From Dissent to Discussion The Future of American Single Malt Whiskey Written by SAILOR GUEVARA
I
n December 2024, the TTB unveiled a new standard of identity, American Single Malt Whiskey, and the Spring 2025 issue of Artisan Spirit featured the article “A Difference of Opinion, Opposition to the New Standard of Identity for American Single Malt Whiskey.” In that piece, Read Phil Steger, founder and “A Difference of Opinion” CEO of Brother Justus Whiskey Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota, shared his disagreement with the rules, specifically the 160 proof cap. Steger took issue with the TTB’s failure to engage with formal comments, which he
“Some things are fundamental to the global understanding of single malt and how our government qualifies whiskey in this country. Distillation proof is one of those core tenets.” — STEVE HAWLEY
President, American Single Malt Whiskey Commission
42
believed was a breach of legal obligation. Since the article was published, Steve Hawley, President of the American Single Malt Whiskey Commission (ASMWC), offered a response. As the body championing the ASMW standard, the commission’s stance on Steger’s dissent is notable, and he discussed how they decided on 160 as the proof cap. “We less so ‘made’ a rule than simply followed one already in place. We were aligned from the start with all the other major types of whiskey in the U.S. federal regulations, none of which are permitted to exceed the 160 proof limit of the class itself. This precedent has been set to ensure that a semblance of grain flavor remains in the final products, which is also important for the American single malt category. We didn’t believe single malt in America should be an exception, nor did we see a need to ask TTB to reconsider this standard requirement as part of our petition.” He went on to state, “Brother Justus first reached out to us after our petition was submitted and a rule proposed by TTB. We’ve heard their position that the limit should be raised and that American single malt should be treated differently on this topic, but we have respectively disagreed. They point to Scottish whisky’s broader
limit of 94.8 percent ABV (which would equate to 189.6 proof) but don’t acknowledge in their argument that ‘single malt’ scotch whisky requires the use of a pot still. The pot still provision is Scotland’s way of achieving the same end, to effectively limit final distillation proof. I don’t believe I’ve heard Brother Justus propose a similar pot still requirement as part of their dissent.” Hawley continued, “We were very conscious to draft and propose a Standard of Identity for American Single Malt that left room for flexibility and creativity in production — a hallmark of the category and what we have to bring to the global conversation in single malt — while still maintaining the integrity of a definition for a single malt that is accepted and embraced by consumers across the world. However, some things are fundamental to the global understanding of single malt and how our government qualifies whiskey in this country. Distillation proof is one of those core tenets. When the commission formed and originally drafted a proposed Standard of Identity, we didn’t think it was reasonable to ask TTB to break the rules in place for the class of whisky as a whole and install a new distillation proof limit (that none of us agreed with in the first place) for American single malt. Within the first year of operating, we had over 200 member producers of the commission, none of which raised this subject or concern.”
W W W . ARTISANSPIRITMAG . C O M