Two interestingly different sides of the same coin appeared on both sides of the Atlantic this past week on the issue of transparency in whisk(e)y. To put this in perspective, 10 or so years ago, not only was transparency not an issue, but there was so little knowledge about what’s inside your bottle that no one even knew how to ask the question, or even to care. But with the advent of smartphones, increasingly ubiquitous internet searches, Edward Snowden and the craft distilling boom, what was once opaque and esoteric has become the stuff of fevered social media conversations.

Last week, Compass Box Whisky Co, the boutique blending company led by John Glaser, issued a challenge to the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) by starting an online petition to force them into adjusting their stringent labeling laws. In the world of Scotch whisky blending, the whole (the “brand”) is made up of many parts (the source, or distillery), none of which have been traditionally included on the label or in advertising. The closest one got to this was in adverts of old where a brand like Dewars would disclose that “40” different whiskies when into their blend. They didn’t name them and frankly, no one cared, because consumers bought the value and quality of the brand, not the individual components. In consumer products world, the equivalent would have been buying a car by Ford without caring who made up the individual components. The trust was in the brand.

The 2000s and the ubiquity of the internet changed that in every area of consumption (i.e., drug company ads, “Intel Inside”, etc) and Compass Box was from its outset at the forefront in making clear its production methods, i.e., component whiskies, lack of post production methods like caramel coloring or chill filtration, etc. Along with this was lack of age statements, something that Scotch whisky companies drove into the consumer mind as equating with quality.

In their latest releases of “This is Not a Luxury Whisky” and “Flaming Heart”, Compass Box skirted around the edge of the 2009 SWA labeling laws by listing the individual components and their respective ages. The current regulations state that only the youngest whisky in the blend shall have its respective age listed on the labeling. The reasons behind this are gist for another article, but in short, your 12 yr old Scotch can include older whiskies, but they’re not allowed to say how old they are. Compass Box has been a “non-age statement” (NAS) whisky from its inception and while they did not post age statements on their bottles, this time they included them in their marketing material and website. Apparently, another distillery “turned them in” and the SWA stepped in and forced them to remove any publicly displayed information. To their defense, the SWA was formed as a trade organization to protect Scotch whisky from counterfeiting and cannibalization, but they are also caught in the vortex of their own inertia, not to mention enough back-stage intrigue with the multi-national conglomerates to rival “House of Cards”.  So far, Compass Box is winning the hearts and minds of the whisky community with their petition campaign, which you can find on their website: http://www.compassboxwhisky.com.

For the flip side, an interview on Liquor.com with distilling consultant Dave Pickerell, the force behind brands like Hillrock and WhistlePig, revealed another take on transparency. In this case, its about American whiskies like bourbon and rye, where brands like Bulleit, High West, Templeton, Redemption and his own WhistlePig began their lives by sourcing their whiskies from huge, established ethanol facilities in Indiana or Alberta, Canada. These brands are hugely successful because, like their older generational counterparts, consumers bought into the idea of the brand, not the components. To be sure, there is a scrutiny placed on these makers as well, and one of the first things many of them understood was that if you’re going to claim something like “artisinal” or hand-crafted, you’d better be able to show provenance (Mast Bros, are you listening?). But they wised up fast and most quickly gave up the sourcing even before being asked.

However, because of this common bond in origin, the knock on them was that they’re all the same in taste. This is a natural assumption when you don’t understand anything about the scores of individual decisions and subjective evaluations that go into creating a flavor profile, from mashbill to production to maturation.

Pickerell does a good job of delineating through these distinctions but also gets to the heart of the matter in each case: is what’s in your glass good enough for you to drink a second one? Its not necessary to go into the details to enjoy what you’re drinking. Because in the age of information, we can often put the cart before the horse and make buying decisions against our own tastes: I may not like it, but I like the way it was made (non-GMO, great origin story, etc) and so I’ll spend money based on things beside my own gustatory pleasure. The story sells the spirit, as the industry maxim goes and when powered by a smartphone, you’re drinking the story as well as what’s in your glass, even while you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance about it.  The article can be found here:.http://bit.ly/1oDzjSJ

In the case of Compass Box, this is a new tack in their ongoing tussle with the SWA who once threatened to sue them over barreling methods. So while their David v. Goliath duel with them is the stuff of legend that turned Glaser into an iconoclastic star, it seems a little forced in its argument of “right to know”, due to the fact that what they want you to know is that there’s some really old whisky in the bottle. As a high end blender, Compass Box had in the past stressed the end result, the creative process behind the blend, the mouthfeel and pleasure of the moment, not the components, even though they were transparent about them when asked. Now it seems while they question “what makes a luxury whisky”, they at the same time want the right to inform you that their blends contain some pretty luxurious whiskies.

Pickerell makes the stronger argument: If you like it, drink it, if it fits into your budget, drink more of it and calls out the bartender community to put away its collective distaste for “big liquor” in favor of small brands solely on that criteria. Learn a little about how its made if you want to understand some distinctions, but if you’re letting that take the lead on why you drink it, you may be drinking it for the wrong reasons. And if that’s the case, then you’re subject to any new magic incantations that can come your way from the next new brand that has something more local, more transparent and more whatever than the one in your hand.

On Transparency in Writing: The author was once employed to act for Compass Box Whisky as its US representative.