This article has been revised based on new relevant information. Shortly after publishing the article we received some feedback that claiming 4% as a legal limit for additives may be theoretically true but this is not what happens in practice. We did some extra investigation into this and a friend of ours was nice enough to share with us his contact from the CRT with whom we were even able to have an interview. The CRT stands for Consejo Regulador del Tequila and they are the regulating body of the industry, meaning that they are responsible for making sure that the regulations set within the NOM-006-SCFI-2012 related to tequila are upheld. The CRT do not set the rules and they are not responsible for publishing the legislation itself. They simply help the industry upkeep it – all their rights and responsibilities are derived from the Norma. This directly means that the interview should not be taken as an official statement from the CRT as they have no responsibility to share their interpretation of the standard.
I was very excited to have a chat with “Bob” from the CRT. Obviously this little chat was anonymous and I really am hoping that they don’t have an employee with the name of “Bob” as if they do it is only a coincidence then (and no his name is not Robert nor Roberto). After the earlier conversation I thought my earlier guide would not be complete without a second opinion, so you can hear someone actually relevant forming an opinion about this extremely controversial topic. I am giving you Bob’s replies without any alteration, but translated into English as the interview was in Spanish. I will use the name Bob as I do not wish to use the word “CRT” as this by no way represents the CRT official views, nor is an official statement. More like two consumers chatting. Myself being the “annoyingly curious” student role this time instead of the educator. I decided to remove some parts of the conversation, but only those that may give clues to his identity – I don’t want him to get into trouble for helping me. A huge thanks to him and to my friend to make this all happen so we can provide more factual information on the topic at hand.
Click on the accordion below to read the interview:
I don’t know if you are aware, but in 1994, when they introduced the limitations to abocantes (mellowing additives) it was clear that the mix of the 4 cannot be more than 1%. But in 1997, they changed the wording to “the use of any ingredients cannot be more than 1%”. Do you know why they changed the phrase? – Adam
* The currently applicable Norma is of 2012 and it cancels the previous normas. – Bob
* It (the current norma) also says that use of any of the abocantes cannot be more than 1%. – Adam
* Yes – Bob
* So theoretically there are 4 abocantes and any of these can be up to 1%, right? – Adam
* Yes, correct there are four of them. You can use one or all of them but the total cannot be more than 1%. – Bob
* I understand, but how come the norma does not say this then? Apologies for saying this, but in 1994 it was clearly as you say, but now it seems that it is 1% for each without the phrase or reference to “all of them”. – Adam
* The Norma says (and he sends me a screenshot of the relevant section) – Bob
* Sure, but like this it refers to “each” with the phrase “any. So if I put in 0.8 percent sugar and 0.9 percent oak extract. None of them are over 1%. – Adam
* Yes correct, this is why the norma does a clarification for “one or all”. The sum cannot be more than 1% – Bob
* Forgive me for saying this, but I don’t see the word “sum” or similar. Only “any”. Yes it did exist in 1994, but they changed it. – Adam
* Maybe they generalized the term and it generated certain confusion. This is in relation with the laboratory analysis, because the addition of a high quantity of extract (dry extract). We can check the norma for the parameter of dry extract. These are solids present in tequila. – Bob
* Sure I get it. For the dry extract it is 0.5% – Adam
* This is why it explains the relation of not more than 1% of additives to avoid this(the aforementioned confusion). – Bob
* So what you say is that we really should take the dry extract value as the limit, 5g/L? – Adam
* In case of joven, reposado, añejo and/or extra añejo it is 5 grams /liter. In function this is the limit of the use of the abocantes(mellowing additives). Let’s suppose an extra añejo where the barrel adds solid particles to tequila, the producer cannot add more additives, because there is a risk of “staying out” of the norma, probably he could add a little color, but only to adjust its standard. – Bob
* Thank you! I would only have one additional question to you. How do you explain that there are blanco products with sweteners added but without presenting this fact on the label? According to the norma. producers need to mention this. – Adam
* This is correct, but are they blancos or are they the famous cristalinos that have sweet notes? – Bob
* Primarily, I refer to the blancos, but now that you mentioned cristalinos are interesting too. (cristalino that really is tequila reposado, añejo or extra añejo) – Adam
* Yes you are right – Bob
* Okay, so we can start with blanco if I don’t bother you with this. It is evident that some brands add at least sweetener and probably some other additives. This even generated a civil project “additive free program”. I am not asking this on their behalf, just saying. – Adam
* In my experience I have never had blanco products with very heavy sweet notes, (only) light but completely from the agave. About cristalinos, yes it is easy to note the abocantes (mellowing additives), but I imagine these are additions within the norma. I have heard about this program but have not read about it. – Bob
* Ah okay. So truly, if they are within the limits of the dry extracts, it is okay to add in additives right? – Adam
* They have to comply with the norma. This is why I told you that any aged product that doesn’t have a standard color they can add caramel color and this is addition of abocante. Because brands safeguard their visual image it is a visual part. – Bob
* Yes I understand. I was referring more to sweeteners and other aromas. – Adam
* If they add other aromas or flavors, they need to declare its addition. Then it will pass as a flavored item. – Bob
* Exactly. But what happens if they don’t declare it? – Adam
* It has to be reported and they need to clarify why there is no declaration of such additives. – Bob
* Okay, so following your thoughts, nor you, nor the CRT officially recognize the existence of sweeteners in blanco, I understand this. It is the responsability of the producer to declare it. – Adam
* The bad use of the normative is their responsibility. – Bob
Practical vs. Legal limit
I wanted to start this part by quoting an amazing thought shared by Jay Tyler Wang, Brand Ambassador of El Tesoro tequila. “What is commonly accepted is hardly the same as legally enforceable”. So we can talk about the legal limitation which is based on the NOM-006-SCFI-2012 norma and we can talk about the practical application of it as it was explained in the interview and by the tequila producers who constantly send samples to the CRT.
Practice limit
Gas Chromatography check by the CRT as per section 6.1.1: 5 g/L (aged) or 0.3 g/L (blanco) dry extract limit
The practical limit is quite simple and it has nothing to do with percentages. Every batch needs to be sent to the CRT for a laboratory analysis called “gas chromatography”. This process is great for analyzing especially spirits since they are already distilled, making most of its content to be highly volatile and measurable. The solid or highly viscous particles that cannot be measured by this process are referred to as “dry extract”. Technically speaking this is where any sort of additive needs to fit in. While producers are required by the norma to publish added flavors and sweeteners – the CRT is not required to do any lab analysis specifically for additives to call out any of them about it. In this case as was explained in the interview, it is entirely the producer’s responsibility to follow the regulations and disclose such information. The 5 g/L limit are shared by the additives and any other solids that may come from the barrel aging for example.
Legal limit
If a sample is outside of the dry extract boundary, special section at 6.1.1.1 may be called upon for aged tequilas – 1% each (4%) or 1% total by volume
The “legal limit” is a reference to another type of limitation to the amount of additives that can be added to tequila. Section 6.1.1.1 is the only section that allows a different limitation set compared to the table at 6.1.1. There is no official check related to this and as such this section needs to be called upon if a tequila would otherwise not pass the gas chromatography test based on the chart as per 6.1.1. At this moment it is unclear how producers can apply this section as this “loophole” was even removed in 2005 and reinstated in 2012. Even the limit is not very clear if the 1% limitation refers to each and every “abocante” or the abocantes in total. While it is possible that a producer may even go to court against the CRT if their interpretations of the norma does not match, it is unlikely they would do so. The use of additives is highly discretional for tequila producers – no brands would would want to associate themselves with the use of additives. As a result we have no “legal precedence” on the “1% rule” to see how it is applied if it is applied at all. This whole section is subject to individual interpretation until we can see any clear evidence of it being used.
The CRT have many responsibilities, but they don’t do more than what they need to be doing as is dictated by the Norma. The Norma is not written by them – they are the sheriffs of it abiding its laws. DGN / SE is responsible primarily for its submission and is heavily influenced by the tequila producers who are trying to keep up with the latest consumer demand. It actually gives us the absurdity that CRT have to interpret the norma after each modification and so they probably have no insight as to why sections change as evidenced by the above interview.
And just to make sure for all to understand, we are only stating that the use of the new wording allow for a maximum 4% abocantes. This doesn’t mean that this rule is currently being applied, simply that it is likely “legally enforceable”. The wording has clearly changed from 1994 – weirdly enough this section has changed a little bit every time a new standard was released and was even removed and reinstated once making it a complex and a somewhat controversial issue to analyze.
All in all, this short interview actually strengthened our additive guide’s statement that by non-declaring additives, producers can get away with additives risk free, as long as they meet certain dry extract parameters. This non-declaration issue seems to apply to all classifications including blanco. So a blanco tequila can have undisclosed additives not because the Norma says so or not clear about it, but because there is no audit whatsoever if it does. Nothing holds tequila producers accountable for not following the disclosure rules about added sweetener and flavors as long as the sample they provide passes a gas chromatography check.
Here you can check out our other articles about additives if you want to learn more:
7 misconceptions you didn’t know about the additives in tequila
Feel free to leave your comment or feedback – let us know what you think!