Alcademics.com

Two Health Insurance Options for Bartenders

There are now two newish options for bartenders to get health insurance. 

1. USBG

The United States Bartenders' Guild now offers full insurance plans (previously they only had discount health plans that are not the same thing) through Custom Benefit Consultants. 

2. RBA

I also just leared of the Responsible Bartenders' Association, another bartender (and related professions such as servers) that offers health and other insurance through a company called HLP. What they did was partner with TIPS (Training for Intervention ProcedureS) to show that their member bartenders take responsibility seriously, which helped them negotiate insurance discounts. Thus you need to join the RBA ($49 annually) plus take the TIPS certification to be eligible (I think they start around $40, with certification lasting 3 years).

I can't vouch for the insurance plans or the ease of getting them for either membership association, but the more options the better! 

The Big Switch At Captain Morgan

For years, Captain Morgan rum has been produced at the Distileria Serralles (DonQ Rum) distillery in Puerto Rico. Production is moving in 2012 to a new distillery St. Croix owned by Diageo. This makes a huge difference in revenues to Puerto Rico and St. Croix.

I'll explain it as I understand the situation, and if your understanding is better/different I hope you will correct me in the comments.

The US government has a tax rebate plan to bring revenue to US territories based on a business incentive. All of the rum sold in the US is taxed (no matter where it is from) and that tax goes back to the US territories to the countries at the ratio in which it is produced in those countries. So if Puerto Rico produces 50% of the rum sold in the US and St. Croix produces 30%, then not only do these territories receive a tax rebate from the rum they've sold to the US, they also get an additional 50 or 30 percent of the tax from other rums sold in the US.

The program has been in place for many years. The reasoning for it is explained well here.

Because of this plan and the volume of rum produced in these territories, the tax incentives are very important to the territories. Thus, the territories provide incentives to the distilleries that make the rum to encourage them to stay there. Previously Puerto Rico had provided something like five percent of the returned tax to the company to provide incentive for them to stay there. Then St. Croix got the clever idea that in order to entice Captain Morgan to be produced there, they would give them something in excess of 40 percent of the taxes back as an incentive to relocate there. For them, it was all new money.

For Puerto Rico (and for the Serralles distillery), this represents a huge loss in income and employment. For St. Croix, it represents a large increase. For the American taxpayer, it represents a disgusting increase in corporate welfare. Diageo profits in the billions even without the incentive, but you can hardly blame them for taking it.

Now other companies have demanded to be reimbursed in the same amount as Captain Morgan from their governments with the threat of relocating (and got it).  I would imagine that soon all American territory distilleries will get the same ridiculous 40 percent rate.

Some proposed solutions to the problem were to cap the amount that could be given back to these companies at a certain percent, or to have the revenue be divided by the population of the territories rather than the proportion of rum produced in them. So far these measures have failed. I would guess that when all the distilleries are receiving a forty percent rebate that congress willl get wind of the amount of corporate welfare and the whole program will be scrapped as a cost-savings maneuver. And then the US territories would lose 100% of their money that could have gone for roads and schools and health care for their citizens as it was intended.

 

GMO-Free Liquor? Not As Far As You Know

So the TTB released the little bombshell below. Basically, you can't put "GMO-free" or something similar on an alcoholic beverage label, even if the product is.

For the most part if you're drinking anything made from corn in the US (all bourbon, some vodkas) you're drinking genetically modified corn. Spirits from other crops too. In many (most? all?) export markets, however, you can't use this. Thus many (all?) bourbons make a GMO-free version for export.

Because most of Four Roses bourbon is sold in Japan, however, their product is GMO-free, even in the US. However, distiller Jim Rutledge said he didn't think there would be enough GMO-free corn left in a few years so things might change. 

Now, does anything from the GMO crop pass through distillation? I don't know; I'd guess probably not. But people may want to support non-GMO farming. It's the same with organic booze - you probably can't taste the difference, but you're putting your support behind organic farming. 

News From TTB
Sep 1st
WHAT IS TTB'S POSITION REGARDING THE LABELING STATEMENTS ABOUT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT BIOENGINEERED OR THAT DO NOT CONTAIN INGREDIENTS PRODUCED FROM BIOENGINEERED FOOD? (FOR EXAMPLE, "CONTAINS NO GMOs," "GMO FREE-ZONE," OR A SIMILAR REFERENCES ON ALCOHOL BEVERAGES.)

TTB has received several Certificates of Label Approval (COLA) applications proposing to display bioengineered-related information on alcohol beverage labels. Terms frequently mentioned in discussions about labeling alcohol beverages with respect to bioengineering include "GMO free" and "GM free." "GMO" is an acronym for "genetically modified organism" and "GM" means "genetically modified." The terms "genetically modified organism" and "genetically modified" are not synonymous with the term "bioengineered foods." Plants can be genetically modified using any number of techniques, new or traditional.

TTB believes it is not necessary to mandate any bioengineered food labeling requirements at this time. We also find that it is misleading to refer voluntarily to those bioengineered food labeling terms or any similar references on alcohol beverage labels. This is consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's position. (See Draft Guidance: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering-January 2001 at FDA.gov.)

TTB will continue to monitor the domestic and international impact of the use of bioengineered foods on the labeling of alcohol beverages, as well as any international trade barriers that occur because of the mixed reactions surrounding the use and potential use of bioengineered foods.

Interestingly, they say their guidelines are in agreement with FDA labelling rules for food, but I seem to recall seeing non-GMO written on food labels. Am I wrong? According to this story, there is a "Non GMO-Project Verified" label available. 

They also say that it could be misleading to refer to these terms on the label, and I could certainly see that. For example, if your rye whiskey was labelled as "from GMO-free rye" yet the corn in the mashbill were GMO-rich Monsanto corn, that would certainly be misleading.  

On the other hand, if you buy certified organic foods, they should not contain GMO ingredients. Here's a good story on the labelling issues with GMO foods and the potential or negligible health risks. Of course the health risk to the planet is another issue that could be taken into consideration. 

Cognac Camus Now Comes in Comely Vintages

When I was last in France I had a chance to pop into the Camus Cognac visitors' center. I was familiar with the brand, having met brand owner Cyril Camus last year in San Francisco, and curious to try some of the non-US bottlings on-site. And now I have news to share from another lunch a couple of weeks ago.

These things  don't form a narrative, so I'll use the list format to talk about it. 

• Camus is the 5th largest cognac house after the "big four" of Hennessy, Martell, Courvoisier, and Remy. 
• It has only been on the US market for a couple of years. 
• Their specialty is grapes/cognac from the Borderies region, a small region on the border of the Grande Champagne cru. Many of their blends have a hefty amount of Borderies cognac in them, and they have an all-Borderies XO as one of their flagships blends. 
• The Borderies soil is rich but more clay than the chalky soil found in Grande/Petite Champagne
• Borderies signature is an aromatic floral quality; particularly violet flowers. 
• They distill nearly all of their own brandy, rather than buy pre-distilled brandy from others. 
• They also make cognac from grapes grown on the Il De Re, and island off the coast of France that is part of the Bois Ordinaires cru. These blends, unfortunately not in the US yet, have notes of iodine and salt/brine. They age it in large barrels to reduce the wood impact on it. One Il De Re blend is double aged - first on the island, then in casks that are smoky. 
• They have just released 8 vintage cognacs on the US market
• One of them is the 1971 vintage. Hardly anything in spirits comes out in this vintage. I keep track because it's my birth year. It's also Cyril Camus' birth year. 
• The 1989 vintage has lots of Colombard grapes in it (most coganc grapes are Ugni Blanc, with less and less of Colombard and Folle Blanche as time goes on and everything becomes homogenous). My nose was obsessed with bready vanilla brine notes, as if the world's best hotdog bun merged with cream wafers and you put relish on the bun. (Note: that's not supposed to make sense to anyone but me.)
• The 1971 vintage, of which there are only 30 or so bottles available in the US, is 100% Grande Champagne brandy with more Folle Blanche grapes than typical cognac. I found it entered in a flash of Fruity Pebbles then quickly settled into a brandy with a touch of dill and licorice root notes with a green thin mint finish. (Again, not supposed to mean anything outside of my mouth.)
• The vintages are 1969 ($1250), 1964 ($750), 1970 ($630), 1971 ($590), 1974 ($470), 1980 ($380), 1988 ($320), 1989 ($280) 
• But should you want to pay less than several hundred, the VS and VSOP make great mixing/sipping cognacs at closer to thirty bucks a bottle. 

 

Blended Whisky Bringing Back the Highball?

A few weeks ago I wrote about mizuwari, the whisky highball ritual sometimes performed in Japan. 

One thing I didn't emphasize was that most of the time these highballs are usually made with blended whisky, not single-malts. 

Now another company has announced the release of blended whisky made for the same purpose. Compass Box Whisky is launching a new range of blends called Great King Street. The first bottling, The Artist's Blend, will start hitting the US market in September. They're emphasizing this whisky's use in the highball. 

Compass Box founder/blender John Glaser said in a press release, “As well as being delicious neat, Great King Street is equally enjoyable drunk with ice, as a refreshing Highball with soda water and ice, or in cocktails. One of the wonderful things about a whisky highball is that it slips down as easily as beer.  This gives us whisky lovers a refreshing whisky-based drink for all sorts of different occasions—at the bar with friends after work, on a warm day, parties, receptions, even with food (particularly Asian food). We believe it is time for a renaissance of the Highball.”

Mad Men + Mizuwari + Great King Street. Does three make a trend? 

And do we think that blended whiskies make better highballs, or are they just less expensive so we don't feel bad about watering them down? 

Items of Interest in The Tasting Panel Magazine

I learned lots of stuff in the August issue of the Tasting Panel Magazine. I write for this magazine but didn't have a story in the current issue. Anyway:

1. Isle of Jura has a 200th Anniversary Edition, a 21 year old single malt aged in an ex-sherry cask. 
2. The Don Julio Anejo Claro that someone gave me a sip of at Tales is a real thing. For the 70th anniversary of the Don Julio being in the tequila business, they are releasing an anejo tequila that is filtere to make it clear, which supposedly will "bring back the bold agave flavor typically found in a blanco." I don't understand how you can filter flavor into a spirit, nor the point of making clear aged tequilas in general, but we'll see.  
3. There is some strange new "botanical absinthe/ green tea liqueur" called Tempest that has suspended drops of absinthe in it. Sadly low ABV of 25% but goofy fun nonetheless. 
4. Phil Adler makes a flavored ice cube inside another flavored ice cube. (Page 114 of the digital edition. )

Infusions: Now Officially Legal in California

*Update* California State Senate Bill SB 32 has been passed and signed into law, taking effect immediately. Thanks to the people who worked hard to make it happen. 

This bill was introduced in response to a sudden crackdown by the ABC (Alcholic Beverage Control) on infusions, homemade bitters and tinctures, sangria, and other 'rectified' drinks at cocktail bars in San Francisco.

Most bar owners did not know that these common practices were illegal and the crackdown set off a bit of a panic. My take on the issue from February 2010 is here. (I can't believe it's been that long already!)

The bill was, in short:

SB 32 (Small Business Regulation Reform) – SB 32 modernizes the state’s outdated alcoholic beverage law to permit the innovative, artisanal practice by bars and restaurants of creating “infusions.” Infused cocktails, which are made by flavoring alcohol with fruits, vegetables, herbs or spices, have become increasingly popular throughout the state. 

Legally, the bill redifines the term 'rectifier' to exclude on-premise rectification for on-premise consumption- meaning bars can rectify spirits for drinking at the bar. The bill's text is below. 

BILL NUMBER: SB 32	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 26, 2011

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Leno
    (Coauthor:   Senator  Berryhill   ) 
    (Coauthors:   Assembly Members Jeffries,   Ma,  and Portantino)


                        DECEMBER 6, 2010

   An act to amend Section 23016 of the Business and Professions
Code, relating to alcoholic beverages  , and declaring the
urgency thereof, to take effect immediately  .


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 32, as amended, Leno. Alcoholic beverages: definitions:
rectifiers.
   The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains various provisions
regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of,
and the conditions imposed upon, alcoholic beverage licenses by the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
   Existing law defines a "rectifier" to include every person who
colors, flavors, or otherwise processes distilled spirits by
distillation, blending, percolating, or other processes.
   This bill would  refine   exclude from 
the definition of "rectifier"  to exclude  any
on-sale licensee that colors, flavors, or blends distilled spirits or
wine products on the licensed premises for consumption on those
premises. 
   This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as
an urgency statute. 
   Vote:  majority   2/3  . Appropriation:
no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 23016 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
   23016.  "Rectifier" means every person who colors, flavors, or
otherwise processes distilled spirits by distillation, blending,
percolating, or other processes. "Rectifier" does not include an
on-sale licensee that colors, flavors, or blends distilled spirits or
wine products on the on-sale licensed premises to be consumed on the
licensed premises.
   SEC. 2.    This act is an urgency statute necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety
within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go
into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
 
   In 2008, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) issued
an advisory informing on-sale licensees that engaging in
rectification of distilled spirits exceeded their licensing
privileges. The ABC has recently started to forcefully notify on-sale
licensees of this advisory. As a result, many bars and restaurants
have stopped serving infused drinks and have experienced a drop in
business. Therefore, to allow businesses to resume this economically
stimulating business practice as soon as possible in order to bolster
California's economy and to aid struggling bars and restaurants in
this economically stagnant time, it is necessary for this act to take
effect immediately. 
                          

 

Tales Seminar: The Global Drinks Business

These are notes from The Global Drinks Business seminar at Tales of the Cocktail, lead by Phil Duff.

Please don't treat these facts as absolute or fact-checked - I'm typing fast and mistakes could be made. 

• In the Middle East, the duty-free market is enormous.
• "The world drinks locally." The overwhelming majority of spirits are consumed in the country in which they are made. 
• The world drinks whisky (not always scotch, but something that tastes like scotch), vodka (at every level. The first market out side the USA for Absolut was Russia.), and soju.
• In the Phillipeans they drink 27 million cases of one brand of gin, double the rest of the world's total consumption.
• How much does it cost you to make a bottle of a grain alcohol product: about $1 for the spirit. (Grapes cost 30% - 50% more). The bottle (a standard nice one) costs you $1.77 per bottle for a minimum large order.  Screw cap costs 14 cents. Bottling costs 70 cents. Case and divider 35 cents. $3.96 per bottle for less than 4000 cases. More than 4000 cases costs $2.97. 
• 100,000 case mark means your brand could be bought, or could be 'made more efficient.' 
• Producers margin on 1 bottle (for production cost $3.33) and selling price 7.83 is  4.50; or a  57.46 % profit. Then it goes to marketing. (There were a lot more numbers on marketing costs but I didn't catch them. Something about 30% markup.)
• The booze biz is one of the most heavily marketed industries. The best and brightest in marketing want to work in the booze biz. 
• Bailey's is so successful it sells one out of every 4 bottles of liqueur in the world.
• X Rated Fusion Liqueur - Only sold 60,000 total cases before the brand sold for $40 million. This is due in part to technological innovation that allowed the fruit juice in it to be stable.
• Grey Goose - Was  sold for 1.8 billion to Bacardi. For 20 times the earnings. 
• Ciroc - 2003 created. Distiller came up with name. Gave Puffy the equivalent of half the profits. Moved from 60,000 cases to 400,000 cases in one year. This year broke 1 million case mark.    
• Distributors add 30% to the price of the spirit. Retailers add 30%. So a product that costs $3 bucks to make is sold for $30 at retail. 
• "Nobody is making a great deal of money for an $8 cocktail."