...and for good reason. It's always interesting; it represents a ton of work. I especially dig his amazing comparisons of multiple rums and other spirits like spiced rums, and especially his two part series on amari.
But Josh recently posted a piece intended to promote peace among the sometimes heated differences of opinion re rum. Unfortunately in doing so he illustrated his points using sugar which he felt was just fine, nothing happening here, move along.
I responded as follows:
"Speaking of Buddha, let's do speak the truth and not a version that will please the Big Three – Diageo, Fortune and Bacardi. Josh cited three important sources: Seales, Gabriel of Plantation and the constantly misunderstood 2-1/2% rule. Let's start with Gabriel.
Per Josh “Gabriel freely admits that like with many French grape distillates, a bit of sugar is often added to his rums. He’s also out front about his sourcing, the barrels he uses for finishing, and so on. As a result, everyone in the rum world knows Plantation rum usually has sugar added.” Josh then exclaims that Plantation's “authenticity” is the reason people keep buying it. Is this so?
No. Until Plantation was outed by the sugar tests of ALKO, the Swedes, Drejer, et al – until then Plantation's position was like the mafia's omerta – silence. Even today, a meticulous review of Plantation's website – many pages – could not find a single admission of added sugar. The claim that Gabriel “freely admits” to a “bit of sugar”? He's never, ever admitted the amounts used; to the contrary the many Plantation rums tested showed a typical addition of 20 grams of sugar per liter. That's not a pinch of sugar – it's about 5 teaspoons of sugar per bottle, enough to smother the underlying profile in favor of sugary smoothness. Ouch.
If Gabriel is so free, open and proud, why is it that not a word of this allegedly hallowed and traditional practice appears in their large and otherwise descriptive website, nor is there any mention on the label like “flavored with skill using the finest Demeraran sugar”? Don't hold your breath. And how about the notion that Gabriel is “out front” about his sourcing?
No again. About as far as Plantation will go is to name the alleged island of production. There are indications that Plantation purchases at least some product in bulk from a very large third party bulk distributor/middleman. The idea that unique barrels are sought out? Not likely. During a past study of all their products, I could find not a single mention of the actual distillery, method, raw materials, fermention, yeast, or specific cooperage facts. That's “out front”?
Let's now move to Richard Seale, who in comparison Josh properly praised for making real, honest and scrupulously legal rum. No unlabeled adulterants like sugar, glycerol, flavorings or even wine. Here's what Seales had to say in a debate with Gabriel:
Readers should note that by test, Plantation seems to have added sugar to rums from countries where sugaring is illegal. How “authentic” is that? Seale's continues:
- “The sugar issue has been regrettably spun as a “partisan issue” but this is neither accurate nor fair. For many producers e.g. Barbados, Jamaica, Martinique sugar is an illegal adulterant. This is not molasses v juice or column v pot or tropical v temperate, this is legal v illegal. Sugar proponents and I do not have opposing views on sugar”
Gabriel's cognac story fails both legally AND in actuality. Although Seale's complete response to Gabriel was much longer, I'll add just one final exerpt about the counterfeiting of real, honest and pure rum with sugar:
- “However if we are to believe the very seductive story of using “ancient techniques” and “a small touch” or “dosage” of sugar then we must check if this currently accords with reality. Johnny Drejer tested some 73 ultra premium rums and only found 12 without sugar (no surprise they mostly came from Barbados, Jamaica and Martinique). More disturbingly 53 (87%) of the 61 rums with sugar had more than 10g/l a limit rarely exceeded in Cognac. 48 (79%) of the 61 were at or higher than the legal limit for Cognac. “
Point made. Gabriel's and Seale's full dialogue can be found at The Floating Rum Shack, like Josh's, another good site I frequent. Last, let's try to briefly cover the widely misunderstood 2-1/2% rule, Section Section 5.23 (Alteration) of the US code of regulations. In sum Josh believes that “coloring, flavoring and blending materials” may be added to any rum up to 2-1/2% by volume without being labeled.
- “Last year at Tales of the Cocktail during a seminar I presented two rums, one was an industrial produced purported “super premium” brand with a double-digit age claim and great reverence in the rum community. The other was an un-aged rum suitably coloured, doctored and sweetened. The knowledgeable rum audience was unable to distinguish between the two and over half of the audience present preferred my ‘counterfeit’ (Note, I agree with their choice).”
Josh stated:
This is statement is incomplete - an extracted miscitation of Section 5.23 of the code - and ignores two very important requirements, which are:
- “...U.S. law allows for up to 2.5% by volume of additives in every bottle of rum, and producers are not required to state what the additives are if they are considered to be “customarily used in the particular class and/or type of distilled spirits...”
In other words, the regs do NOT allow blanket addition, but set forth four criteria to be legal:
- Ҥ5.23 Alteration of class and type.
“(2) There may be added to any class or type of distilled spirits, without changing the class or type thereof, (i) such harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as are an essential component part of the particular class or type of distilled spirits to which added... (or)
...which are not an essential component part of the particular distilled spirits to which added, but which are customarily employed therein in accordance with established trade usage, if such coloring, flavoring, or blending materials do not total more than 21⁄2 percent by volume of the finished product.”
“Essential” is easy. If the class, in this case “rum”, can be made without it, the material added is not essential. Neither coloring, flavoring or blending materials are essential to the making of rum; indeed hundreds of “rums” are made without them. Thus these additive cannot be used under this test.
- 1. it speaks only to harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials, and
2. if used the named additive must be ESSENTIAL to the making of the spirit, or
3. if not essential, it must be in use under the legal standard of ESTABLISHED TRADE USAGE, and
4. may not exceed 2-1/2% by volume
We are left with the allowable use under “established trade usage”. What is that? Established trade usage is a long, long established legal concept. Simply it means a practice or custom so widespread and universally accepted that it need not be specified.
Example: If a dealer offers a new car for sale, under “established trade usage” you will expect it to be delivered with wheels, full fluids, a set of keys and enough gas to drive it out of the dealership. While many other optional accessories will be specified, as will the price and terms, there is no need to specify the wheels, fluids, keys, or gas in writing as these are expected by all buyers and sellers under customary established trade usage.
Only harmless coloring meets this test as the use of coloring is almost universal for rum (unlike whisky or bourbon). Flavoring and blending materials are not so expected, and are nowhere near so universal as to meet this strict test of “established trade usage”. The proof is on the rum shelves. Coloring is near universal in usage, flavoring and blending material are not. It has not been established that distillers must use or are expected to use flavoring or blending materials.
If they do, the same section makes clear that the other regulations remain in full force, ergo add flavorings and the rum must be so labeled, with the primary flavoring identified, eg “Vanilla Rum” or “Sweet Surprise”.
The use of sugar (or any of the other trickery used) to alter cheap rums (ala Seales) to appear aged, smooth and complex is fraudulent, wrong and qualify as the “counterfeit” rums knowingly argued by Seales.
In closing and in defense of Josh, he is not alone in being led by the many circulated misrepresentations of this section. While the terms “essential” and “established trade usage” have been widely litigated and well understood in the law, a number of commercially oriented spokesmen and promoters have intentionally misrepresented it to the point that Josh (and me at one time) have been led to believe otherwise.
This misrepresentation is intentional and meant to imply that it's legal for these "anything goes" concoctions.
We can be forgiven, as for years the producers denied the sugaring entirely. Only when caught and revealed by the governments of Finland, Sweden, etc., did they finally admit the alterations, but then attempted to explain it away as “tradition”, or somehow allowable under a rule that is easily misrepresented, and that is actually understood by only a few.
That the TTB has been lax and offers a convenient blind eye does not change the facts. Rum is secretly and unlawfully altered and promoted. The good news: about half of the 780 rums tested are truly pure, honest and legal, containing only legal coloring, if any. And more and more rum buyers are now rejecting these tricked out sugar bombs for what they are: a knowing adulteration of lesser rum to be premiumized for great additional profit. Make a good, pure and honestly aged rum is expensive. Altering a lesser rum with squirt of artificial flavoring, 5 to 10 teaspoons of sugar, glycerol, or even wine is cheap.
And now the buyers know it. And that's the truth."
Stay tuned...
