Our Cardhu moment? Yes, very much so….
Since the Australian whisky industry’s re-birth 30-odd years ago, there have been a number of specific markers or events that have indicated the industry is taking steps forward and leaving its fledgling status behind. Like an adolescent transitioning to adulthood, not every step is glamorous; there will be a few missteps along the way; but you’ve got to take those steps to learn and develop.
And so there have been some milestones that speak of developing maturity for the Australian whisky industry. The establishment and growth of a cohort of new distilleries between 1999 and 2009 was one step. The big award to Sullivans Cove in 2014 was another. A big misstep came in 2017 with the Nant fraud scandal. The arrival of our first genuinely commercial blend in 2018, was a huge step forwards (even if it was just one malt blended with one grain!) And, more recently, we now have that other indicator of an industry shedding its skin: Controversy.
The controversy currently raising eyebrows revolves around honesty and transparency in labelling – specifically the use and appellation of a distillery’s name for spirit that did not originate from the named distillery. There is now a growing list of Australian whiskies being released to the market that are, on the surface, misleading. If you buy a whisky with “Distillery X” on the label, it is reasonable as a consumer to expect that the contents came from Distillery X.
It’s been brewing for a while now, perhaps kicking off with Rochfort Distillery releasing whiskies in 2019 with “Rochford Distillery” on the label, even though the spirit was distilled prior to that distillery’s actual establishment and existence. Whilst many assumed the spirit came from the McLaren Vale Distillery, stating Rochfort Distillery on the label was clearly disingenuous.
The most recent incident that has caused significant confusion amongst consumers has revolved around the re-purposing of the Lark name. Australian Whisky Holdings (owners of the Lark, Nant and, until recently, Overeem distilleries) changed its name to Lark Distilling Co. in May of this year, and subsequently repurposed the name “Lark” as their brand – as well as it being the name of Australia’s oldest distillery. One of the whiskies now causing confusion and evidently tripping up a few purchasers along the way is the release of “Lark Symphony No. 1”. The whisky is a blended malt, containing not just Lark spirit but also Nant spirit. (And, depending on who you listen to, possibly also some Overeem).
To be clear, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with releasing a blended malt, but something doesn’t look or smell right when the label and packaging boldly has “Lark” in big letters – a name that, for nearly 30 years, has denoted a very specific distillery and a single malt whisky.
Those with good memories will recall that this is precisely the same stunt that Diageo tried to pull in 2003 with Cardhu. And let it not be forgotten that Diageo were vigorously hauled over the coals for it and the fallout prompted the Scotch Whisky Association to overhaul its legal nomenclature for whisky, giving birth to the term blended malt that we use today.
For those needing the quick history lesson: Cardhu had been an established distillery for over 170 years, and had been a single malt brand since 1981. With sales of its 12yo rapidly outpacing the distillery’s production, Diageo opted to change the product in 2003 to a pure malt (aka vatted malt, as was the terminology at the time), blending in whisky from Glendullan and combining it with Cardhu spirit to increase volume. However, the same distillery name and livery was kept on the label and packaging, and the small change from “Single Malt” to “Pure Malt” was the only giveaway to those who looked closely.
The backlash and fallout was enormous, with threats of legal action, consumer boycotts, and the Scottish Parliament even became involved as other member companies within the Scotch Whisky Association took Diageo to task. Ian Meakins, the head of Diageo’s marketing team and the one left to do the PR mopping up afterwards, said at the time, “It became clear that the industry as a whole was against marketing whiskies from a number of sources under the name of an individual distillery. In future, distillery names should be used only for single malts”.
This new Lark/Nant blended malt, bottled and labelled as “Lark” thus contravenes the SWA and would be illegal in Scotland. But – and here’s the rub – we aren’t in Scotland, and we don’t have an equivalent industry body to the SWA. The Australian Distillers Association was established in 2004, but it’s not a body that necessarily sets rules and regulations. In truth, the Australian whisky industry does not have a set of rules or even guidelines to govern what we name and call our whiskies, so in a sense – no liquor industry rules have been broken.
Of course, Australian consumers are protected by the laws governed by Fair Trading, and the ACCC (the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission). Look very closely at the Lark Symphony No. 1 label below: It says “Lark” in big letters. It says “Tasmanian Malt Whisky”. It has a “Lark Distilling” badge or emblem, complete with “Established 1992”, which is when the Lark distillery was founded (not when AWH/Lark Distilling Co Pty Ltd was founded!), and it has in the smallest lettering down the bottom “The first blended malt from the house of Lark”. How many consumers – the vast majority of whom will not be hardcore whisky enthusiasts familiar with the technical nomenclature – will buy this whisky, believing it to contain just Lark spirit from the Lark distillery?
Many observers and commentators have suggested the labelling is possibly misleading and the Lark appellation – for 28 years, the name of a single malt distillery – is being misused. Those of a more cynical disposition have suggested that the use of the name Lark is perhaps a strategic ploy to help move stock of Nant that would otherwise be difficult to sell, noting how tarnished the Nant brand is.
On that very note then, the plot thickens with the release of Lark “Wolf Release” single malt, which contains no Lark spirit at all, but is actually Nant whisky! The small print at the bottom of the label states “From our Bothwell Distillery”, but it shares the same misleading labelling as the Symphony: The name ‘Lark’ in bold letters and the same Lark emblem that states the Lark distillery’s establishment in 1992. How many consumers would know or guess that “our Bothwell distillery” is actually Nant? More interestingly, how many consumers would deliberately shun the bottling if it stated the whisky came from Nant?
If you bought a bottle of Australian whisky that said “Sullivans Cove” on the label, but the whisky inside came from Limeburners, you’d run straight to Fair Trading. And, yet, we can seemingly put “Lark” on the label and the whisky can come from one or a number of distilleries other than Lark?????
So how will this play out? Will someone take Lark Distilling Co. to task – legally speaking? Is this a breach of ACCC or Australian labelling laws? Will the Australian Distillers Association step in and comment? Do they believe this is in the interests of our industry? Is this in the interests of Australian whisky consumers? Is this our Cardhu moment? Or is it all just a lark…..
Cheers,
AD
Hi Andrew, a fine article (is this our Cardu moment?) and nicely timed to prompt a reply from the boffins at Lark Distilling. They have struggled with the very mixed legacy of Nant since their impetuous purchase a few years ago and despite many assurances to the poor barrel investors I think Peter Bignell did more to help them than anyone at Lark.
The other issue our industry needs to address is the growing tendency for many Australian distilleries to source their wash from breweries rather than do their own mashing and brewing. The Tasmanian experience is that most of our more recently established distilleries source their wash from the same commercial brewery and the mash tickets and yeast choices are virtually identical. It is also true that Sullivan’s Cove has never brewed its own wash. In Scotland it would be at least questionable and probably illegal to claim that these distilleries were producing single malt. The lack of industry standards and legislation in our industry in Australia will continue to give consumers reasons to question the bona tides of many of our craft producers. Rochfort is not alone, there are also new Tasmanian producers playing fast and loose in the same space. They should be clearly distinguishing themselves as independent bottlers rather than using mature spirit from other distilleries in a shady and somewhat dishonest manner.
Thanks again for your excellent article.
Mark Nicholson
Very nice article. I would certainly say it is something of concern. You just need to look at Japan at how a lack of regulations can damage the trust in an industry. Personally I’d just not consider most Japanese whisky due to the lack of trust in what you’re buying, particularly given the higher costs involved (the same as Australian whisky). I’d suspect it is difficult to get rules written up to stop this though, given the lack of big players to force stuff through (for example the Tequila casks and Diageo in Scotland), and probably other distilleries wanting a flexibility going forward. Of course when it comes to it then the quality of what you drink is most important, but trust is a big thing too. Being misleading will damage the brand image.
Great article
I can’t believe they are getting away with, whoever bought that wolf release would be howling..
wowsers. You had me reaching for my two recent deliveries from The Whisky Club to read the labels, which thankfully don’t seem to be Nant 🙂
Thanks for the great article AD.
I think this highlights Australian whisky has a long way to go in earning consumer’s trust. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Here in the United States, it is almost impossible to find out where many whiskies are distilled, and even then there is a lot of guesswork and non-disclosure-agreement stonewalling involved. I hope the Australian distilling industry is able to sort these issues out before you end up with a similar mess.
Great article Andrew. There’s another one on Oz Whisky Review on the same topic which misses the mark a bit – along the lines of ‘Yes it’s good to talk about regulations, but there’s nothing wrong with the presentation of these Larks because the general whisky-drinking public don’t care about where the whisky comes from’. Hopefully the industry doesn’t continue down this path and nips it in the bud now!
When I visited Australia one of the highlights was to taste the diversity of flavours within Australian whisky.
From Timboon Port Cask using mash from the local brewery, to Starward using Apera Casks & Project X experiments and the wonderful Rye down at Belgrove all offered experiences not found in Scotch.
To adopt Scottish rules would negate the very uniqueness of Australian Whiskey and be a backward step.
Australian Whisky – along with other World Whiskies – offer the ongoing development of the whisky category. Something Scotch has stopped doing by it’s rather strict & constraining rules.
Effectively Scotch has stagnated – and has witnessed falling growth figures too.
Why emulate a tired category?
Gotta respect your opinion and viewpoint on such matters, Whiskey Nut, knowing your insights into the Irish whiskey industry and all that that entails. However, I feel this is more an issue of truth in advertising and misleading consumers, than it is about championing (or denigrating) Scotch whisky laws.