This product is absolute horse shit. In no way should a "Swiss whiskey" label itself "bourbon." Marcardo, prepare to be boarded. (hat trick: @TXWhiskeySocial) https://t.co/zdOIAvNKfr
- FredMinnick (@FredMinnick) April 17, 2019
The above was the first tweet I saw when I logged into Twitter this morning, and he is correct: Swiss Bourbon is horse shit. To be clear I haven't ever tried the whisky, it's entirely possible it's good stuff, what's horse shit is the name and the twisted information they use to market it with.
(quick side note, if you don't follow Fred Minnick on Twitter, I suggest you start)
In 1964 a congressional resolution declared Bourbon to be a "distinctive product of the United States". This lead to Bourbon being a protected term like Scotch, Pisco, Mezcal, Cognac, Champagne, etc. However, to enforce these protections a legal structure, under trade agreements, needs to be in place. This structure currently does not exist between the USA and Switzerland and Macardo are taking advantage of that.
Back in 2014, Australia's Bluestill Distillery tried to make a bourbon. It caused an uproar but the Kentucky Distillers Association, Distilled Spirits Council and the US Trade Rep's office were able to do something about it thanks to our Free Trade Agreement with Australia.
They were able to get the product shut down (in name at least) because both Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey are protected terms under the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement. Currently, the USA doesn't have an FTA with Switzerland.
The Swiss don't have to recognize the protection of the term and can, legally, do whatever they want. Morally though Macardo Swiss Bourbon Whisky is questionable at best.
At its worst, this is a dishonest, shady and opportunistic grab to sell their whiskey through misrepresentation and misinformation. At its best, this is a brave display of willful ignorance and/or laziness. Because, if they're going to appropriate the term, the least they could do is get the details right.
If you need a few laughs I recommend you check out the whole description of the whiskey. But in the spirit of brevity let's hit the highlights of what's bugging me about how they're marketing their fraudulent bourbon.
For starters, there is no mandatory age for bourbon. There is a mandatory 2 years of aging to use the term Straight and 4 years to not have to use an age statement, but that's it. Their assertion that Bourbon is only a 2-year-old product - and theirs is better because it's aged for 5 - displays a gross misunderstanding of (or intentional misleading through) the rules surrounding Bourbon.
Most large brand's mid-range offerings are aged for 6-8 years minimum and contain whiskey 8+ years blended into the batches. So while they did exceed the actual minimum written criteria for bourbon (51%+ corn mash "aged" in a new oak container) they haven't even matched most standard Bourbon offerings.
Real, "basic", bourbons like Jim Beam Black, Wild Turkey 101 or Buffalo Trace all leave their 5-year-old Swiss Bourbon behind with blends of 6-9 year-old-whiskey. When we start talking about premium Bourbon we hit double digits pretty quickly. The truth of the major Kentucky bourbons they're comparing their faux bourbon to is quite different than how they're positioning it.
One thing they did get right, however, is the statute. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Section 5.22 does indeed contain the standards of identity for distilled spirits. Bourbon is covered in 5.22.b.1.i and they interpreted the technical grain requirements well; distillation requirements I don't have any idea.
Though, seeing the statute mentioned brings up some questions. It makes me wonder if they're being malicious with their use of the term or if they were just lazy in their reading.
A little further down in the exact staute they mentioned (5.22.l.1) it clearly states "that the word "bourbon" shall not be used to describe any whisky or whisky-based distilled spirits not produced in the United States."
They're obviously aware of the statute and that brings us back to the question: malicious or lazy?
If they read the whole statute, and ignored it, then calling their whiskey bourbon is not just a dick move, but seems rather malicious when combined with the shade they throw on KY bourbon. If they didin't read the whole statute then they're just lazy. Honestly, I don't know which is worse.
So what can we do about it? From a legal standpoint, nothing. But from a bourbon lover standpoint, you can email them ([email protected]) and request they stop calling it Swiss Bourbon (or really bourbon at all). I already sent my email and I hope you'll join me in doing the same and protecting our Native Spirit.
Cheers!
