The editorial published in the Jamaica Observer on October 5, 2025 concerning the Jamaica Rum geographical indication (GI) appears to have been written without full appreciation of the facts and the history behind the ruling. Respectfully, the commentary was quick to judgment and, regrettably, misinforms about both the process and purpose of the Jamaica Rum GI.

The Jamaica Rum GI was not hastily conceived. It was the product of over eight years of extensive collaboration among all major stakeholders, including the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office (JIPO) and Spirits Pool Association Limited, which included representatives of National Rums of Jamaica (NRJ), who together crafted a code of practice that meets international standards.

Similarly, this process was informed by best practices from global GI exemplars, such as Cognac, Scotch Whisky, and Tequila, all of which safeguard authenticity, ensure traceability, and protect national heritage products from misuse and imitation through their GI designation.

The resulting GI is not simply a marketing tool; it is a legal and intellectual property instrument designed to defend Jamaica rum from centuries of exploitation and misrepresentation. It codifies what makes Jamaican rum distinctive: its terroir and traditional production methods, to include the process of ageing in the tropical climate of Jamaica. It is both a shield against imitation and a platform for international competitiveness.

The suggestion that the GI “outlaws” or restricts NRJ’s business operations is misleading. The GI does not prohibit the export or sale of rum produced by any local distillery. What it does seek to do is to put strict criteria, as is standard under international GI law, around key aspects of the production process, including ageing, which, in turn, informs how Jamaica rum products are labelled and marketed.

This distinction preserves the integrity of our national brand. Producers who choose to age their rums overseas have always and continue to remain free to market their products under designations such as “Dark rum distilled in Jamaica and aged in the United Kingdom”, for example. Such a label truthfully represents the product’s origin and maturation process, consistent with global best practices for geographical indications.

The editorial also uses the term “suddenly outlaw”. This is also misleading in two major ways. Every iteration of the Jamaica Rum GI code of practice provides for a reasonable transition period for relevant parties to come into compliance with the code of practice. This transition would require activities such as a change in labelling, which would ensure that products are appropriately and accurately labelled.

Across the Caribbean rum-producing nations are increasingly recognising the importance of protecting their unique heritage through geographical indications. Guyana’s Demerara Rum GI has already been successfully registered, ensuring that only rums distilled and aged within Guyana, using its distinct molasses and traditional wooden stills, may bear the “Demerara” name. Barbados, likewise, is advancing its own rum GI application, aiming to safeguard the authenticity of its centuries-old production methods and ageing traditions. These efforts reflect a broader regional movement to preserve the integrity, quality, and economic value of Caribbean rums, aligning them with globally respected appellations such as Cognac and Scotch Whisky.

The GI’s parameters, such as the use of natural limestone-filtered Jamaican water and the prohibition on post-distillation sugar additions, reflect established scientific standards and centuries of artisanal practice. These provisions ensure consistency, authenticity, and quality. Altering them would not “modernise” Jamaican rum; it would erode the very foundations that have earned it global respect.

The argument that the GI disadvantages Jamaica commercially ignores the reality that tropical ageing accelerates maturation, giving Jamaican rum its intense flavour profile, even as it sacrifices higher volumes to evaporation, known as the “angel’s share”. This climatic factor is part of the rum’s identity and is precisely what distinguishes Jamaica rum from products aged in cooler climates.

Allowing foreign-aged rum to bear the “Jamaica” designation would be equivalent to permitting coffee grown elsewhere to be sold as “Blue Mountain Coffee”, a clear misrepresentation that undermines both economic value and consumer trust. Protecting the integrity of our name is, therefore, essential, not optional.

The GI is also critical for value-added development, ensuring that the economic benefits of production, jobs, investment, tourism, and branding, remain within Jamaica. The sugar industry offers a cautionary lesson: By failing to move up the value chain it lost global competitiveness. The rum industry must not repeat that mistake.

The Jamaica Rum GI represents discipline, scientific rigour, and national pride. It is a declaration that Jamaica will no longer allow its heritage spirit to be diluted or misrepresented. It stands as a strong and credible framework for the continued success of an industry that has contributed immeasurably to our culture, economy, and international reputation.

We should, therefore, applaud, not undermine, the institutional strength and foresight demonstrated by JIPO and the Jamaica Spirits Pool Association in trying to craft a GI that positions Jamaica rum alongside the world’s most respected spirit categories.

Clement “Jimmy” Lawrence is chairman of Spirits Pool Association.