Whisky Magazine just released an article discussing a conundrum within Scottish whisky. There are new regulations before British Parliament that will change the definition of ‘Scotch malt whisky.’ Part of these regulations, set to go into effect November 23, requires malt whisky to be produced using copper pot stills. It would seem like a no-brainer. After all, tradition states that single malts are produced in pot stills and column stills are reserved for ‘lesser’ grain alcohols used in blends. However, Loch Lomond distillery outside of Glasgow produces whisky using an energy efficient still instead of a traditional pot still. According to the new regulations, whisky distilled at Loch Lomond will no longer be able to bear the title ‘Scotch malt whisky’.
Presumably, these regulations are to protect consumers and distillers alike from dubious producers (at home and abroad) using inferior products to undermine the Scottish whisky industry. Loch Lomond produces a whisky much loved by Jim Murray. So, one can assume that the energy efficient still produces quality whisky. Murray even implies that the whisky has improved in quality since upgrading the still around two years ago. Should one of the most energy efficient distilleries in Scotland be marginalized for environmental concern? Is tradition and protectionism more important than carbon footprint regardless of product quality? Furthermore, would allowing Loch Lomond to continue using the ‘Scotch malt whisky’ label open the floodgates allowing all sorts of still configurations?
These are all tough questions. Quality does not seem to be the issue for Loch Lomond. So, in this case, it seems like harnessing the industry with the yoke of tradition. Quite a heavy yoke at that. But, can we apply regulations by situation. That seems rather random and unfair. In my experience, I have preferred pot stilled whiskies and whiskeys around 70% of the time (the major exceptions being mainly American whiskeys). That leads me to side with the ‘tradition’ side, but the crunchy hippy in me is livid that anyone should be punished for trying to green-up their production process. Ultimately, I’m all for quality control. However, I’m not sure this is the way to go. Anybody else have thoughts on this?