point here is that the TTB has repeatedly made very clear statements about what the rule is for age statements, and the rule makes perfect sense and offers valuable information to a consumer. For that reason, Four Roses should make labels that comply with the rule and the TTB should enforce the rule by refusing to approve labels that are not in compliance.
ReplyDeleteDespite what one anonymous poster believes, this is a clear violation of TTB regulations. Why the TTB chooses not to enforce the regulations, is likely complicated. Lazy? Maybe. Understaffed? Definitely. But it's hard to believe they are too swamped to actually read, and refuse to accept, labels in clear violation of the regulations.
ReplyDeleteI love Four Roses whiskey---but I also make it a practice to refuse to buy products that aren't properly labeled. I might buy a drink at a bar, but when I can thoroughly read the label (as I can when buying a bottle in a liquor store), I won't spend a dime on something in violation of the regs. I don't understand why Four Roses would create such a label. I'm sure a compliant label would be equally as appealing to the consumer.
Especially since Four Roses is about as transparent as a distillery gets.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this was simply an oversight on everyone's part.
Sam, I'm not so sure. Last years small batch LE listed the ages of the components on the bottle, but no percentage. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for other past years as well. Interesting.
ReplyDeletefrom fred minnick/press release
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fredminnick.com/2017/03/09/four-roses-limited-edition/
"According to a press release, the includes 5 percent of a 23-year-old of OBSV recipe, 25 percent 15-year-old OBSK , 50 percent 13-year-old OESV and 20 percent 12-year-old OBSF."
My guess is that the explosion of new labels, brands, etc. make it difficult TTB to adequately review all new labels as thoroughly as they should. I would venture to say this portion of the government bureaucracy is understaffed. If their budget gets cut by 50%, they may only have one label reviewer left.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't TTB properly policing the regs? I agree that it's probably a combination of resources and their view of the importance/severity of the violations.
ReplyDeleteThere also shouldn't be a need, given this little part of the form:
Under the penalties of perjury, I declare: that all statements appearing on this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; and, that the representations on the labels attached to this form, including supplemental documents, truly and correctly represent the content of the containers to which these labels will be applied. I also certify that I have read, understood, and complied with the conditions and instructions which are attached to an original TTB F 5100.31.
Sadly, that language doesn't seem to scare people as much as it should.
TTB Budget seems like its been cut over the last several years: https://www.ttb.gov/pdf/budget/fy2016bib.pdf The numbers stay flat because of the Continuing Resolution which kept funding flat but eroded budget with inflation and mandatory pay and other mandatory spending increases (health, etc.). SKU's post on increases in new distillery count would suggest a rise in label and marketing applications but TTB has been cut from 535 FTEs in 2010 down to 473 employees in the last enacted budget for the 2016 fiscal year. Transparent government is great. Lots more details on individual programs here: https://www.ttb.gov/about/budget-submissions.shtml
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm sure TTB is severely undermanned and underfunded, I'm not sure that's an excuse for approving bad labels. I mean, they have to read the label to approve it, don't they? Is there that much more work involved when a label is denied? One would think there would be a fairly straightford "form letter" for labels that are denied due to improper age statements. Of course, it's possible (I suppose) labels are approved after some time, even if they haven't been read/reviewed. Maybe someone here has more info on this. But I think if the TTB simply denied labels with improper age statements, this kind of thing would start taking care of itself, in relatively short order. Or at least, I'd like to think that.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the taxes collected on an incorrectly age stated product are exactly the same as a correctly labelled one? And that the label approver (who most likely was transferred from winery compliance last year and doesn't drink spirits) in addition to whiskey labels must look at labels for rum, brandy, vodka, gin, lemoncello, Batavia arrack, barrel aged Manhattan cocktail, cherry pie moonshine, ouzo, and turkey-flavored mezcal? And that the volume of labels being filed (these days perhaps by people with no previous experience with spirits labeling) is at least 3x higher?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't an interpretation issue, it is a definition issue.
ReplyDeleteThe definitions of may and must.
The so-called 'rules' state you may, may, as in optionally, label both age and the percentages of each included. They do not say you must do so.
Also SKU you state;
Pursuant to the rules, Four Roses should either publish the percentage of each bourbon that went into the Small Batch or call it a 12 year old whiskey.
Incorrect again, they can call it and label it anything they wish as long as the youngest whiskey contained is at least four years old. They may (there's that word again) call and label it 12 year old as that is the age of the youngest whiskey contained.
And as you so eloquently put it, even if the blend contained a thimble-full of 12 year old whiskey and the remainder is 23 years old, *poof!* 12 year is the age statement.
Anonymous (you can't tell on Anon from another without a program), I think Four Roses has these choices, if they wish to be in compliance:
ReplyDeleteNo age statement
An age statement of 12 years (or less, I suppose)
Or, a statement specifying the exact percentage of each whiskey in the blend.
What they really aren't supposed to do, is state the various whiskies/ages used, without stating the percentage of each used.
Is that clear enough?
Think the TTB sucks now? Wait until the Trompero's get a hold and gut their budget. More Govt regulations, er protections, I say. Left alone, without regulations (protections), most industries, including the beverage industry, will screw us all to no end.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I am the anonymous to which you are referring, so;
ReplyDeleteYou ask if it's clear enough, and the regulations are to me, but not to SKU and 90% of the commenters here.
And I will now attempt to clarify, (woe is me).
In this case (Four Roses Limited Edition Small Batch 2017) the ONLY regulation is:
§5.40(a)
Statements of age and percentage for whisky. In the case of straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended, all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are optional.FULL STOP, Do NOT continue everything below that does not concern 4R LESB 2017.
Any and all verbiage below that refers to whiskeys other than straight (4 year old) and/or blended (vodka-ized) whiskeys. Hence the statement;
As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following:
Everything referred to in (1)are regulations for under 4 year old whiskeys.
Everything referred to in (2)are regulations for blended whiskeys (neutral spirited)containing young straight whiskey. (i) you must state how much straight whiskey is in the blend. (ii) for blends containing more than one young whiskey the percentage and age of the youngest must be stated. (iii) if one straight (4 year or older) and one young the age and percentages must be stated. (iv) if a bunch of straight and young whiskeys are in the blend the ages and percentages of each must be stated.
I don't think it can be much clearer.