Guardians of famed Scotch whisky want to ensure Australians are getting what they pay for

London: As Scotland’s most famous export, Scotch whisky is more than just a drink – it’s a symbol of national pride, culture and history. But in a rapidly evolving global market, protecting this centuries-old product has become a full-scale legal battle.

One of the key fronts in this fight is Australia, where a group that has become the guardian of the famed single malt is now calling for stricter regulations to combat counterfeit or misleading products.

Edinburgh-based Alan Park, the director of legal affairs at the Scotch Whisky Association, leads a team dedicated to safeguarding the label from misuse worldwide. His efforts are vast – currently handling more than 60 legal cases, investigating more than 100 suspicious products, and blocking more than 500 trademark applications.

Bill and Lyn Lark opened the country’s first single-malt spirit distillery in 154 years in Tasmania.Credit: Fairfax Media

“Scotch whisky’s global reputation means that many want to capitalise on it by suggesting that their products are Scotch whisky when they are not,” Park says. “We want to ensure that consumers around the world, including in Australia, are getting what they expect from a bottle of Scotch whisky.”

Scotch whisky is already protected in many markets through Geographical Indications (GIs) – legislation that ensures only products produced in Scotland, using traditional methods, can carry the prestigious “Scotch” label. However, in Australia, where distilling has boomed in recent decades, the current legal definition of whisky is outdated, and tighter regulations are needed to prevent confusion.

Australia’s whisky industry has grown exponentially since 1992, when Bill and Lyn Lark opened the country’s first single-malt spirit distillery in 154 years in Tasmania. Today, more than 700 distilleries are in operation, producing a wide variety of whisky products. Australian-made whisky has gained international recognition, with distilleries such as Tasmania’s Sullivans Cove, Melbourne’s Starward, and Sydney’s Archie Rose winning multiple global awards.

Archie Rose’s founder Will Edwards and master distiller Dave Withers at the Sydney distillery. Credit: Fairfax Media

Yet, despite this success, the legal framework surrounding Australian whisky is stuck in the past. The Excise Act of 1901 provides a basic definition of whisky – it must be distilled from cereal grains and matured in wood for at least two years.

These broad terms allow Australian distillers considerable freedom, which has fostered innovation but also created loopholes for those looking to cut corners. The act offers little clarity on the types of grains or wood that can be used. “Matured in wood” does not specify wood type or previous fill, and distillers can label a product “malt whisky” regardless of whether it has been produced from a column or pot still.

Some products sold have been flavoured neutral spirits, such vodka, masquerading as whisky, while others have had images of pipers on their labels to allude to a Scottish heritage. Not all products have met the United Kingdom and European definitions of whisky, which requires, among other things, no added alcohol, flavouring and sweetening and distillation below 94.8 per cent volume to ensure the final spirit retains the characteristics of the raw materials used.

“The current definitions for whisky and other spirits date back to Federation and are no longer fit for purpose,” Australian Distillers Association chief executive Paul McLeay says. As Australian distillers strive for international success, he says, their products must be held to the highest standards for the sake of the industry and consumers.

Starward whisky distillery.Credit: Kristoffer Paulsen

Distillers now want the Australian government to adopt a clearer whisky definition, citing the UK-Australia free-trade agreement as a key impetus. As part of the trade talks, Australia agreed to create a whisky definition that is enforceable by domestic authorities.

However, progress has been slow, with national elections and competing priorities putting the issue on the backburner. In the meantime, McLeay has proposed a strategy that would fund policy and legal resources to establish clearer product definitions, and a compliance framework similar to the one covering Australian wine.

“As the distilling industry has grown and consumers become more savvy and discerning, there is growing recognition that Australia is lagging other markets that have recognised the importance of technical standards for spirits,” he says.

But the unique use of local grains and woods in distilling must be preserved, distillers say, even as clearer standards are introduced. For example, products such as 78 Degrees Native Grain Whiskey, distilled partly from native weeping grass, wouldn’t be possible in markets with stricter definitions.

Lark Distilling chief executive Satya Sharma told a parliamentary inquiry that the industry had a unique opportunity to create standards that both protected innovation and kept bad actors out.

“I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to set our own standards which are uniquely Australian, protecting what, we believe, is important from the perspective of innovation, that allows us to have our own distinct fingerprint as we take that to the world,” he said.

Scotland’s quest to preserve the integrity of Scotch whisky is not just about national pride – it’s an economic battle. Last year, Scotch whisky exports were worth £5.4 billion ($11.5 billion) – the UK’s biggest food and drink export.

Like Australia, the UK has escaped the worst of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, attracting the baseline 10 per cent duty in the massive American market. Makers of the drink in Europe, Canada and Japan face tariffs of up to 24 per cent.

And as global markets expand and new competitors emerge, the Scots are increasingly vigilant about protecting their signature product from imitation.

A proposal to allow English whisky makers to use the term “single malt” – using a method of production that is simpler than Scotland’s traditional, time-consuming processes – has sparked outrage north of the border.

“If English distilleries are allowed to use this term, it could dilute the value of Scotch whisky, which is of huge economic importance to Scotland,” says Park. “The integrity of Scotch whisky is crucial to its reputation, and we will continue to fight to protect that.”

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.