Following the outcry over Diageo’s proposal to sell non-authentic Cardhu whisky as a “pure malt” (see IPKat, 28 October 2003), new rules are being drawn up for Scotch whisky brands. These rules should be enshrined in law, according to a leading distiller. The industry has agreed to produce definitions for different sectors, following the row over changes to the Cardhu malt. Diageo also agreed to change the packaging of the whisky, which the company now describes as “pure malt” rather than “single malt”. Rival distiller William Grant & Sons has welcomed the moves, with deputy group managing director Tony Hunt saying he was "absolutely delighted" that the rules were going to be rewritten: "I believe that when these rules are in place the single malt whisky distillers will do everything they can to comply with the rules”.

The Cardhu row broke out after Diageo reached capacity at its Speyside distillery. The company, being unable to meet demand prompted by soaring sales of the single malt, decided to change the process and use a combination of single malts, changing the status of the whisky from a single malt to a "pure" malt. Other distillers were angry that Diageo was continuing to use the name Cardhu while only changing one word on the label. Following a meeting of the Scotch Whisky Association, Diageo will continue to use the name Cardhu but the labelling and packaging will be changed from brown to green and the company has promised not to make any similar changes to any of its other single malts

The IPKat is relieved that Scotch whisky drinkers will find it easier to tell the single malt Cardhu from the pure malt, but he is still concerned that inexperienced consumers, relying on the brand name alone, will be confused between “pure malt” and “single malt”.

Meaning of “Cardhu” here
Cardhu the whale here

END IN SIGHT FOR CARDHU DISPUTE END IN SIGHT FOR CARDHU DISPUTE Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, December 08, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.