威士忌日報

Why Japanese Whisky Fans Are Scrambling to Find This Rare New Nikka Release Men's Journal and Yahoo may earn commission from links in this article. Masataka Taketsuru is considered the Father of Japanese Whisky. And the lessons the Nikka Whisky founder learned over 100 years ago during his travels to Scotland still resonate today, as I discovered during a recent tasting of a special new limited-edition release. That release, Taketsuru Pure Malt Essentials 2026, is the first of five special limited-edition annual releases leading up to the 30th anniversary of Taketsuru Pure Malt in 2030. Each year will explore a distinctive character and theme. Nikka is unusual in that it pulls its blends from two distinct distilleries. Taketsuru Pure Malt, introduced in 2000, is a blend of single malts that hail from both Nikka's original Yoichi Distillery, which was built in 1934, and the company's Miyagikyo Distillery, built in 1969. The inaugural Essentials bottle release is a celebration of Yoichi, located on the island of Hokkaido. The goal of the original Taketsuru bottle was to create a pure malt whisky that was "finer than the finest blended whiskies." The Pure Malt releases have captured multiple "World's Best Blended Malt Whisky" and "Best Japanese Blended Malt Whisky" awards at the World Whiskies Awards. Before my tasting notes, a quick history of Nikka and its founder. Why Is Masataka Taketsuru Considered the Father of Japanese Whisky? Masataka Taketsuru traveled to Scotland in 1918. Hailing from a sake brewing family, Taketsuru had other ambitions. "He was the first person who traveled to Scotland to learn about authentic whisky," says Naohiko Kumagai, regional manager for Nikka Whisky. "Before he traveled to Scotland, there was no particular Japanese whisky." Taketsuru studied chemistry at the University of Glasgow and later apprenticed at multiple distilleries, including Longmorn, James Calder and Hazelburn. When he returned to Japan in 1920, he brought along some extensive single malt knowledge and a Scottish wife named Rita. After initially helping to launch the Yamazaki Distillery, he set out to build his own distillery in Yoichi, an area that had a climate similar to Scotland. Founded in 1934, Nikka released its first whisky in 1940. What Makes Nikka's Yoichi Distillery Distinctive? The Yoichi Distillery still uses a coal-fired distillation method that adds a smoky note, which blends nicely with the rich, sweet and slightly bitter notes of the malt distillate. While formerly common in Scotland, the coal-fire method is extremely rare nowadays, so finding it any whisky (let alone a Japanese whisky) means a flavor profile that's different from peat but still a treat for smoky whisky fans. To achieve a balance, whiskies from Yoichi are blended with the smoother, non-smoky whisky produced at Miyagikyo. "Nikka doesn't really stick to one specific type of whisky," says Kumagai. "That wasn't the philosophy of our founder. So that's why he created two different distilleries to have contrast." (Nikka also utilizes grain whiskies distilled in Coffey stills, but not for the Taketsuru releases.) Related: Nikka Celebrates 40 Years With a Rare (but Affordable!) Limited Release of From the Barrel The Yoichi single malts are certainly popular. In 2001, Whisky magazine voted a 10-year-old Single Cask Yoichi the world's "Best of the Best" in an annual testing competition; you can find a Yoichi single malt in our spirits store. What Does Taketsuru Pure Malt Essentials 2026 Taste Like? Even with the emphasis on the Yoichi Distillery (which also extends to the packaging, which features a traditional Japanese indigo blue found on Yoichi's single malt releases), the blend for Pure Malt Essentials 2026 also incorporates an incremental amount of whisky from Yoichi and the Miyagikyo Distillery that were distilled in 2000, the year of the original Taketsuru Pure Malt launch. Last week, I was able to try the new liquid as well as the individual blends that went into the final Essentials bottle, including several high-proof single cask distillates that have never been made available publicly on their own. The blend also included "Yoichi Smoky Type," a blend of whiskies that are an exclusive part of the final Essentials blend. "I personally want this to be its own product," says Kumagai, and I agree; if you ever craved a high-proof smoky Japanese whisky, this would be ideal. Coming in at 86 proof, Pure Malt Essentials 2026 is decidedly more balanced than its coal-fire origins would suggest. It's floral and full of notes of apple and biscuit, with a lingering but not overpowering smokiness. Only 1,200 bottles of Taketsuru Pure Malt Essentials 2026 are available nationwide now for $250. More on Whiskey This story was originally published by Men's Journal on Oct 19, 2026, where it first appeared in the Drink section. Add Men's Journal as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

When John Ream got into brewing beer at home nearly two decades ago, starting out was as easy as opening the kit his wife bought for him as a gift. But the Ohio engineer’s plans ran dry when he tried to switch to making whiskey. That’s because a 160-year-old federal law bars Americans from making distilled spirits at home. Ream could have faced jail time if he followed through and was caught, and risk losing his home. Instead of pouring himself a stiff drink, he sued. “Brewing is a nice blend of science and art, and being able to combine different flavors together,” Ream told CNN in an interview, adding that he did not intend to sell his creations. “I would like to take the same skills that I’ve learned and try my hand at distilling.” The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide if the federal government may bar people from distilling liquor at home in an appeal filed by the Trump administration after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prohibition, “while venerable,” violated the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. The justices technically held Ream’s separate appeal, which followed a decision from the 6th Circuit that upheld the federal ban. But Ream’s case – and his ability to distill at home – is sure to be influenced by the outcome of the Justice Department appeal. The Supreme Court will likely decide the DOJ case next year, and then send Ream’s appeal back to lower courts for additional review. The government’s appeal dealt with a Texas group called Hobby Distillers Association and individual members that wanted to distill spirits at home. One of them received a letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, part of the Treasury Department, threatening a $500,000 fine. Ream’s lawyers, who are also challenging the law in the DOJ case, say the outcome of the case could have broad implications beyond making booze. The ban was enacted in 1868 ostensibly to limit rampant tax evasion by commercial distillers. But under that theory, Ream argues, the government could ban any number of activities at home – baking, sewing, remote work – simply by taxing it and citing evasion as a justification. The government collected $6 billion in revenue from the tax in 2024. A trade group representing distilled spirit industry said that it “appreciates the enthusiasm” of home distillers, but warned of the risks of making liquor at home. “The distillation process can be quite dangerous, including risk of explosion, burns, fires, and more,” said Courtney Armour, chief legal officer at the Distilled Spirits Council. “Furthermore, if not produced properly, the finished product can cause blindness or death. In a home distilling setting, these dangers would not just be limited to the individuals engaging in the production but also their neighbors in the surrounding area.” Helped cover Civil War costs Federal law bans the making of distilled spirits in any “dwelling house,” shed or yard. The Justice Department said the provision was intended to head off evasion of federal excise taxes that were levied on distilled spirits for much of the nation’s history and were revived in the mid-19th century to help pay for the cost of fighting the Civil War. There’s no dispute that Congress has the power to levy the tax. The Justice Department argues that lawmakers’ authority to ban home distilleries flows from the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress broad leeway to pass laws required to carry out its enumerated powers. “Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections — thereby evading the requisite tax — if the still is located in a dwelling-house or connected structure,” the Trump administration told the justices in court papers. But Ream and a group of would-be distillers argue that the biggest problem with tax evasion at the time was not home distillers but commercial distributors who found it cheaper to bribe revenue agents than pay the federal tax. They say that the prohibition on homemade whiskey was really a sop to the temperance movement in exchange for lowering the tax. “There’s not much in the record that supports their theory that the home distilling prohibition had anything to do with tax evasion,” said Robert Alt, president of The Buckeye Institute, which is representing Ream and the others challenging the ban at the Supreme Court. “This prohibition seemed to be probably a political logroll,” he said, so that lawmakers could avoid looking soft on liquor as they made other changes to the way the excise tax worked. Ream also raised a broader challenge to the ban, questioning the government’s effort to justify it under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Holding off on Ream’s case suggests the justices weren’t yet ready to address that separate argument. While the Justice Department notes the government’s long history of taxing liquor, several conservative groups pointed out that there is also a healthy history of the founding fathers distilling whiskey, brandy and other spirits at home. People visiting Mount Vernon in Virginia can tour George Washington’s distillery and even purchase bottles produced at the site. As president, Washington moved to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. By the time he died a few years later, his estate operated one of the largest distilleries in the nation. It is a point that several of the conservative justices, who have sharpened the court’s focus on the founding era, could note during arguments. When the court heard arguments earlier this year in a challenge to a federal law that permitted police to disarm regular drug users, Justice Neil Gorsuch led a soliloquy about the founders’ drinking habits. “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day,” Gorsuch told the attorney representing the Trump administration in March. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?” Penalties for violating the home distillery ban are severe. They include criminal fines and up to five years in prison. A violator’s home would also be subject to forfeiture. Two federal appeals courts reached different outcomes after reviewing the home distillery ban. The Louisiana-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that, “while venerable,” the prohibition violated the necessary and proper clause. But the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion, and it brushed off the idea that its decision would logically allow the government to ban other types of activities at home. That’s because, the appeals court said, alcohol is essentially in a class by itself. “Indeed, rules concerning alcohol more generally are unique as to the evasion that often accompanies them,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “From excise taxes, to Prohibition, to the use of fake IDs to obtain alcohol (itself almost a rite of passage for some generations), to moonshiners even today.” This story has been updated with additional information.

These Democrats remind voters that war in Iran isn’t just about gas prices Three Democrats from different parts of Virginia campaigned together Monday and invoked the war in Iran as a major election issue that goes beyond its effect on the price of gas. The unpopular war, which has roiled oil markets, has been a drag on Republicans in the midterms. But in one of the most military-dependent states, the consequences go beyond the pocketbook. “This war … is sending our sailors overseas under an administration that’s lying about the number of casualties,” former representative Elaine Luria said at a rally in eastern Henrico County, outside Richmond. Luria is challenging Rep. Jen Kiggans, a fellow Navy veteran, in Virginia’s 2nd District, which is anchored in Virginia Beach and touches several important Navy installations. Henrico prosecutor Shannon Taylor, who is challenging Rep. Rob Wittman in the 1st District, also cited her opponent’s support for the war. And former representative Tom Perriello, who is challenging Rep. John McGuire in the 5th District, said he is seeking to retake the seat he lost in 2010 partly “to end this war.” Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg — a military veteran and possible Democratic presidential hopeful for 2028 — was on hand Monday to amplify the message and encourage Virginia Democrats to think big about taking control of the House. The party needs a net gain of four seats for a majority. “The road to that majority runs right through here, and it depends on you,” he told an enthusiastic audience of more than 200 people waving signs for all three candidates.

When John Ream got into brewing beer at home nearly two decades ago, starting out was as easy as opening the kit his wife bought for him as a gift. But the Ohio engineer’s plans ran dry when he tried to switch to making whiskey. That’s because a 160-year-old federal law bars Americans from making distilled spirits at home. Ream could have faced jail time if he followed through and was caught, and risk losing his home. Instead of pouring himself a stiff drink, he sued. “Brewing is a nice blend of science and art, and being able to combine different flavors together,” Ream told CNN in an interview, adding that he did not intend to sell his creations. “I would like to take the same skills that I’ve learned and try my hand at distilling.” The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide if the federal government may bar people from distilling liquor at home in an appeal filed by the Trump administration after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prohibition, “while venerable,” violated the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. The justices technically held Ream’s separate appeal, which followed a decision from the 6th Circuit that upheld the federal ban. But Ream’s case – and his ability to distill at home – is sure to be influenced by the outcome of the Justice Department appeal. The Supreme Court will likely decide the DOJ case next year, and then send Ream’s appeal back to lower courts for additional review. The government’s appeal dealt with a Texas group called Hobby Distillers Association and individual members that wanted to distill spirits at home. One of them received a letter from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, part of the Treasury Department, threatening a $500,000 fine. Ream’s lawyers, who are also challenging the law in the DOJ case, say the outcome of the case could have broad implications beyond making booze. The ban was enacted in 1868 ostensibly to limit rampant tax evasion by commercial distillers. But under that theory, Ream argues, the government could ban any number of activities at home – baking, sewing, remote work – simply by taxing it and citing evasion as a justification. The government collected $6 billion in revenue from the tax in 2024. A trade group representing distilled spirit industry said that it “appreciates the enthusiasm” of home distillers, but warned of the risks of making liquor at home. “The distillation process can be quite dangerous, including risk of explosion, burns, fires, and more,” said Courtney Armour, chief legal officer at the Distilled Spirits Council. “Furthermore, if not produced properly, the finished product can cause blindness or death. In a home distilling setting, these dangers would not just be limited to the individuals engaging in the production but also their neighbors in the surrounding area.” Helped cover Civil War costs Federal law bans the making of distilled spirits in any “dwelling house,” shed or yard. The Justice Department said the provision was intended to head off evasion of federal excise taxes that were levied on distilled spirits for much of the nation’s history and were revived in the mid-19th century to help pay for the cost of fighting the Civil War. There’s no dispute that Congress has the power to levy the tax. The Justice Department argues that lawmakers’ authority to ban home distilleries flows from the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress broad leeway to pass laws required to carry out its enumerated powers. “Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections — thereby evading the requisite tax — if the still is located in a dwelling-house or connected structure,” the Trump administration told the justices in court papers. But Ream and a group of would-be distillers argue that the biggest problem with tax evasion at the time was not home distillers but commercial distributors who found it cheaper to bribe revenue agents than pay the federal tax. They say that the prohibition on homemade whiskey was really a sop to the temperance movement in exchange for lowering the tax. “There’s not much in the record that supports their theory that the home distilling prohibition had anything to do with tax evasion,” said Robert Alt, president of The Buckeye Institute, which is representing Ream and the others challenging the ban at the Supreme Court. “This prohibition seemed to be probably a political logroll,” he said, so that lawmakers could avoid looking soft on liquor as they made other changes to the way the excise tax worked. Ream also raised a broader challenge to the ban, questioning the government’s effort to justify it under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Holding off on Ream’s case suggests the justices weren’t yet ready to address that separate argument. While the Justice Department notes the government’s long history of taxing liquor, several conservative groups pointed out that there is also a healthy history of the founding fathers distilling whiskey, brandy and other spirits at home. People visiting Mount Vernon in Virginia can tour George Washington’s distillery and even purchase bottles produced at the site. As president, Washington moved to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. By the time he died a few years later, his estate operated one of the largest distilleries in the nation. It is a point that several of the conservative justices, who have sharpened the court’s focus on the founding era, could note during arguments. When the court heard arguments earlier this year in a challenge to a federal law that permitted police to disarm regular drug users, Justice Neil Gorsuch led a soliloquy about the founders’ drinking habits. “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day,” Gorsuch told the attorney representing the Trump administration in March. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?” Penalties for violating the home distillery ban are severe. They include criminal fines and up to five years in prison. A violator’s home would also be subject to forfeiture. Two federal appeals courts reached different outcomes after reviewing the home distillery ban. The Louisiana-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that, “while venerable,” the prohibition violated the necessary and proper clause. But the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion, and it brushed off the idea that its decision would logically allow the government to ban other types of activities at home. That’s because, the appeals court said, alcohol is essentially in a class by itself. “Indeed, rules concerning alcohol more generally are unique as to the evasion that often accompanies them,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “From excise taxes, to Prohibition, to the use of fake IDs to obtain alcohol (itself almost a rite of passage for some generations), to moonshiners even today.” This story has been updated with additional information.

Indian tax authorities are investigating whether liquor makers Pernod Ricard and Diageo wrongly classified bulk Scotch whisky imports to claim lower tariffs under the India-UK trade agreement, Reuters reported, citing five industry sources familiar with the matter. The investigation centres on whether the companies were eligible for the reduced import duty introduced under the pact, which came into effect on July 15. India agreed to cut tariffs on certain Scotch imports to 75 per cent from 150 per cent. However, tax inspectors have argued that the duty reduction does not apply to bulk Scotch concentrates, four people familiar with the matter told Reuters. “The tax department is concerned that bulk imports are being wrongly classified,” one of the sources said. Last week, tax inspectors visited Pernod Ricard's India headquarters near New Delhi and questioned company executives about its Scotch imports, three sources told Reuters. During the visit on Thursday, officials reviewed documents related to bulk imports, although they have not contacted the company again since, one source said. Diageo's Indian unit, United Spirits, disclosed in a stock exchange filing last week that its offices at multiple locations had been searched on Friday as part of an “industry-wide exercise” by authorities. The company did not specify the subject of the searches. Two sources told Reuters that Diageo was also under investigation over the classification of some Scotch imports. Companies say they are cooperating with authorities Pernod Ricard told Reuters that it was cooperating with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and providing all the information requested by officials. The company said it was committed to addressing any questions raised by the authorities. Diageo also said it was cooperating with Indian authorities and had always complied with local laws. In its stock exchange disclosure, United Spirits said it had provided all documents and clarifications sought. The investigation comes amid longstanding disputes between foreign companies and Indian tax authorities over import classifications and tariff payments. Such disputes have involved companies including Samsung, LG and Volkswagen, with officials often raising substantial back-tax demands years after goods were imported. India-UK trade pact cuts Scotch import tariffs Pernod Ricard, a French company, and Britain's Diageo dominate India's $65 billion alcohol market, according to Reuters. Both import bulk Scotch concentrates, which are mixed with other ingredients to produce brands such as Royal Stag, Blenders Pride and McDowell's. The India-UK trade agreement reduced import tariffs on certain Scotch products by half, from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, from July 15. The tariff is scheduled to fall further to 40 per cent over the next 10 years. The lower duties have already led to price cuts for some imported Scotch whiskies in several states. Diageo and Pernod Ricard reduced prices by around 10-15 per cent for selected products in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Goa and Uttar Pradesh. Brands affected included Diageo's Johnnie Walker Black Label and J&B, while Pernod Ricard sought approval for lower prices for Chivas, Ballantine's and The Glenlivet. The British government said in July that “iconic UK products”, including whisky and gin, would benefit from India's tariff reductions. UK whisky exports to India were worth more than £200 million in 2022, according to the British government. Crisil Ratings said this year that the UK accounts for nearly 75 per cent of India's imported spirits market, primarily driven by Scotch whisky. Pernod faces other regulatory challenges Pernod Ricard is also facing antitrust cases in India, its largest market by volume, as well as a $314 million back-tax demand over allegations that it undervalued certain imports. The company denies wrongdoing. Diageo, meanwhile, agreed in August to reformulate some of its popular drinks after India's food safety regulator banned them in some states over the addition of flavours that allegedly breached regulations. The latest investigation focuses on whether the companies' declarations for bulk Scotch imports qualified for the lower duties under the India-UK trade agreement.

The challenges facing barley farmers and Scotch distillers Global demand for Scotch appears to be holding up reasonably well, but there is clearly no shortage of supply. With bulging warehouses, distillers have cut production, causing real grief to the farmers and maltsters who supply them. Ron Emler investigates … This year’s British summer, the hottest on record, left a scorched trail down the East Coast barley belt that feeds the whisky industry. After two months without significant rain, East Anglia’s fields began to resemble the Sahara. Conditions eased moving north, with Scotland experiencing its sixth warmest summer on record, yet yields were down, particularly of spring barley, which provides around four-fifths of malting-quality grain. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) reported yields were 17 per cent below the five-year mean. Anthony Hopkins, AHDB director, cereals and oilseeds, said: “This is the second, or in some cases third, successive challenging harvest. At a time of high input costs, arable farmers in the worst-affected areas are really feeling the financial pressure.” According to Farmers Weekly, the historic price gap between malting and feed barley has shrunk to just £5 -15 per tonne. In certain areas, malting barley prices have periodically dropped below feed barley, which makes growing it unviable for many farmers given the stricter quality specs demanded. Those low returns have driven farmers to reduce plantings. According to AHDB for this year’s harvest 930,000 hectares were under barley, 12 per cent less than in 2025 and marking a 16-year low. In Scotland, the area fell by 13 per cent to 258,000 ha. the lowest since 1960. Last year Scottish farmers harvested a bumper crop of more than 2m tonnes, though there were many rejections due to high levels of nitrogen or poor screening levels that failed to meet the stringent specs imposed on malted barley by the distillers. Right now, those supplying this key raw ingredient are really feeling the pinch. “We are in a major downturn,” says Colin Johnston, Sales and Marketing Director of Crisp Malt. “Whisky production is substantially down and there is a drop of about 300,000 tons in demand for malt.” This has put strain on maltsters, with one in Pencaitland, East Lothian, closing earlier this year and others sitting on investment plans until the market for Scotch whisky begins to rise again. As the production slowdown accelerated into 2025 and 2026, the maltsters found themselves over-contracted. By buying more grain than was needed, they ended up with excess stocks. Ironically, this year’s short harvest has come as a relief. “There is a ‘weather” market, but there is also a ‘geopolitical’ market,” says Johnston. While the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz has had no effect on cereal supplies in Europe, malting grain prices rose in August and September because the war between Russia and Ukraine effectively closed shipping through the Black Sea. Financial pressure There are some glimmers of hope that the distillers might soon begin to gently increase output as global demand for Scotch whisky picks up. Data from the UK’s Food and Drink Federation showed a 5.8 per cent increase in volume in UK whisky exports in the first six months of 2026, while value rose by 2.2 per cent to £2.5bn. Nevertheless, distillers still feel they need to drain the surplus from their warehouses before demand for malting barley can return to more normal levels. “The industry is sitting on a lot of stock and it’s going to take quite some time to work through that”, says Colin Johnston. “The market will be suppressed for a while. When that changes is crystal-ball stuff. Nobody really knows.” This all begs the question of whether UK barley farmers will continue to plant the crop or if the land devoted to it will continue to shrink. The perceived wisdom is that growers South of the Border have more options as the warming climate favours less traditional crops and there is wider access to environmental schemes. Scottish growers may have fewer options than to accept the on-going low prices. One scenario supposes that demand for Scotch whisky improves rapidly, not least because of the UK-India trade pact, which could reverse the equation and push up barley prices at just the time farmers are turning their backs on the crop, “We have to find a way to keep barley farming attractive for them,” says Johnston, noting that the loss of EU subsidies was a heavy blow, and that European grain is less expensive to produce because of lower energy costs. “The drive now from distillers is for the agricultural sector to try to decarbonise and try to become more efficient in the use of fertilisers – which are fossil fuel-based,” he says. “So, there’re lots of initiatives around regenerative agriculture, using cover cropping as alternative green fertilisers, monitoring nitrogen use efficiency, plus using technology to ensure that fertilisers are only being applied where the crop requires it.” Where they can, maltsters are working with farmers to encourage sustainable techniques which are appropriate to their specific land and region. Sustainable farming That is part of a pattern of research and change around the globe. Canadian farmers are backing experimentation into more prolific and resilient barley varieties such as Churchill while the giant US brewer and distiller Constellation Brands is investing an additional $100m over the next five years to support farmers in Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The aim is to strengthen its supply chain and back initiatives to improve the resilience and long-term sustainability of their farming operations. Facing low returns, will UK barley farmers be willing to absorb the costs of changing growing patterns and new varieties to meet the increasing demands from distillers eager to burnish their environmental credentials? “The cost of this transition has to be shared across the supply chain and can’t reasonably be expected to land squarely on the farmers shoulders”, says Colin Johnston. Ron Emler is a financial journalist who has observed the drinks industry for 50 years. Following a career on The Times and the Sunday Telegraph, he is consultant City Editor at The Drinks Business. This content has been produced for Whisky Business in collaboration with WhiskyInvestDirect, the Scotch whisky trading platform for distillers, independent bottlers, and private investors.

The River Spey in northeastern Scotland is one of the world’s most pristine bodies of water. Stretching across 107 miles, it teems with salmon and trout, supporting communities built on tourism along its shores. Earlier this year, a toxic chemical spill into a critical spawning tributary killed thousands of fish and other wildlife, blighting fishing in the area for decades. The culprit: Caustic soda from a Johnnie Walker whisky distillery owned by Diageo Plc just meters from the Knockando Burn tributary. The scale of wildlife killed was the worst in decades, said early responders to the late-April incident. “It’s a complete wipe out,” Edward Mountain, a former member of the Scottish Parliament who’s on the Spey Fishery Board, said in an interview. “To get all that back it’s not going to take one year or two years. It’s going to take probably tens of years.” The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is investigating Diageo and how such a vast amount of caustic soda — a powerful chemical used to clean out copper stills and pipes at distilleries — ended up in the river, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing an ongoing probe. “We are working closely with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency following this deeply regrettable incident,” a spokesperson for Diageo told Bloomberg in an emailed statement. “We are sincerely sorry for the damage caused to the local environment and the impact on river users and the wider community.” The distiller has updated its controls, is engaging with SEPA in the investigation and is discussing a long-term plan to support regeneration and restoration in the area, the spokesperson added. SEPA declined to comment on the specifics of its investigation, saying that it is continuing “to assess the environmental impacts of the incident and work with relevant parties to ensure any appropriate action is taken to protect and restore the water environment.” Industrial development in the Speyside region, driven by the world’s highest concentration of malt whisky distilleries, has for years presented an ecological challenge for the area. The latest incident deals a severe blow to recent conservation efforts and may send environmentalists back to the drawing board. In 2019, a bridge was installed to allow fish to swim up the river and spawn, bypassing a dam built by another company’s distillery that had blocked their path. Sadly for those efforts, the latest spill happened further up in the river and killed wildlife downstream. Diageo’s Cardhu distillery in Knockando is more than a century old and is one of four main producers in Scotland for Johnnie Walker whisky — the company’s flagship whisky brand and the world’s best-selling Scotch by volume. For the world’s biggest spirits company, the investigation comes at a fraught time. The global alcohol industry has been hit hard as health concerns and cost-of-living pressures are putting consumers off drinking in critical markets like the US and Europe, forcing companies to cut costs and production. Diageo has already eliminated about 2,000 roles worldwide, or 6% of its workforce. Cardhu is among the sites at risk of job cuts, according to union GMB Scotland. April’s incident at Cardhu occurred when a valve was inadvertently left open, allowing the cleaning agent to flow directly into the water, the people said. The extensive damage to wildlife across Knockando burn means that this was no small leak, they said, adding that the small size of the waterway increased the concentration of caustic soda and made it particularly deadly. The spill is estimated to have killed as many as 3,000 creatures across more than a mile, including salmon, trout, eels, invertebrates and frogs, said people involved in the response. If Diageo is held responsible, the regulator could fine it up to £40,000 ($53,000), and even refer the case for possible criminal charges. If prosecuted, it could face a much higher fine and imprisonment for individuals found responsible under Scottish environmental laws. SEPA declined to comment on potential actions, saying appropriate measures will be taken once the investigation is complete. The Spey is home to freshwater pearl mussels, Atlantic salmon and sea lampreys, all of which are legally protected. It’s also a fishing paradise. Angling along the River Spey is so renowned that it even has its own technique, dubbed “Spey casting” — a fly-fishing method that eliminates the use of a back-cast in places where trees and other obstacles restrict space behind an angler. Following the spill, it could take more than 20 years for the fish stock to return to baseline levels because the entire food chain has been hit, including some invertebrates, fisheries experts said. Even before the latest incident, the Atlantic salmon population in Scotland had been “in crisis,” with the number of wild fish falling 70% from about one million in the 1970s, a spokesperson for the Atlantic Salmon Trust said. Salmon “require simple ingredients to thrive — cold, clean water in our rivers, and protection from threats around our coast and at sea,” the spokesperson said. “Pollution in rivers is a major threat.” Caustic soda, or sodium hydroxide, is an alkaline substance used in alcohol production to strip stills and pipes of remaining microbes after brewing. It’s extremely corrosive and upon direct contact with the skin can cause irritation or even chemical burns. When handled properly, it’s a common heavy-duty cleaner across industries, and has multiple other uses such as strengthening fabric or de-bittering foods like olives. After its industrial use, caustic soda is supposed to be collected by authorized waste management firms that treat the chemical elsewhere. When it lands in waterways, it can devastate wildlife. Studies show that caustic soda can burns fish gills and skin, while higher concentrations are fatal. The Speyside region is no stranger to environmental disasters. In 2014, an accidental release of caustic soda from a distillery — not owned by Diageo — into the Cromdale Burn killed an estimated 14,000 salmonids, as well as numerous eels, along a stretch of just over a mile, the Spey Fishery Board said at the time. In a separate case, Pernod Ricard SA’s Chivas Brothers agreed to pay £10,000 to environmental groups and £9,600 to cover SEPA’s costs for discharging up to 300 liters of oil into the River Isla at its Glen Keith Distillery in Speyside in 2018. Pernod had no comment on the incident. In 2022, William Grant & Sons — the maker of the Balvenie whisky and Hendrick’s gin — offered £12,000 to the Spey Foundation and £2,500 to SEPA to cover costs of cleaning up fermented liquid that seeped from its Glenfiddich distillery in Dufftown into the river. The leak created a “sewage fungus” stretching nearly a mile that harmed invertebrates, although no fish were recorded as having been killed. William Grant had no comment. A Highland company was fined £32,000 in October for progressively filling a former pond with waste between 2018 and 2024, in what is SEPA’s biggest such publicly disclosed fine. One of the biggest SEPA-investigated criminal fines of £200,000 was levied against waste-management company Doonin Plant in 2012 for illegally dumping hundreds of tons of waste into a former colliery. Doonin has since gone into liquidation. The regulator substantiated 22% pollution reports out of almost 18,000 total incidents between July 2022 and September 2025, and assessed only 118 financial penalties in that period, The Herald reported. Scottish environmental fines pale in comparison to ones in England. In 2021, a record £90 million penalty was leveled against Southern Water for illegally discharging sewage into the rivers and coastal waters of Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. Calls are growing for harsher fines on polluters in Scotland. Even at the top end, fines in Scotland “won’t touch the edge of the glass for some of these companies,” said Mountain. La

Britain’s barley acreage falls 12% after Scotch distillers pare back production Yields came in 17% below the five-year average after drought, leaving farmers squeezed by weak prices and strict standards Monday, October 19, 2026 Barley farmers in Britain and the Scotch whisky industry are being squeezed from both sides after a hot, dry summer cut crop yields while distillers kept production below normal levels to work through large stocks already sitting in warehouses. The pressure is most visible across the barley-growing areas that supply the whisky trade. In eastern England, fields were badly hit after weeks of dry weather during what was described as the hottest British summer on record. Conditions were less severe farther north, but Scotland still recorded its sixth warmest summer on record, and the impact on spring barley was significant. Spring barley accounts for about four-fifths of Britain’s malting-quality barley, the grain used to make malt for whisky. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board said yields this season were 17% below the five-year average. Anthony Hopkins, the board’s cereals and oilseeds director, said many growers were dealing with a second or even third difficult harvest in a row. He said the pressure was especially acute because farmers were also facing high input costs. At the same time, the market that usually rewards growers for producing malting barley has weakened sharply. Farmers Weekly reported that the long-standing price premium for malting barley over feed barley had narrowed to as little as £5 to £15 a ton. In some areas, malting barley has at times sold for less than feed barley, despite the tighter quality standards growers must meet to supply maltsters and distillers. That has undermined the economics of planting the crop. The result has been a drop in barley acreage. AHDB said 930,000 hectares were planted with barley for this year’s harvest, down 12% from 2025 and the lowest area in 16 years. In Scotland, the area planted fell 13% to 258,000 hectares, the smallest area since 1960. That decline came after a very different season last year, when Scottish farmers harvested a crop of more than 2 million metric tons. Even then, quality was a problem in some cases. Grain was rejected because nitrogen levels were too high or screening results failed to meet the strict standards required for malting barley used by distillers. For suppliers further along the chain, the problem is not only crop size or crop quality. It is also a sharp pullback in whisky production. Colin Johnston, sales and marketing director at Crisp Malt, said the sector was in a “major downturn” because whisky output had been reduced substantially. He said demand for malt was down by about 300,000 tons. That fall has put maltsters under strain. A maltings site in Pencaitland, East Lothian, closed earlier this year, and other operators have delayed investment while they wait for a stronger Scotch whisky market. As distillers cut production through 2025 and 2026, maltsters found themselves holding more contracted grain than they needed. Johnston said the short harvest this year had, in that respect, eased some pressure because it limited fresh supply after a period of overbuying. The weak demand from distillers does not mean global interest in Scotch has disappeared. Export data have shown some improvement. Figures from the Food and Drink Federation showed that UK whisky export volumes rose 5.8% in the first half of 2026, while export value increased 2.2% to £2.5 billion. Even so, producers are still dealing with large inventories built up over earlier periods. Until those stocks are reduced, many distillers do not appear ready to increase production enough to restore normal demand for malting barley. Johnston said the industry was still carrying a large amount of stock and that the process of working through it would take time. That leaves farmers facing a difficult decision before future planting seasons: keep growing a crop with weak returns and strict specifications, or move land into other uses. The choices are not the same across Britain. In England, especially farther south, some growers may have more flexibility because warmer conditions are making other crops more viable and because there is broader access to environmental land-use programs. In Scotland, where barley has long been tied closely to the whisky trade, alternatives may be fewer, leaving many growers more exposed to prolonged low prices. There is also uncertainty over how quickly demand could change. One scenario discussed in the industry is that stronger Scotch sales, helped in part by trade developments such as the UK-India agreement, could tighten the market again just as farmers cut back further on planting. If that happens, barley supplies could become harder to secure and prices could rise rapidly. For now, market signals remain mixed. Johnston said grain prices have also been influenced by broader world events. He said tension around the Strait of Hormuz had not directly disrupted European cereal supply, but barley prices rose in August and September as the war between Russia and Ukraine continued to restrict shipping through the Black Sea. That has added another layer of volatility to a market already dealing with weather damage and lower industrial demand. The strain is coming at a time when distillers are asking growers to make farms more sustainable and to cut emissions linked to grain production. That often means reducing fertilizer use, improving nitrogen efficiency, and adopting methods such as cover cropping and other regenerative practices. Those changes can require investment, technical support, and time, especially for farms already operating on thin margins. Johnston said maltsters were working with farmers on approaches suited to local conditions, including more precise fertilizer application and methods aimed at lowering the carbon footprint of barley production. He also said the cost of the shift could not reasonably fall on farmers alone. Similar work is underway in other major barley-producing countries. In Canada, growers are backing trials of more resilient and higher-yielding barley varieties. In the United States, Constellation Brands has announced an additional $100 million over five years to support farmers in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota as part of efforts to strengthen its grain supply chain and improve long-term resilience. That international push reflects a broader concern in the barley and spirits business: climate pressure is rising, production standards are tightening, and the supply chain is being asked to adapt even during a downturn. In Britain, where drought has reduced yields and weak distilling demand has cut margins, the question now is whether enough farmers will keep planting malting barley to support the Scotch industry when production eventually recovers. Johnston said one of the biggest risks was making barley less attractive to farmers at the very moment the industry would need them to stay in the market. He pointed to the loss of European Union subsidies as an additional blow and said producers on the continent often face lower energy costs, making their grain cheaper to produce.