4 ms·

This is the clause demanded by some of the alcoholic beverage manufacturers, which is to say they paid for that specific clause to be implemented even though it

This is the clause demanded by some of the alcoholic beverage manufacturers, which is to say they paid for that specific clause to be implemented even though it has no real global benefit and may harm smaller local groups in NZ producing similar goods. This should not be seen as a surprise to anyone.

maxerickson 11y ago
What problem is it going to cause NZ locals? Why would they want to brand their whiskey as Tennessee whiskey or Bourbon? Bourbon is widely recognized as a US whiskey, probably from Kentucky, using that name for something made in NZ is more likely to piss customers off than anything else (Tennessee whiskey has a somewhat more obvious geographic meaning).
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  When teenagers here drink cheap liquor, they might drink 'bourbon' or a 'bourbon and coke' - anything they can get for less than $20. Accordingly, there are a number of brands targeted at that market, and I would not be surprised if some of them have nothing do with the US original.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using it as a brand. But I'm pretty skeptical that those teenagers care that their cheap whiskey be called Bourbon.
    - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
      Its worse than that. I remember being surprised when I got older and found out that Bourbon is the same thing as Whiskey. The common conception was that they were distinct drinks, and that Whiskey was too expensive.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I agree for Tennessee whiskey, which is clearly tied to production in Tennessee. But "bourbon" is increasingly seen as a just style of barrel-aged corn-mash whiskey. It's already in the process of losing its geographical specificity within the U.S., with producers in places like California and Illinois [1]. Once you have California whiskey producers making bourbon, it's not that big a stretch to imagine that one of the Japanese whiskey companies might want to come out with a bourbon. I think it would be more principled to either let anyone produce it (subject to style requirements), or to geographically restrict it to only the vicinity of Kentucky. But the U.S.'s position seems to be to want to make it a specifically American brand, but otherwise not regionally restricted. Which I understand the trade motivations for, but honestly I don't see bourbon from Tokyo as any less authentic than bourbon from San Francisco, assuming it's made correctly. [1] http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I'm not arguing that the distinction is particularly important to maintain (I think it's nice to maintain it, I called it a nod to tradition in another comment). I'm specifically asking if it is going to matter to the distillers outside the US if they can use it in their product names or not (I'm opposed to preventing the use of blah-style to describe foods).
Taniwha 11y ago
Haviung a home still is not illegal in NZ - you can make your own "Whiskey" in your garage - there's probably some little guy, making something for his friends, who's just been sat on by the US

maxerickson 11y ago

What problem is it going to cause NZ locals? Why would they want to brand their whiskey as Tennessee whiskey or Bourbon? Bourbon is widely recognized as a US whiskey, probably from Kentucky, using that name for something made in NZ is more likely to piss customers off than anything else (Tennessee whiskey has a somewhat more obvious geographic meaning).

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
When teenagers here drink cheap liquor, they might drink 'bourbon' or a 'bourbon and coke' - anything they can get for less than $20. Accordingly, there are a number of brands targeted at that market, and I would not be surprised if some of them have nothing do with the US original.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using it as a brand. But I'm pretty skeptical that those teenagers care that their cheap whiskey be called Bourbon.
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    Its worse than that. I remember being surprised when I got older and found out that Bourbon is the same thing as Whiskey. The common conception was that they were distinct drinks, and that Whiskey was too expensive.
_delirium 11y ago
I agree for Tennessee whiskey, which is clearly tied to production in Tennessee. But "bourbon" is increasingly seen as a just style of barrel-aged corn-mash whiskey. It's already in the process of losing its geographical specificity within the U.S., with producers in places like California and Illinois [1]. Once you have California whiskey producers making bourbon, it's not that big a stretch to imagine that one of the Japanese whiskey companies might want to come out with a bourbon. I think it would be more principled to either let anyone produce it (subject to style requirements), or to geographically restrict it to only the vicinity of Kentucky. But the U.S.'s position seems to be to want to make it a specifically American brand, but otherwise not regionally restricted. Which I understand the trade motivations for, but honestly I don't see bourbon from Tokyo as any less authentic than bourbon from San Francisco, assuming it's made correctly. [1] http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I'm not arguing that the distinction is particularly important to maintain (I think it's nice to maintain it, I called it a nod to tradition in another comment). I'm specifically asking if it is going to matter to the distillers outside the US if they can use it in their product names or not (I'm opposed to preventing the use of blah-style to describe foods).

Taniwha 11y ago

Haviung a home still is not illegal in NZ - you can make your own "Whiskey" in your garage - there's probably some little guy, making something for his friends, who's just been sat on by the US