Added sugar to rum

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:28 am

And a one, two, three, bleh...

Nice to see you back Count - btw the way I do an amazingly funny Count Dracula voiceover at parties - but I couldn't help but notice when you said:

"Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements. "

To which I simply had to ask: " I'd be curious as to your measurements, and the equipment and protocol used, and for which rums?". Now although I did receive a private answer, I'd ask you to respond publicly. I can tell you there are some truly amazing and competent posters here who have done and published similar experiments. I commend you for your efforts and for joining us in support of the issues long ago raised by The Project, and against which we here have been fighting for some years now.

Progress is being made, as it was against the Zee rums, et al in the Twiggie section. Have at it, won't you? Do share your methodology and the rums you have personally tested and their results (as opposed to the lists published from the Swedish government, et al).

If the methodology is accessible enough, it's more than possible that others here may also work to add to the body of knowledge. Last, it is well to remember that unlabelled added sugar is just the tip of the iceberg...

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:13 am

I am wondering if one could distill a portion removing all alcohols and water. What would be left as dunder could then be dried further and weighed. I'm not sure if that would be accurate though.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:17 am

There are many harsh whiskies that will be drowned in coke, they do not need any added sugar.

Fair do's you do have a good point here Count. I stand corrected

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:05 am

Count Silvio wrote:
Dai wrote:Just asked Mount Gay if they use added sugar in there rums. Not sure if I will get an answer on it but you never know.
It is very unlikely Mount Gay would add any sugar to their rums. Barbados rums in general are very well produced pure rums with "non commercial" fine quality stills. The problem with additives and sugar comes when a rum is produced to low standards using large scale commercial stills. Sugar (and maybe some other stuff) is traditionally used to hide the bad low grade ethanol bite. Also no producer would ever admit to using sugar so regardless if Mount Gay does or doesn't you'll never know for certain unless you get it tested. Their answer will most definitely be no. Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements.

*******
Capn's Log: Perhaps a bit hopeful? Although I'd tend to agree with you in re Mount Gay, I'd be curious as to your measurements, and the equipment and protocol used, and for which rums.

I'd venture out to say that Mount Gay DOES add sugar to their rums, but in lesser amount than many others. The style is drier, but...my guess is that some sugar, maybe between 3 - 9 grams, (and caramel colouring) is definitely used. ?? No proof, until someone finds out from Sweden's systembolaget the actual amount, since the Mount Gay products are sold there.

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:29 am

Here's a few points to consider further please...

POINT 1) Legislation. In most of the english-speaking Caribbean, I believe that the law forbids at least the use of essences etc in rums which are NOT clearly marked & marketed as "spiced rum". Still we *KNOW* they do add essences etc in various such nations to rums which are marketed as "premium" or super-premium". One can only wonder how they get around this aspect - is it the

a) Lack of control and monitoring by authorities, relying solely on reports from manufacturers

b) "Innovative" use of casks, i.e. spicing casks with liquids prior to putting rum in them - easier to conceal perhaps..

c) Using bulk rum from South America or Central America in the blending - much rum is sold as bulk, and I know that Angostura's rum, Caroni's rum etc ended up in many other brands - and it also happens otherway around (not only with Trinidad, but other islands as well). Once "ready made" bulk from country X is introduced into the mix, one can say that locally, no additives has been used in the manufacturing...and yet still the bottled product does contain such!

POINT 2) When did sugar become an essential element in making rum into sweet nothing, that masses gulped down happily? I must confess, I do not know this. What is clear is that rum has NOT always been sweetened everywhere. Some of the "defenders" of sweeteners (and other nonsense we see in rum) raise a point that "I do not object sweetening rum, because it is a part of tradition". It does not take the sharpest tool in the shed to figure out that they actually DO NOT KNOW either when someone started to drown the taste of rum with sugar additives - they just use the argument in their benefit, because it sounds grandeous.

So, anyone have bottles of rum that are 30/50/70/100/125/150 years old from various islands to try?!?!?? I'd personally love to solve this issue, and if it demands me to try very old drams, well - I guess I might just have to do it

POINT 3) In Guyana for example, a "tradition" has been to slip into a cask a piece of the burnt molasses sugar, to add colour (and a tiny bit of bitter-sweet caramel) to the rum. I think this explains the small amount of sugar residues (and very dark colour) found in some truly authentic and dry rums also, bottled by independents. Bad/Good? I think it THIS can be accepted as "tradition"...

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 pm

Jarimi makes some good points in his posts. I did try and look for more info but couldn't find any on Sweden's systembolaget site I think we need a more specific link.

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:59 am

JaRiMi wrote:
Count Silvio wrote: It is very unlikely Mount Gay would add any sugar to their rums. Barbados rums in general are very well produced pure rums with "non commercial" fine quality stills. ... Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements.

*******
Capn's Log: Perhaps a bit hopeful? Although I'd tend to agree with you in re Mount Gay, I'd be curious as to your measurements, and the equipment and protocol used, and for which rums.
I'd venture out to say that Mount Gay DOES add sugar to their rums, but in lesser amount than many others. The style is drier, but...my guess is that some sugar, maybe between 3 - 9 grams, (and caramel colouring) is definitely used. ?? No proof, until someone finds out from Sweden's systembolaget the actual amount, since the Mount Gay products are sold there.

Mount Gay 1703 <3 g/L. Heavily aged rum, obscuration from wood extract and minor amounts of caramel colouring = 0 g/L. R.L. Seales, Appleton 12 and some Rhum Agricoles measure at the same <3 g/L so this is perfectly normal.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:15 am

If were gonna pull out numbers from somewhere...

It needs to be from a citable source. The lists that first appeared on Facebook, then the Count's, and finally here (on p. 1 of this thread) still amount to hearsay. One of the original sources is said to be: http://www.systembolaget.se/

Suggestion: go to the Swedish site and do a search on the rum in question, then copy the data in question, and cut 'n paste into Google Translate (Swedish to English).

Unfortunately though listed, the sugar content is not given for MGXO (although it is alleged to be given for other rums).

Bottom Line

1. In the interest of credibility, please post citations and/or links for the good of all.

2. I am not impressed by "less than 3 grams". I am impressed by "0". Of the two published lists, one showed the minimal amount as "<3g" while the other reported "0". More importantly, Che's experiment made clear that even 1 gram of added sugar was noticeable.

Thus of the rums listed by the Count as "<3g" - Mount Gay 1703, Appleton 12, RL Seales and "some agricoles", I am confident that only the latter two have zero sugar. While "less than 3 grams" may be that particular protocol, it is insufficient to the issue at hand.

Zero is zero. I'm with Che on this one...

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:12 am

Capn Jimbo wrote: Unfortunately though listed, the sugar content is not given for MGXO (although it is alleged to be given for other rums).

Bottom Line

1. In the interest of credibility, please post citations and/or links for the good of all.

2. I am not impressed by "less than 3 grams". I am impressed by "0". Of the two published lists, one showed the minimal amount as "<3g" while the other reported "0". More importantly, Che's experiment made clear that even 1 gram of added sugar was noticeable.

Thus of the rums listed by the Count as "<3g" - Mount Gay 1703, Appleton 12, RL Seales and "some agricoles", I am confident that only the latter two have zero sugar. While "less than 3 grams" may be that particular protocol, it is insufficient to the issue at hand.

Zero is zero. I'm with Che on this one...

I think we'd all like zero Jimbo but, this rum and reality in the rum world if it's a low number for sugar content, we are doing good. If like the Count says there is a variance in the test then <3 is good because it just maybe the test. Personally we need more info on more rums (that's hard to get) then we have to decide what is our personal limit to the amount of sugar we are to permit in a bottle or rum we purchase. For me personally I will no longer be buying El Dorado 12 and 15 to much sugar the rum itself is not up to scratch in my opinion (your opinion may differ to mine) I shall be spending more money on MGXO,Seale's 10, Appleton 12, etc. I think it is all we can do is to alter our purchasing behavior to suit the information we have, and this is a personal choice open to us as individuals.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:40 am

Proceed with citations, er caution...

Few here would argue with the choices of Appleton 12, Seales' (all) or MGXO. Still of the three only the Appleton and Seales' may be considered as having no sugar whatever. MGXO is reliably suspected of using a bit of unlabeled sugar (I was unable to verify the Count's claim of "less than 3 grams").

Three grams of sugar is substantial, and reporting up to 3 grams of sugar is not terribly impressive. Frankly this is a sop and surrender to the industry. Furthermore, if "less than 3 grams" was so impressive, then surely the distillers would be proud to note that as a sales point on their labels, si?

The two lists differed also in that one list (uncited) reported "zero" sugar where applicable, while the other refused to report zero sugar, but simply lumped (pun intended) all the rums with up to 3 grams together. I don't for a second believe the latter represents the accuracy of the test for that would mean the results could be plus or minus 3 grams, for a range of 6 grams - a LOT of sugar.

To the contrary, reporting "less than 3 grams" becomes a political decision, as reporting zero grams would have shown how very, very few rums are pure and unadulterated. Even the wording is political, using "less than 3 grams" instead of "up to 3 grams". It as much as says that "a little sugar is just fine". Maybe a "little rat poison" is acceptable as well, eh?

Remember: these tests - even if valid - do not report all the other common adulterants including glycerol, artificial flavors and spices, and cheap sherry.

Now to citations...

Except for Che's very revealing tests (which showed that even 1 gram of sugar noticeably changes the rum), what we have here are some reproduced "tests", with no citations, no dates, and no sources we can directly examine.

Are they real? Don't know.
Are they current? Don't know.
Are there other rums reported? Don't know.
What's the protocol? Don't know.
Can we check for ourselves? Don't know.

And so it goes. These are not the Count's tests, nor are they mine. They are simply posts originally made by others and that got passed around, with no real citation of original sources. To assume they are accurate, current and complete is a leap of faith that may or may not be justified. To further assume that these rums don't contain many other additives is foolish. And last, to assume that the distillers don't continue to change their "recipes"?

We must be realistic here. Citations count and we should all try to use them when needed.

So here's what we know:

1. Even 1 gram of sugar is notable (citation: Che, here lol).

2. Only one of the two "lists" reported zero amounts. The other hid these few behind the made-up designation of "less than 3 grams", better presented as "up to 3 grams".

3. Insofar as The Project, and most of our posters are concerned the use of any unlabelled sugar and of other common adulterants is unacceptable. No rat poison allowed, even a little.

4. Without verifiable citations and sources, we cannot be fully confident of any post's accuracy, currency or completeness and must instead depend on our own good palates, and the good reviewers and the knowledgeable posters here.

5. The big news in this thread remains not the use of sugar, but the impressive work done by Che, who demonstrated how dramatically a rum can be changed, with even as little a single gram of sugar.

In sum, of course it's a personal choice, always was, always will be. The issue is honesty in labeling, so that we all can make a real and informed choice. I don't mind at all if a distiller takes a leak in the cask, as long as it's labelled, lol...

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:17 am

Trust me when I say that this subject has been wrestled to death already in other places of discussion and I've had personal discussions with Richard Seale on top of this about the accuracy of testing and what affects the numbers etc. He for one agrees that Mount Gay uses 0 sugar.

2. I am not impressed by "less than 3 grams". I am impressed by "0". Of the two published lists, one showed the minimal amount as "<3g" while the other reported "0". More importantly, Che's experiment made clear that even 1 gram of added sugar was noticeable.

Impressed or not even the more sophisticated equipment have a margin of error of 5% so you're never going to see 100% accurate results. Furthermore as already explained with aged rums there is obscuration from wood extract as the spirit has spent time in wood as well as from the caramel and results such as 3 g/l are normal for aged rums but it does not necessarily mean there is added sugar. I would be more inclined to trust the actual laboratory tests than someones palate on this one. But hey thats just me...

(I was unable to verify the Count's claim of "less than 3 grams").

Three grams of sugar is substantial, and reporting up to 3 grams of sugar is not terribly impressive. Frankly this is a sop and surrender to the industry. Furthermore, if "less than 3 grams" was so impressive, then surely the distillers would be proud to note that as a sales point on their labels, si?

Many distillers do not see why they should add a statement on their label about sugar because rum should not contain any added sugar in the first place even though others cheat by adding it.

To the contrary, reporting "less than 3 grams" becomes a political decision, as reporting zero grams would have shown how very, very few rums are pure and unadulterated. Even the wording is political, using "less than 3 grams" instead of "up to 3 grams". It as much as says that "a little sugar is just fine". Maybe a "little rat poison" is acceptable as well, eh?

There is no conspiracy here. Only laboratory tests that are accurate with a 5% margin of error. Our governments in Finland and Sweden could not give a toss about whether the products are unadulterated or adulterated or what producers or distributors think about what they say about their products. There is no loyalty for brands, only the local legislation. They do not care what is in the bottle as long as it meets the legal requirements, they just run the tests and the tests are conducted to protect the consumer.

Capn Jimbo wrote:If were gonna pull out numbers from somewhere...

It needs to be from a citable source. The lists that first appeared on Facebook, then the Count's, and finally here (on p. 1 of this thread) still amount to hearsay. One of the original sources is said to be: http://www.systembolaget.se/

And so it goes. These are not the Count's tests, nor are they mine. They are simply posts originally made by others and that got passed around, with no real citation of original sources. To assume they are accurate, current and complete is a leap of faith that may or may not be justified.

Ahem, except these are not random posts made by others and passed around and certainly not hearsay. I am the one who passed around the original list on Facebook from Alko in Finland whom I've acquired the original list from as cited on my website if you'd care to have a look. This original data is directly from the director of the Alcohol Control Laboratory of the Finnish government.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:36 am

Oh pooh...

I love the Count, but today we'll agree to disagree. I know Richard Seale quite well enough to know that he scrupulously avoids discussing any other distiller's rums in any such specific detail, positive or negative. Good on him! Let's just say I'm having uh, a very, very hard time believing your claim.

With all due respect your listing of the Alko rums was not specifically cited or linked to an original source that can be confirmed. I don't disbelieve you at all, but before we fully crucify or praise any rums or messengers hereabouts, you'd do well to provide an original link beyond yourself, your own postings or your own website, so that any reader can go look directly at the original source and review the Alko data for him/herself. I'm sure you understand proper citation, nicht vahr?

And while you're at it, you have also made a very clear statement in re MGXO, that if true, I'd love to believe as this rum has long been one of my top two or three rums (despite its changes).

Count: "Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements. "

If you are indeed measuring sugar in rums, that is really quite admirable and obviously of great public interest. I would be completely remiss if we did not ask you - once again - to backup and to please describe your measurements, the equipment and protocol used, and to also provide any other results you'd care to share beyond MGXO.

It's a matter of fairness, justification, citation and credibility, I'd think - on the rare occasions when I actually do, lol...

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:26 pm

<start rant>

Holey crap Batman! This is getting out of hand!

Let's discuss something meaningful like how many fooking angels can dance on the tip of a fooking needle (and how do they stay on while fooking?)

Rum is not and never will be single malt scotch or German beer. THERE ARE FEW RULES, AND NO "PURITY" RULES (per current noise)!!!! ( Would it be a pirate liquor if there were?)

This forum shines when it is about what rums please and why; and which don't and why.

Lots of folks have praised ED 12 and 15 as both favorites and reference. Now told that they are (obviously) sweetened, should they throw them out and go to unsweetened, properly labelled Captain Morgan? YYYUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rum is and always has been a blended spirit. Gosling's and Pusser's are ancient classic rums that have ALWAYS been "modified" per current discussion. Throw them out with all of that history? I think not!

All I ask is for some balance folks.

Is Seale's 10 my favorite sipping rum and as pure as Sister Mary Elephant (and she's purely mean!)? Yep! Do I love the hideously modified Zaya as a dessert liqueur? Again yep. There are a hell of a lot of good and bad rums between those two extremes that I like, dislike or have never tasted or even seen. The value of this forum has been the excellent reviews that give me an idea of what I should seek out and what I should avoid - BASED ON FLAVOR, not "purity".

I will go to prison before I would sign a political "purity" pledge. I'll move on from here before I accept dominance by purity police.

<end rant>

NCyankee · Post by **NCyankee** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:48 am

sleepy wrote:<start rant>

Holey crap Batman! This is getting out of hand!

Hear hear Sleepy, I was going to post something along these lines when I got home from work.

Just a little while ago we weren't sure ED 12 had any added sugar, when in fact it has 45 g/l - and now we are saying even 1 g/l is unacceptable?

I am skeptical of the results of the taste test at very low concentrations. The addition of the amount of sugar was highly scientific but the tasting methodology seems rather haphazard. I didn't see any mention of side-by-side blind tasting between the adulterated and pure samples. I would tend to attribute any "smoothing" noticed at 1 g/l to numbing of the palate after the initial tastes.

I am unconvinced that anyone but maybe a sweet supertaster can taste 1 g/l of added sugar. I mean that is 1/133 of a teaspoon or about 1/2 drop of 1:1 simple syrup per 1 ounce pour (based on 60 drops per tsp).

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:21 am

NCyankee wrote:
sleepy wrote:<start rant>

Holey crap Batman! This is getting out of hand!
Hear hear Sleepy, I was going to post something along these lines when I got home from work.

Just a little while ago we weren't sure ED 12 had any added sugar, when in fact it has 45 g/l - and now we are saying even 1 g/l is unacceptable?

I am skeptical of the results of the taste test at very low concentrations. The addition of the amount of sugar was highly scientific but the tasting methodology seems rather haphazard. I didn't see any mention of side-by-side blind tasting between the adulterated and pure samples. I would tend to attribute any "smoothing" noticed at 1 g/l to numbing of the palate after the initial tastes.

I am unconvinced that anyone but maybe a sweet supertaster can taste 1 g/l of added sugar. I mean that is 1/133 of a teaspoon or about 1/2 drop of 1:1 simple syrup per 1 ounce pour (based on 60 drops per tsp).

Here is my stance on the subject. We all know rum is less well regulated than Whisky or Bourbon so it is up to each person to decide the level of added sugar they will accept when buying rum after all it's your money and your mouth that's doing the talking (drinking). It's an individual choice it's no different than buying a piece of beef or any other food item, at the end of the day you go for value for money or you might let politics come into play if you are that type of person but, what ever influences your decision it's your choice so long as you're happy with it sod everyone else.

After saying all that I'm not happy about the fact El Dorado has so much sugar in it , so I'm deciding to change rum (my reason are mine no one else's) I think I've found a replacement Pusser's 15 year old had a sample last night and loved the stuff.