When is it gonna end? In a recent thread at the Misinformatory of Rum the Artic Wolf quoted the US regulations...
What a mouthful! And like many dilletantes, the Wolf thinks he understands this. Does he? We disagreed some years ago when I provided him with all the regs and my qualified interpretation, an interpretation which he stubbornly rejected then, and apparently still does."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, and (ii) harmless coloring, flavoring, orblending materials such as caramel, straight malt or straight rye malt whiskies, fruit juices, sugar, infusion of oak chips when approved by the Administrator, or wine, 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 2 1/2 percent by volume of the finished product."
A simple, idiot-proof desconstruction of the regs...
First, the US regs define both "rum" and "flavored rum". "Rum" must be distilled from "...the fermented
juice of sugar cane, sugar cane syrup, sugar cane molasses, or other sugar cane by-products"
That's essential and pretty straight forward, right? Right.
"Flavored rum" is simply rum with added "... natural flavoring materials, with or without the addition of sugar, and bottled at not less than 60° proof. The name of the predominant flavor shall appear (on the label). "
Still simple, yes? Add flavorings and/or sugar - in any amount - and it's now a "flavored rum", and the main flavor, eg "Mango Rum" must appear on the label. By the way, wine may be added as a flavoring, and it too must be specified if it exceeds 2-1/2% by volume.
Now the plot ferments, and so does the Artic Wolf...
These two definitions of "Rum" and "Flavored Rum" stand, but now we return to Section § 5.23 2 (Alteration), graciously requoted by the Arctic Wolf (above). Let's begin, and hang in there. It's not as hard as you think...
The regs allow two types of alterations. The first allows Essential Components...
Remember "Rum" has already been defined, and no other coloring or flavoring was stated as "an essential component". "Rum" does not require either coloring or flavoring to be considered rum. So far, so good. But it's the second allowable alteration that messes up our predator, namely there may also be added..."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".
The Wayward Wolf mooses up, big time...
"...(ii) harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials such as caramel, straight malt or straight rye malt whiskies, fruit juices, sugar, infusion of oak chips when approved by the Administrator, or wine, 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 2 1/2 percent by volume of the finished product."
OK, OK this is a little harder, but trust me, you'll understand. Let's take this in parts...
1. The regs allow quite a bunch of additives like coloring, flavoring, even whisky, fruit juice, sugar, oak chip infusion, and the like. But not so fast. These can only be added if...
2. If, and only if these additives are customarily employed in "established trade usage". Established trade usage is a legal term, and is key to understanding. Hang in there just a bit. And last...
3. If allowed these additives may only constitute no more than 2-1/2% by volume.
And now the fun begins...
The Wolf leaves the reservation...
Here's the Wolf's interpretation, which goes something like this: "Distillers have traditionally used flavors and other additives, so it is legal to use them up to 2-1/2% and still call it 'Rum'".
Wrong, and here's why.
The Wolf seems to confuse traditional use (common practices) of adding different additives with "established trade usage" (I say this as a former legal researcher). In the law "commercial practice" and established trade usage are two different things. Here's how and why...
1. In "practice" the distillers may use all manner of say different flavorings. One may use vanilla flavoring, one may use wine, one may use sugar, ad infinitum.
But until they ALL use the same additive all the time, it is not "established trade usage" to use that ingredient.
2. "Established trade usage" is defined as "any practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed", ie you would expect a "rum" to contain vanilla flavoring, or whisky, or prune juice. Every time.
OK, now it's tough, but let me explain. In layman's terms "established trade usage" is well beyond "common practice" and has become "standard practice". For example if you buy a home it is standard practice for the buyer to pay for the appraisal. In other words, "established trade usage" means that all parties - all the distillers and all the buyers expect the individual practice to be the same.
The law analyses each specific act, practice or ingredient in this fashion.
Applied to "Rum" this means that if vanilla flavoring is used by all, then we expect it to be there, and adding vanilla flavoring has become "established trade usage". If adding vanilla flavoring is optional, if not all the distillers add it, then vanilla flavoring is not "established trade usage". Capish?
The Wolf disagrees.
He seems to believe that all additives are the same, and that distillers get to use one, or another, neither or none, many or few - no matter - and thus his standard of practice seems to be no standard at all. I might add that the burden falls on the distiller to demonstrate "established trade usage" to the Bureau's administrator, who must then approve.
So where did this go wrong?
Did he believe that the regulations' listing of examples: coloring, flavoring or blending materials such as (emphasis added) caramel, whisky, juices, or oak chips authorizes them? Not at all - it is "established trade usage" that is the key (as approved). Based on his interpretation, "rum" and "flavored rum" become one in the same. Although the Wolf believes that there is a 2-1/2% barrier, he offers no citation. Why? Perhaps because there isn't one.
To the contrary, the regulations make clear that the Alteration section in no way changes the simple and original definition of "flavored rum" and the requirement that it be so labeled as "flavored". The only reference to 2-1/2% is the additional labeling of the type of wine added if the added wine exceeds 2-1/2%. In this case the label would read "Rum flavored with Chardonnay Wine".
And yes, now we've gone a tad too far.
Bottom Line
Understanding regulations is not for lightweights. I have a background in legal research and it's tough for me. Furthermore, the devil is not in the regulations at all, but in the Bureau's voluminous findings, interpretations and decisions based upon them. These are published, but difficult to locate.
It is far too easy for an amateur to misinterpret terms of legal art like "established trade usage". That casual readers may then rely on such misinformation is sad.
The real truth: the regulations are not well understood, and not well enforced. The distillers cheat and no one cares. And dilletantes invent justifications for the practice.
Aaaaaaoooooooooo!
