Provenance in Scotch Whisky
For many decades the words ‘single malt whisky’ carried the implied message that this referred to a product of Scottish (or Irish) origin. Whereas the Irish made work of identifying single pot still whiskey as an original Irish product, the Scots never chose to claim ‘single malt’ as a pure Scottish product. As it happened in the past, distillates from other countries were sometimes labelled as Scotch whisky, for instance when an indigenous distillate had been blended with whisky from Scotland and then labelled as such.
Over the years the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has been successful in stopping that practice and managed to get ‘Scotch Whisky’ registered as a Certification Trademark in more than 100 global territories as a product made in Scotland. Recently Hong Kong joined the group. No distinction has been made between single malt whisky and blended whisky so far. Still, many countries have not recognised the trademark, so there is more work to do.
The USA managed to protect bourbon much earlier. On May 4, 1964, the U.S. Congress recognised bourbon as ‘a distinctive product of the United States’. Since that date, bourbon could be made anywhere in the United States. Fun fact: the person who prepared all relevant papers for the Congress was aptly named August Bourbon. So if a country outside the USA uses the same methods and techniques to create bourbon, it can only label it as ‘American style whiskey’, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS).
When a law was passed in the USA in the early 2000s, making it easier and more affordable to acquire a license to distil, the number of distilleries in the country exploded and the current estimate is over 2,000, dispersed over all 50 states. For an accurate overview I can recommend the Whisky Atlas North America, compiled by Rüdiger Jorg Hirst and published by Alba-Collection Verlag GbR. This comprehensive book is one of its kind and presents maps with extensive lists of bourbon and rye distilleries in the USA, Canada and Mexico.
Many among them also claim to make single malt whiskey (with an ‘e’). In his Malt Whisky Yearbook 2023, Ingvar Ronde mentions 150 distilleries in the USA and 23 in Canada who supposedly make single malt whisk(e)y. There are no production rules and regulations concerning single malt production in the USA yet, so technically a distillate from the still can be put in a barrel for one day and then bottled as a single malt. I am sure both SWA and DISCUS are studying the matter, but currently the term single malt is eroded by such practices.
Looking at the plethora of whisky distilleries around the globe (see MWY 2023) that claim to make single malt, I advocate that the SWA will go a step further, maybe aided by the Scottish Government, to protect, register and deposit the term ‘Scottish Single Malt Whisky’, to distinguish the product from any other malt whisky produced elsewhere. Just as the USA did with bourbon back in 1964.
After all, distilleries from other countries, for example High Coast of Sweden (formerly known as Box), presents itself as ‘Swedish single malt whisky’ to clearly distinguish its product from other geographic varieties of the craitur. Other countries may (already) follow such an example. It will lead to more clarity around the generic product and will prevent confusion for the customer, as has been the case with Canadian distiller Macaloney from Vancouver, who insisted on using brand names such as Caledonian. Too close to home, so the SWA made an end to that practice and Macaloney has shown it can hold its own, winning prizes by the score for its Canadian single malt.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a proponent of experimenting with whiskey from various perspectives, like distilling techniques, wood policies, fermentation and the like. It only makes the whisk(e)y world more interesting. I do foresee however that the industry will be segmented into ‘traditionals’ and ‘progressives’, whether the distillers do it themselves or it will be realised by rules and regulations set by governments and/or branch organisations.
Last but not least, let’s continue to enjoy our whisky, wherever it has been made, as long as quality standards are adhered to.
Contribution By Hans Offringa, Whisky Expert and Author
CASK WHISKY ASSOCIATION 