Who Will Step Up to Defend Kentucky Bourbon?

Even Tennessee's Jack Fucking Daniels knows better than to call itself Bourbon, but they're begging for a beating down in Arkansas.

David M.F. Shankula at Barefoot and Progressive:

Apparently some place in Arkansas — the state’s first legal distillery since the end of prohibition — is making “bourbon.” It’s aged three to six months.

The Courier-Journal does a good job of going through the various oddities of this “bourbon” and the wider “bourbon” industry growth:

The craft distillery segment seems to be booming – there are operations in Texas, New York, Washington and now in Arkansas.

But one is left wondering what Kentucky can do to protect actual Bourbon from what might as well be cheap Chinese knock-offs.

For instance, a few years ago, Sweden and the other real Vodka-making countries got together to fight other countries that had started making “vodka”:

“Real vodka can only be made from grain or potatoes,” says Rolands Gulbis, head of Latvijas Balzams, the largest vodka distiller in the Baltics, whose vodka making tradition dates to 1900 when Czar Nicholas II of Russia built a vodka storage house here. “If vodka can be made out of grapes, then we might as well call an apple an orange and rename brandy as beer.”

But the definition of vodka is no longer as clear as the transparent spirit.

A vodka war has broken out in Europe. On one side are traditionalists – in Poland, Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries – who argue that only spirits made exclusively from cereals, potatoes and sugar-beet molasses are worthy of the name “vodka.” On the other are distillers – in Italy, France, Britain, and the Netherlands – who are fighting for a more liberal definition of vodka. They contend that vodka’s taste does not derive from its ingredients. After all, James Bond specified that his vodka martini should be “shaken, not stirred.” He never insisted it be made from grain or potatoes.

And of course there’s also the case of Champagne. Any old fool can make a bottle of bubbly — presumably even somebody from Arkansas — but what they can’t do is call it “champagne.” That one’s so serious it’s covered by two international treaties:

There are many sparkling wines produced worldwide, yet most legal structures reserve the term “champagne” exclusively for sparkling wines from the Champagne region, made in accordance with Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne regulations. In the European Union and many other countries, the name Champagne is legally protected by the Treaty of Madrid (1891) designating only the sparkling wine produced in the eponymous region and adhering to the standards defined for it as an Appellation d’origine contrôlée; the right was reaffirmed in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. This legal protection has been accepted by numerous other countries worldwide. Most recently Canada, Australia, and Chile signed agreements with Europe that will limit the use of the term “champagne” to only those products produced in the Champagne region. The United States acknowledges the exclusive nature of the “champagne” term and bans the use from all new US produced wines. Only those that had approval to use the term on labels before 2006 may continue to use it and only when it is accompanied by the wine’s actual origin (e.g. California).

So yes. Kentucky makes Bourbon. Tennessee makes Whiskey.

Arkansas can call theirs something else. Like “Pig Liquor.”

Somebody get Steve Beshear on the horn. Or at least David Williams.