Nobody likes rules. Let’s get that out of the way. Whether it’s the rules we had during our school years (no chewing gum underneath the desk is one we all remember I’m sure), the ever-changing rules in our favourite sports (FIFA’s head of global development is proposing more changes to football’s offside rule) or the faux rules we create for ourselves in our own everyday lives, nobody enjoys rules.
But to caveat that, we can agree they are a necessity in most aspects of life. I’ve just returned to the office following a magical week at the Spirit of Speyside Whisky Festival, and while there, I was lucky enough to attend a lot of distillery tours. The universal rule at every single distillery I visited is either no photography in operating still rooms, or to stand on a little mat at the back of the room safely away from the working equipment. I’m no expert on the specific danger and risk of photography (particularly flash photography) in these rooms, but it’s a rule I and certainly everybody on these tours follows stringently — more out of fear than anything else!
The whisky industry is jam-packed full of rules. Most are considered gospel and it’s unlikely they will ever be refuted, and for good reason. Take two of the most basic laws and regulations of Scotch production as an example. It must be at least three years old, and the minimum bottling strength must be 40% ABV. It’s almost impossible to imagine these changing, especially with how integral they are to maintaining the universally accepted high standards of Scotch.
Rules have been at the centre of one of the hottest topics in the whisky world today — single malt. Following the English Whisky Guild’s application for geographical indication, the rules they have proposed for English whisky producers to follow have caused a large amount of controversy, particularly for the Scotch Whisky Association who denounced the application, describing it as “damaging” to the reputation of single malt Scotch.
This is because the rules set for the English single malt requires distillation at a single distillery location, and not the creation of the spirit from malted barley at a single site. This ongoing dispute was covered more extensively by our editor-at-large in our previous issue, and has been covered on the Whisky Magazine website too, however it highlights a point that rules are at the centre of everything in this industry, and the more they appear, the more controversy follows.
Inside these pages, you’ll learn more about the variety of rules that encompass the whisky industry, and some you may not be entirely familiar with. Our Canadian whisky experts Blair Phillips and Davin de Kergommeaux have written a thoughtful piece about the origins of Canada’s 9.09 per cent rule. It’s a fascinating rule — one that I won’t spoil ahead of you learning more about it shortly — and it’s caused a stir of conversations in the broader industry for many years. What one organisation or governing body perceive as a positive rule can be judged quite negatively by others, depending on where you sit on the metaphorical fence.
The biggest variation in rules in the whisky industry comes from the production side. There are several reasons why distilleries are always looking to innovate. One featured in this issue is the Swedish brand Agitator. Because it operates within and follows the EU’s laws and rules, rather than the somewhat stricter constraints of Scotch production, Agitator’s team are experimenting with non-traditional woods. And while in general we can appreciate rules as a guideline, sometimes it’s exciting when a distillery gets to have the freedom to be experimental.
Rules are an essential component of the whisky industry. Without them, the chaos would be unimaginable. But it doesn’t mean they can’t be challenged once in a while. In an industry that is ever-evolving and ever-advancing, the debate over rules is a very healthy one to have.
And on that note, I leave you with your one rule from Whisky Magazine for this issue: pour yourself a dram, and please enjoy!
