They distinctly changed the recipe. It’s no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn’t called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?
They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.
In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.
The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.
And then made legislation that it can only be made across the pond and no longer where the recipes originated from.
They distinctly changed the recipe. It’s no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn’t called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?
They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.
In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.
The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.