I met with the SWA’s spokesman Campbell Evans yesterday. He is a decent chap, but it seems that he has not, or does not want to,  understood the full implications of what I have been trying to highlight:

1.  The category title “blended malt”

2.  The regulation concerning what name a blended malt is entitled

Clearly both  points alone are highly serious; taken together they are a potential disaster to the credibility of  Scotch whisky – and single malt in particular – with far reaching implications.

The basic thrust of his argument is that the industry had consulted itself extensively on the matter (not retailers, the folk who actually have to sell the stuff to the consumer) and come up with the term blended malt which was easily understood; “it does what it says on the tin”.  Of course this is true, in isolation, when one tries to understand what a blended malt is – assuming that folk know what malt is in the first place, which I doubt - in the US it’s a beer -  obviously blended malt means a blend of malts.  Apparently, market research has proved this point, but as we know, research depends on who you ask and what you ask them. The research  results will remain under cover.

Then there is the proposed regulation governing  what a blended malt can call itself. Regulation 10 (2) states clearly that a distillery name cannot be used for a blended malt – but then gives three exemption subclasses which when taken together, a distillery name can be used.  There is further surreal obfuscation about the when a distillery name is a brand name and when it is not. Then Regulation 10 (5) sets out that there should be no confusion with labelling – but bizarrely exempts blended malts from it’s scope.

The SWA continue to insist these regulations clearly stipulate that a single malt distillery such as Cardhu, for example, cannot use it’s name on a blended malt label. Cardhu the distillery? Or Cardhu the brand? Either way, the drafting of these regulations is open to extraordinary polarised interpretation as the discussions on these points have shown. Some thing must be wrong.

As they stand, they look like they were written by the large whisky companies themselves. Their dream come true,  their marketing team’s Holy Grail: a whole new sector of whisky to exploit, more profitable than blended,  more volume that single malt. Using a term that  looks like the two existing, well-established categories (so won’t frighten the horses), and a presentation and name that looks identical to prestigious single malts (to fool the punters).  And unlimited supply. Hallelujah! Trebles all round!

Campbell agreed  he did not like the term blended malt either when it was first put forward by the “work Group” following “extensive research”. Research that discovered that ‘vatted’ had an undesirable, industrial connotation. Equally, he infers that adding whisky distillery names to the labels of vatted malts indicating what is included in the bottling is simply so the consumer has an idea of the style of the whisky in the bottle. Pull the other one.

Self regulation has worked in the past, but evidently no longer. Assuming, just for one moment, that the SWA is independent of it’s paymasters then this situation looks like straight  incompetence. But the SWA is not independent. It claims to represent 95% of the industry (by volume), yet 60% of which is owned by just two companies alone. It’s interests are inextricably linked to those who fund it and pay for it’s executives. And here, those interests are not the consumers’, single malts’ or the long term of Scotch Whisky.

There is nothing wrong with developing the sector of vatted malts with honesty, rather than this underhand, backdoor and deceitful approach. To prevent confusion a visually differentiating and distinctive word is patently needed to identify the category. A title   that demonstrates a clear difference in any market place around the world  between it,  a blended and single malt. “Vatted” did that, “Blended malt” does not. It makes one  think it’s intentional. A distillery name – whether brand or otherwise – should  not be allowed on the label to prevent passing off – inadvertent or otherwise.

My feeling? I think some of the SWA’s executives have been pulled a fast one by it’s own members. I just don’t think they have thought it all through. Bogged down with short-term specifics they have failed to see the Bigger Picture. As the industry’s self-regulator, the SWA’s powerful industry members have managed to introduce what on the surface appear to be  a series of innocuous-looking regulations on valid points with some coherent arguments. But when taken together, these proposed regulations have highly  controversial implications for the future development of Scotch whisky. As it stands, there is  going to be one hell of a mess, one that only favours the big companies. At stake are Scotch’s hard-won integrity, the marginalisation of single malts, the very credibility of Scotch whisky.