Family Dispute Dept: Matusalem's "Secret Formula"

The fifth and last major standard style, the lighter Cuban rums pioneered by Bacardi, who left their facilities and quality, but not their politics, behind when Fidel lit up. Por Cuba Libre!
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

RM's alteration does not fall under the regs...


Without going into excruciating detail, in the United States the regulations establish clear differences between "rum", "flavored rum", "rum liqueur" et al. There is an additives clause which in the case of rum which establishes allowable uses of for example E-150 color, as an allowable addition under "established trade usage".

The sum total of all is that what should be called "flavored rum" is quite clear. In my conversations with the Department, it was made clear that unlabeled flavorings and sugar - if admitted - would not be allowed as "rum". The problem: the regulators depend on distiller admission; they do not test for flavorings at all. In sum, the regulations are clear, the enforcement is lax, and the distillers cheat and rarely admit the real contents. Only a few distillers stand against this and make clear their products are not altered.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Cooperage and Aging are distinct from "flavoring"...


There is an idea that cooperage and barrels are examples of flavoring, based on the notion that they are chock full of leftover bourbon or sherry somehow sloshing around the bottom, acting as either intended or unintended "additives" apart from the wood itself. This notion has also been presented by the Wolfboy and Turncoat Burr who present this idea as justifying today's unlabeled additives of all kinds (which include sugar, glycerol, actual sherry and artificial flavorings of all kinds).

This notion is terribly overstated. First of all, most barrels are disassembled and dried for shipment and recoopered on site. Some are shaved and/or get a further toasting. Second, keep in mind that the leftover compounds retained in the wood itself barely resemble the former contents - for example, the sherry once stored in the barrel. Used sherry barrels are also known to go bad as the remnants decompose, and are not used. Whatever compounds remain are terribly oxidized.

One very impressive example is MaCallan Whisky - long known for their "sherry profile". MaCallan was/is a huge purchaser of used sherry barrels made from French Oak. At a point the market for these used (and expensive) barrels became quite close, so MaCallan then bought their own French oak (and grew their own), manufactured the barrels and loaned them to the sherry industry for their usage. The real problem developed when the sherry producers decided they'd rather use American Oak. What would MaCallan do without the used French oak ex-sherry barrels upon which their long established profile depended?

The answer is surprising. They continued to use their own French oak - but - having NEVER contained sherry! The result: they discovered that their desired "sherry profile" was created by the French oak and NOT the assumed sloshing sherry. Case closed.

And last, the use of oak is absolutely traditional and certainly qualifies as established trade useage. Aging "rum" - from either sugar cane or molasses" - in oak barrels has been done for hundreds of years and can hardly be considered an "alteration" in the same sense as added glycerol and other artificial chemical additives. Most of what ends up in modern rum wasn't even invented then.

Another interesting fact is the historical use of caramel to color and smooth rums (now done with E-150 or unlawfully, with brown caramel). This was originally done to dupe the seamen of old into believing they were being served better rum. As far as this objective...

It's hardly different today, and no less deceptive.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
da'rum
Minor God
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Post by da'rum »

Apologies if my post wasn't clear enough, I wrote that at 4-5 am during a night shift and probably wasn't firing on all cylinders.

My position,

1) If a rum has anything in it that isn't distilled spirit, distilled directly from fermented Molasses or Cane juice, it should then be labelled.

2) I strongly disagree with the argument that tradition negates regulation. You were mistaken in your statement that we are in agreement that anything traditional is acceptable.

3) Age statements should be the youngest rum in the bottle not the average age or the oldest.

A simple position, one in which I believe is a right of a customer.

I am really taken aback by the attitude of 'I don't want to know, as long as it tastes good'. I cringe at the attitude of let the unchecked industry remain a world for con artists and shills and predatory multinational beverage companies who have absolutely no love rum whatsoever.

I'll say again people can make whatever they like but they can't call it whatever they like.

I can say that there is one point that we can meet half way on and that is your point on oak barrels.

There is no doubt that oak has an effect on the spirit, so because of that, and in line with my stance on additives and age, I think the manufacturers should state on the label whether the rum has been aged in oak barrels and for how long.

I don't think any distiller that ages rum in oak barrels would be against that... maybe those who age in huge vats and only pass the rum through oak for a nano second of time would take exception.

I hope this is a better explanation of my position.

Cheers.
in goes your eye out
Post Reply