232
American Whiskey Production Has Plummeted to a New Low (robbreport.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/boycottus@lemmy.ca
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 11 months ago* (9 children)

There’s nothing unique about bourbon. Other places can distill it, just not market it as such.

There’s plenty of over 50% corn mash, and aged in brand new oak barrels, type “whiskeys” out there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Okanagan Spirits makes "BRBN Bourbon-style whisky". Bourbon (as you say) is a protected designation of origin product, meaning that it has to be made in the US. It's not on the PDO list on Wikipedia though, so it appears it is a separate designation, same idea though.

    Point being that you can boycott US products and still have Bourbon "style" whisky. Kind of like how some distilleries outside Scotland make Scotch style whisky, which is often very very good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -44 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Wow! It's like I didn't know anything about liquor and you just enlightened me! THANK YOU OH SO MUCH KIND SIR!

    Oh, and ... buh-bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    You’re the one calling appropriation a “genuine contribution” if you knew anything about the history of whiskey and bourbon, you wouldn’t be making that claim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    I'm no expert on alcohol, but when I went to the distillery in Bourbon County, they tell it was made by accident originally. Basically the distillery burned down, and they tried reusing the burnt barrels only to find that the whiskey had a pleasant flavor?

    What's appropriation there? The locals just brought the whiskey recipe with them when they hopped the pond.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    What's appropriation there? The locals just brought the whiskey recipe with them when they hopped the pond.

    And then made legislation that it can only be made across the pond and no longer where the recipes originated from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    They distinctly changed the recipe. It's no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn't called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.

    In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.

    The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent