Gluten and Spirits

So, this post is inspired by overhearing a pretty high-up-the-chain employee of a local liquor distribution company misspeaking to a bar manager while I was eating out.  Gluten is a complicated thing, only fairly recently becoming a common concern.  So, here's my take (with the disclaimer that I am not a nutritionist, or a scientist, and that this is mostly a synthesis of information I've gained from other sources?).

Are undistilled alcoholic beverages "gluten free?"
Prior to distillation, any barley or wheat based alcoholic beverage is not gluten free.  Gluten is not a living thing, but a chemical compound found in certain starchy grains.  Yeast does not break down these compounds, which means that they will remain in a fermented beverage.  Ciders and wines should be fine, although, as I'll get into more in the section on distilled spirits, it's more complicated than that if you are truly a celiac, and cannot tolerate any gluten.  If the cider or wine is produced, fermented, and packaged in a facility in which no beer is made, it should be good, though.

What about distilled spirits?
This is where the liquor distributor employee made the opposite point than he was trying to.  His argument was that, as somebody who was trying to avoid gluten, he did not drink wheat or barley based spirits because, if people can have a reaction from cross-contamination in a fryer, "if 400 degree fryer oil won't kill gluten, I doubt distillation will either."

So, a couple of points, and then on to how he actually proved the opposite point.

Gluten is not a living thing.  It is a chemical compound.  So it is not something that is dangerous living, but not dangerous dead.  The question is not if you can "kill it" by cooking it.  It is whether you can either break down (very difficult, which is why many people choose to avoid or minimize it in their diets) or remove it.

Heat does not break down or destroy gluten.  So, it would seem this person's argument is right, correct?  Wrong.  A basic understanding of distillation and how it works will make it clear why.

Distillation works by heating a liquid consisting of water (which boils at 212F) and ethyl alcohol (which boils at 173F) to a temperature somewhere in between the two.  This means more alcohol than water evaporates, making the vapors more concentrated in the vapors than in the original liquid.  The vapors are then condensed (cooled down) and brought back into a liquid form in a separate container.  Now, in reality, since Ethyl alcohol is produced by yeast from materials which are not PURELY fermentable sugars, there's a lot of other junk in the solution (the wash) which goes into the still.  The art of distillation is to use time, temperature, shape of the still, etc. to control which of the other junk (flavors, aromas, and nasty stuff) make it into the vapors.  Each of these things will break down into the solution and vaporize at a different temperature.

Now, back to the distributor's point.  Gluten is not broken down completely in a fryer with 400F oil in it.  Meaning that the 180-200F solution is also not going to break down and vaporize gluten.  The important thing to note here is that you are not drinking what is left in the still.  You are drinking the vapors that come off the still and are recondensed.  So gluten is left in the still, not withdrawn into the final spirit.

Essentially, in a basic sense, gluten is removed from the finished product.

If distillation makes a spirit gluten free, why aren't spirits marketed that way?
There is a difference, as in many things, in our overly regulated and overly litigious society, between gluten free and "capital g" Gluten Free.  Most distilleries mash, ferement, distill, mature, blend, and package their products in the same facilities.  What this means is that there is an ever-so-slight chance that the finished, gluten free, product fresh off the still, may come into contact with malted or unmalted grains, undistilled "beer" or "wash," or another source of gluten before it is sealed in the bottle.  More importantly, the barrel it is aged in, the bottles it is packed in, the tubes and lines through which it travels, the hands which are used in various steps of the process, may have come into contact with malt, grain, or beer some time prior to the finished product as well.  Meaning there is a possibility of cross-contamination.  This is probably not enough to affect the average "gluten free" drinker, but could cause a problem for someone with a very serious case of Celiac disease.  This is similar to why many corporate, chain, or hotel restaurants have disclaimers on their walls, or on their menus, about "products may come into contact with nuts, shellfish, soy, or other allergens in the kitchen."  While the chances are slim (and even more slim given that most gluten-free diners are making a choice, or have a relatively mild intolerance to gluten, versus many severe allergies to more common allergens), distilleries do not want the liability of having claimed their product was gluten free, and having a serious issue occur.

So is it safer to stick to fruit-derrived spirits altogether?
This is the interesting part.  In and of itself, no.  If the distillery also produces grain-based spirits, it doesn't really matter what the base of the spirit you're consuming is.  For instance, if a distillery distills a 100% grape vodka, and a 50/50 grape/wheat blended vodka, the chance of the grape-only distillate coming into contact with wheat used for the blend is just as high as the chance of the blend coming into contact with wheat.  The distillates themselves are both, theoretically 100% pure.

So if I am hypersensitive to gluten what should I drink?
Drink fermented or distilled beverages from a fruit origin, produced in a facility which does not produce other spirits or fermented beverages.  This is actually pretty easy for fermented drinks, as I can't, off the top of my head, think of anywhere which produces beer and wine in the same facility.  Actually, scratch that, I do know of some wineries who, in production of their sparkling wines, will borrow equipment from breweries in order to force carbonate their products.  But overall, I think this is a pretty rare practice.
If you are drinking distilled spirits, and you're that worried about a tiny, tiny chance of a tiny, tiny bit of cross-contaminaton, make sure you're drinking a product from a fruit-only distillery.  Brandies are probably safe.  As are some vodka and gin producers in wine-producing regions, who use ONLY wine or winemaking byproducts in their base spirits.

Again, though for the average gluten-free drinker, anything distilled is probably fine.

CSS Exam

So I took my CSS exam yesterday.  For those who don't know, that's the Certified Specialist of Spirits exam from the Society of Wine Educators.  I'm fairly certain that I passed, although it will likely be 2-4 weeks until it's official.

My advice to anyone else thinking of taking it is don't stress out.  The exam was actually much easier than I had expected.  Get a copy of the study guide, and get some good online flash cards.  Even a couple reads through the study guide and a couple of passes through your flash cards should be good enough.

The test itself is 100% multiple choice questions.  Meaning that if you're studying flashcards, that say, for instance: what are the production requirements for bourbon?  You will be overpreparing, because the question will be: which of the following is not a requirement for producing bourbon?

Interestingly, the phrasing on some of the questions is a little tricky, meaning you need to be sure to read each question correctly.  But the content questions were actually not all that hard.  While I'm sure the questions very from test to test, here are some general tips based on the questions I got:

-The questions on spirit production tend to cover aspects which apply to all or multiple spirit categories.  Very few (if any) questions on maturations.  No questions on individual still types.
-Historical data based primarily on the names, not the dates.  If a specific brand or distillery is mentioned in association with a historical development in the study guide, the two instances I recall on the test both asked for the name of the brand or distillery, NOT the date.
-In fact, any time a particular distillery or brand is mentioned (aside from proprietary liquors, or in a list of some sort), pay extra special attention.  I think there were three specific distilleries singled out in the study guide, and all three appeared on my exam.
-Know the geographic requirements for spirit families (or lack thereof), as well as any specific, protected AOCs.  There were AT LEAST 5 or 6 questions on this, which, when you think about it, is actually quite a bit.
-I had heard, before taking the test, that the liqueurs are hard, just because there are SO MANY liqueurs out there.  Maybe the test has changed sine that information came floating my way, but, based on my exam, I would say all you need to MEMORIZE is the broad definitions of liqueurs.   Individual proprietary and generic liqueurs didn't come up in the sense of knowing the details of flavor source, history, origin, etc. of the specific liqueur.  Instead, it tested your knowledge of whether something was proprietary or generic.  If you understand the difference between the two, and have a little bit of reasoning ability, you should do fine on this, even if you are not familiar with each of the individual liqueurs.

Overall, definitely a test worth taking (or at least studying for-I learned a lot), and not as difficult as I thought.  That being said, I'm sure different questions appear each time the exam is given.  Plus, I could be totally wrong about this since I don't actually know if I passed yet.

Tasting Notes: Retsina Olympias

Before I begin this, let me give the disclaimer that this is my first taste of Retsina, so other than a vague, book-gained idea, I really have no clue what Retsina is "supposed" to taste like, and no point of comparison.  So while all tasting notes and reviews are objective, and really just my opinion, this one really is pulled straight from my posterior.  That said, here goes:

Appearance: Pours a bright yellow, completely translucent, and a little more yellow, less green or white, than any other wine I'm used to.

Aroma:  Pine, lemon, a little bit of honey.  The pine is not so much like a gin or Christmas tree pine, but more the smell of fresh cut pine wood, or of pine sap, a little more earthy than Christmasy.

Mouthfeel: Very light bodied, rolls right off the tongue and through the mouth.

Flavors: Very much like the smells, but with less lemon.  Definitely get the woody version of pine, and a little bit of sappy flavors.  I still get honey, but it's hard to describe, since it is not sweet at all.  The same flavors, and kind of tingling sensation, but light bodied and not sweet.  Flavors have a pretty clean finish, although there's some slight lingering pine and woodsy notes to it.

Overall:  Unique, new, and different would be the three words I could come up with.  Not really sure a) whether I like it, b) if I could learn to like it, or c) if it would go better with food than on its own.  I'm guessing the answers to b) and c) are yes.  Probably, like most wines, and most new food and drink experiences, it's an acquired taste.  And the dry but honey-like flavor, along with the woodiness, make me think that with a good Greek dish, this wine's flavors would really pop.  As of yet, I'm still undecided.