Book Review: Canadian Whisky, The Portable Expert

[Capn Jimbo]

Book Review: Canadian Whisky, The Portable Expert, by Davin de Kergommeaux

Davin de Kergommeaux is a force to be reckoned with. He has a good and dependable palate, and really knows his spirits, tradition, methods and history.

I unabashedly recommend this book, with but one (major) criticism you'll find below. Let's start with the basics, but let me first mention the convenient size and attractiveness of the book itself. I'm a mad reader and you'll never find me without a book to read and underline. It's roughly 6 x 8 inches, hardcover, easy to carry, well made and with enough margins to mark up. Perfect! Now to the basics...


The Basics

First, this book is quite complete and covers in great detail the making of Canadian Whisky from the grain, water and wood, the fermentation, enzymes and yeast, distillation and blending. These first two sections (7 chapters) will be an excellent education for those wishing to understand whisky (and rum for that matter).

But it's Section Three that should be of the greatest value to budding connoisseurs - covering flavor (Davin's "flavour"), tastes and aromas and tasting techniques. What's nice here - and in general too - is Davin's attention to detail and his completeness. Different "experts" will disagree, but this is a good and complete start on your tasting journey.

The last sections are devoted to an extensive history of Canadian Whisky and the nine major distillers (yup, just nine) that produce almost all of the Canadian whisky available today. Indeed, this is one of Davin's concerns which, like rum, is the takeover and homogenization of product by the huge distillation conglomerates.

He expresses the very real fear that these huge corporations have little if any commitment to creativity and provenance, and every commitment to profit at any price. Last he spends a good bit of time covering the emergence of new, small and creative micro or craft distillers.

In sum, an excellent book and must buy for any lover of spirits. It's completeness, obvious knowledge and attention to detail provide a real education for not just whisky, but a wonderful insight into the methods and processes. I especially enjoyed Davin's coverage of the specific distillers and the making of their products.


But...

Yes, there is a "but" and there must be. One of Davin's goals was to address what he calls the myths of Canadian Whisky. The greatest of these he states, is the use of GNS - grain neutral spirits - in blending. He points out that in fact, Canadian Whisky (unlike American whiskies he states) allow up to 9.09% of unaged wine or other "domestic or imported spirits or wine" (which are considered "flavourings"). Davin claims this was due to high Canadian taxes, and the Canadian requirement that their whiskys must be aged at least 3 years.

That surely clears up this myth - it sure did for me - but it's really a back door approach to the real elephant in the room: allowable unlabeled additives. While Davin correctly notes the 9.09% allowable wine and spirits, he completely fails to provide the actual Canadian regulations and definitions of Canadian Whisky. In a book about CW, this is a basic and major failing.

Let me complete Davin's book:

B.02.020. [S]. (1) Canadian Whisky, Canadian Rye Whisky or Rye Whisky
(a) shall:

(i) be a potable alcoholic distillate, or a mixture of potable alcoholic distillates, obtained from a mash of cereal grain or cereal grain products saccharified by the diastase of malt or by other enzymes and fermented by the action of yeast or a mixture of yeast and other micro-organisms,
(ii) be aged in small wood for not less than three years,
(iii) possess the aroma, taste and character generally attributed to Canadian whisky,
(iv) be manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the Excise Act and the regulations made thereunder,
(v) be mashed, distilled and aged in Canada, and
(vi) contain not less than 40 per cent alcohol by volume; and
(b) may contain caramel and flavouring.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall make any claim with respect to the age of Canadian whisky, other than for the period during which the whisky has been held in small wood.

(3) Where Canadian whisky has been aged in small wood for a period of at least three years, any period not exceeding six months during which that whisky was held in other containers may be claimed as age.

SOR/93-145, s. 10; SOR/2000-51, s. 1.

Now I ask you - in a 300+ page book, well written with an excellent index and bibliography - how is it possible that this gentleman failed to include one simple paragraph? The basic Canadian definition and regulation of their product, upon which all else is based, is not included?

I believe the answer is clear. As underlined above it's that Canadian Whisky "... may contain caramel and flavouring.". This is what really distinguishes Canadian whisky from the truly noble whiskies, namely Scottish Single Malt Whisky and American Bourbon Whiskey. Unlabeled flavoring is a very, very big deal, yet is largely ignored by Davin.

On one hand I can't blame him. The bloke wants to put on a good face for Canadian Whisky, and that he does. And though he does address the addition of other spirits and wine, he does so in a backhanded way - and wants us to believe this is mostly done for what he calls the "value" blends, the cheepies. As far as the premiums he states "...for the most part this practice was not adopted for deluxe and premium brands...".

For the most part? How about those premiums that do add flavourings? He claims that some distillers chose to alter their whiskies but only for their value brands, while "others simply decided not to". But unlike me, Davin is no idiot. When he says "for the most part" he means it, but that simply means "more than fifty percent" of the time. For a book with such scrupulous attention to detail in every regard for every distiller, this is a curious evasion. Intentional? I believe so. It is a given that regulations are neither accidental, nor are they written without considerable lobbying by the powerful international distillers (think Diageo, etc.). If the regs allow caramel and flavoring there is a reason and there is no reason to believe that the mega-distillers will not use them in any Canadian Whisky if it tastes good and helps sell the product and increase profit.

Think about it...

Davin himself points out that the regulations actually allow cheaper and unaged wine and other spirits (undefined) to be added to Canadian Whisky for reasons of competitiveness and profit. To believe that the allowable "caramel and flavourings" will not be used is foolish. It's just like rum: you can get vanillans by years of expensive aging, or... you can add a cup of artificial vanilla flavoring. The same goes for artificial spicing, smoothers, sugars and yes, even the wine and other spirits that Davin softsells (and tries to justify). And meanwhile...

The elephant continues to carouse unmolested, around the room. Has Davin knowingly commited a sin of omission? You decide...


Bottom Line

A very good book, nonetheless. Still, until or unless Canada closes the corporate driven regulatory loopholes, "Canadian Whisky" must remain suspect and cannot be considered a noble spirit. Just like rum. Relatively pure bourbons and Single Malt Whiskys will remain safe and unchallenged...

[Capn Jimbo]

A bit more to consider...


Let's talk age...

Canadian Whisky must be aged "in small wood" for at least three years. Not so fast. Let's consider Davin's note that up to 9.09% wine or other spirits may be added to "Canadian Whisky" without labeling. Yet these unaged cheaper additives are considered for labeling purposes to also be three years old, even though they are not.

Impressive, right?

How about this - just what constitutes the years of aging? A full year, right? Nope, it can be just six months. For example, if a Canadian Whisky is aged say 3 years in small wood, then 6 months in large wood, it can be labled "Aged for Four Years". It's true! This was no doubt lobbied to allow final dumping in vats (for blending/bottling) to count toward age - and - such large vat aging need not be labeled. Kinda scummy, doncha think?


One Final Note


I find the Canadian regulations rather vague. "Flavouring" does not seem to be specifically defined for Canadian Whisky, although it is for addition to food products. Althouth wine and other spirits are mentioned as usable for "flavouring", other natural or artificial flavors (eg sugar or vanilla flavoring) are not addressed, nor seemingly excluded. Accordingly I've sent an email to the Minister's office and to Davin for clairification...

[Capn Jimbo]

I asked... Davin answers...


Let me be clear. I have high regard for Davin, his writing skills and spirits knowledge. We have had a number of intelligent exchanges. Regarding his book I emailed him...

Moi: "Davin, I couldn’t resist ordering your book on Canadian Whisky and I must say, a tour de force, a must buy for any lover of whisky or rum. I loved the convenient size of the book (I’m never without a good book to read), attractive layout, very professional, complete and competent. It certainly straightened at least one myth about CW; however I do have a question...

In a book that is surely the first really definitive book on Canadian Whisky, a very readable and thoroughly informative 300+ pages, why did you not include one paragraph stating the Canadian regulation defining Canadian Whisky? This one:

(Regulation cited, see above)

Speaking of which, I must also ask – the line that allows “caramel and flavourings”. Although wine and other spirits are included elsewhere as legal (and unlabeled) additives (up to 9.09% by vol), and added as “flavourings”, the regulations do not seem either to address or disallow other “flavourings”, for example sugar or say vanilla flavorings. Do the regulations allow such other flavourings, and if so where? If disallowed, also where?

Next, I can’t find a definition of “caramel” insofar as CW. It is not clear if only caramel coloring (E-150) is meant, or if any form of caramel is permitted. Can you clarify this as well? Thanks.

Last, although I have only begun the book, did you name the blends that use wine (or GNS)? Are there any non-blended CW’s that use wine? And last do you know of any CW’s that add other flavorings such as sugar, vanilla flavorings, artificial or natural flavorings or spices?

Thanks again. I consider your book a must buy, own, read and learn. Your tasting sections alone are worth the price. Terrific job...

Let's review...

Question #1:

In a book that is surely the first really definitive book on Canadian Whisky, a very readable and thoroughly informative 300+ pages, why did you not include one paragraph stating the Canadian regulation defining Canadian Whisky?

Davin:

One of the problems with quoting regulations in a book is that you risk having the book quickly become dated. These regulations change often and they are in so many different places that it is a real task just keeping up, never mind linking them all together. This was driven home when I had to change one section of the book after the galleys had already been done, because the government introduced new regulations. These are still wending their way through parliament and who knows what they will look like after everyone has had a kick at them, if they even are passed at all.


However, I think people put way to much weight on the regulations anyway. Without all the context it is just so easy to understand the regulations yet still draw false conclusions."

(emphasis added)

My view: The regulation I quoted is the basic definition of Canadian Whiskey, and is short and to the point. It has not changed in years and it is highly unlikely that it will. The basic definitions of rum and Scotch single malt whisky are likewise straightforward, and have also remain unchanged for many years.

Such basic definitions are necessary and informative. For example the regulatory definition of Bourbon makes clear that no additives or colorings may be used period. Single Malt Whisky allows only trace amounts of caramel coloring (E-150), and Rum allows only caramel colorings (flavored rum must be so labeled).

The basic definition of "Canadian Whisky" in the Canadian regulations simply answer the basic question "What is Canadian Whisky". That by definition it can contain both undefined "caramel and flavourings" is essential to know. Last, Davin had no problem in citing the regs for allowing up to 9.09% wine as a flavoring - but for some reason he avoids the basic definition on which this addition is allowed.

Go figure.

Question #2:

Do the regulations allow such other flavourings (eg sugar and vanilla flavoring), and if so where? If disallowed, also where?

Davin:

"Sugar and vanilla are added to some spiced or flavoured whiskies and these are labelled as such. The vanilla flavour often found in Canadian whisky, comes from the liberal use of Canadian-made bourbon in the mix. "

My view: Although the basic definition states that Canadian Whisky may contain "caramel and flavourings", Davin seems to think this only means wine, and only for cheepie blends - "for the most part". He believes that flavorings like sugar and vanilla are used only in Canadian whiskies that are labeled "flavored". I asked for a citation but he fails to provide one.

He adds that any vanilla flavor found in straight Canadian Whisky is due to the addition of Canadian bourbon whisky. This certainly possible, as the Canadian distillers are really expert blenders that produce and add various "flavouring whiskies" to their "base whisky" to create their house style. And a bourbon does indeed have some vanilla notes, but on the whole it's hard to ignore the considerable effect of aging in American Oak (used by most Canadian distillers).

Next...

Question #3:

Next, I can’t find a definition of “caramel” insofar as CW. It is not clear if only caramel coloring (E-150) is meant, or if any form of caramel is permitted. Can you clarify this as well?

Davin:

"The caramel they add is spirit caramel. Again, the caramel and butterscotch notes that you can taste are oak caramels from the barrel. The little bit of spirit caramel they add is just there to maintain colour consistency from batch to batch."

My view: Even though Davin failed to provide a citation for spirit caramel (E-150), I have little doubt that there is one, common to regulations in most countries. And I do agree that caramel and butterscotch arises from aging.

And last...

Question #4:

Last, did you name the blends that use wine (or GNS)? Are there any non-blended CW’s that use wine? And last do you know of any CW’s that add other flavorings such as sugar, vanilla flavorings, artificial or natural flavorings or spices?

Davin:

"The recipes for individual whiskies are considered proprietary so I cannot say which may contain wine. None contain GNS. It just doesn't happen.

To my knowledge, any whisky that contains non-spirit or non-wine flavouring is clearly labelled as spiced or flavoured. If it just says Canadian whisky then it has not been flavoured."

My view: Davin is clear that any flavourings other than wine or other spirits are "clearly labeled as spiced or flavored". But again, no citation. We are forced to rely on his word, not the law. Here - and in his book - Gavin makes a very big deal that GNS (grain neutral spirit, distilled to 95%) is not used in Canadian Whisky.

But what he doesn't say is that the Canadians DO use CWS (Canadian Whisky Spirit), which is distilled to 94.5% or even a bit higher. And my source? His own book. His "no GNS" is a distinction without a difference. Apparently 95% is both meaningful and shameful, but 94.5% is no. Whew!


Bottom Line

Compared to the US Regulations, the Canadian Regulations are mercifully brief and to the point. The Canadian regulatory database is easy to access and has a great search function, so it was easy to locate both the basic definition as well as the section allowing wine and other spirits to be added as flavors. I could find no regulations defining "Flavoured Canadian Whisky" and/or its labeling requirements.

In closing his email, Davin also closes the door to providing any of the citations I requested, stating...

"As for referring you to specific regulations, I have deliberately put all my research materials away and have promised myself not to look at them again unless I am asked to do a second edition. Seven years of living with it was enough and now I need to get some perspective. In any case, unless you read all of them, and carefully, you will not get a true picture."

His postion seems to be "I've got the regulations, but I won't provide them. And unless you read all of them, you'll never know. Trust me". I'll stick with Ronald Reagan who said "Trust but verify".

In closing, I'd just say this to this fine author. "Davin, in writing the first and probably most complete book on Canadian Whisky - and especially in view of the widespread view of allowable and unlabeled flavorings, including wine -I think you had a basic obligation to provide the data and citations that would explode what you'd like to call a myth".

Instead, out of your 300+ pages you provide only a brief paragraph that mentions but quickly passes by the practice, under cover of the evasive phrase "for the most part". You imply knowledge of other usage of additives, but sadly don't share these. It would have been so easy - and so credible - to include a one or two page addendum of the relevent regulations and definitions.

By not doing so, I'm afraid you managed to feed the elephant.

Bottom line: What we absolutely agree on is that Canadian Whiskey may contain unlabeled caramel and "flavourings", that other spirits and wine may be added under this clause up to 9.09%, and that other flavourings (eg sugar or vanilla flavoring) are not excluded.

And still labeled "Canadian Whisky".

That a "whisky" can be almost 10% wine without labeling is proof enough for me, and is based on near neutral CWS "base spirit" is quite enough for me. You deny that the premiums do this, but only "for the most part". That's not good enough. In fact, it means that some premiums do in fact, add wine (and who knows what else), but we never learn which ones.

I believe you know but simply aren't saying.

Maybe the second edition?

[Capn Jimbo]

Final Thoughts...


Despite what I consider a fatal error, Davin's book remains a tour de force. It is a wonderful resource for the history and making of Canadian whisky, and for the tasting and appreciation of spirits in general. Unfortunately one of the main premises of this book is Davin's intent to dispel the great myths of Canadian Whisky and that is where we part company.

Davin believes the major myth is the addition of GNS to Canadian Whisky. He dispels this myth by stating that no GNS is added to Canadian Whisky, rather it is wine and other spirits that may be added as "flavouring", up to 9.09% (but only for cheap "value blends", he claims, "for the most part".

First of all, I have trouble with his description for wine/other spirits being added only to the cheap blends -"for the most part"! For a writer as careful and complete as Davin, those words are chosen with care. "For the most part" doesn't mean ever. It simply means "more than half the time", and surely Davin knows that, and knows which premium/deluxe Canadian whiskies use GNS "for the lesser part" - and scrupulously avoids identifying them.

There's more.

Second, another contradiction comes from Davin himself, and again because of his attention to detail. The next to last section covers in great detail how the nine major Canadian distillers create their "Canadian Whisky". Of special note are Hiram Walker and Alberta Distillers.

Let's start with Hiram Walker. Like most of the nine majors, Hiram's Canadian Whisky is a blend of a "base whisky" (for bulk) and any number of "flavoring whiskies". Walker's "flavouring whiskies" are distilled either once or twice in pot stills. OTOH the base whisky is continuously distilled from corn to - are you sitting down?

To 94.5%! Remember that number.

At Alberta Distillers the processes are similar. Alberta's "flavouring whiskies" are also made from rye, using three different, pot-still based distillations. But here's the real news: Alberta's base whiskies are made from rye to a very high percentage of alcohol, a product which Alberta even calls "CWS" (Canadian Whisky Spirit). Davin even quotes a Kathy Pitchko, a former quality assurance manager, whom he quotes as calling CWS "...a pretty neutral product, probably the most neutral in the west".

Now that fellow idiots is an amazing statement. Here's why...

Surely Ms. Pitchko is aware of Walkers corn base spirit which is produced at an amazing 94.5% alcohol. For her to claim that Alberta's CWS is "the most neutral in the west" is really saying something. Is it even higher than Walker's? No matter.


Let's Compare to GNS...

GNS is simply a grain-based spirit distilled to at least 95% alcohol (just short of the maximum 95.6% that distillation can achieve). Now consider vodka. Vodka's are also distilled up to 95 to 96%, and may or may not be filtered to leave a tiny, tiny bit of grain flavor. Now I ask you: just what is difference from Walker or Alberta's CWS which are also distilled from grain, and to 94.5% (Walker) or even purer (Alberta)? Answer...

Not a facking thing. I repeat, not a fackin thing. All are distilled from grain. All are very pure and to roughly the same purity. All retain a tiny bit of flavor, unless filtered.


Bottom Line:

For Davin to attempt to glorify Canadian Whisky as "not containing GNS" is a distinction without a difference. GNS, Vodka and at least for two major distillers, CWS (or it's equivalent) are simply indistinguishable. Instead of raising Canadian Whisky's reputation, Davin has siimply raised himself...

On his own petard. And still has failed to address the real elephant in the room, that Canadian Whiskies are generally blends of mostly neutral "base" spirit, then "flavoured" with smaller amounts of "flavouring whisky", and additionally with wine or other flavourings up to 9.09%.

Good grief. It seems that Davin's no-GNS claim takes us for idiots. And I oughta know.

[NCyankee]

That's funny, I had some Canadian Club 6 yr old a while back (OK I admit it I bought a bottle) and the way I described it was "whiskey-flavored vodka".