Correspondent Katy Alivraz looks into the proposed changes to the mezcal norm, including cristalino mezcal and other oddities
In Oaxaca, on the fourth Friday of Lent, there is a tradition known as aguas de samaritana. Children go out into the streets with a clay jug, asking for flavored water at each stall and having it poured into the same jug, mixing prickly pear with chilacayota squash, lime, pineapple, hibiscus, watermelon, horchata, and whatever else they collect.
When asked about the draft revision to the mezcal standard, Graciela Ángeles, head of Real Minero, comments “Now they want to make aguas de samaritana.”
Mezcalistas set out to understand the reasoning behind the draft, and the objections to it. We spoke with lawyers, COMERCAM, and mezcaleros to ask: What makes mezcal mezcal? And could the proposed changes put that at risk?
Recognizing cristalino mezcal?
A cristalino is an aged spirit that has (usually) been filtered through charcoal to remove the amber color and astringent tannins that result from barrel aging. Since the release of a cristalino tequila by José Cuervo in 2008, followed by Don Julio in 2011, cristalino has become “a thing.” According to Clayton J. Szczech’s A Field Guide to Tequila, cristalino emerged as a response to a stockpile of añejo tequila—a marketing strategy to get people excited about, and buying, a decolorized spirit.
Unlike tequila, mezcal is not typically aged in wooden barrels, making cristalino mezcal a particular oddity. Unsurprisingly, examples can be found in José Cuervo’s portfolio. What does raise eyebrows is that, although Mexico’s tequila standard does not yet define cristalino, the mezcal anteproyecto proposes explicitly recognizing a cristalino product.
In our interview with lawyer Sergio Rangel, we discussed the marketing side of the proposed cristalino process. Rangel, a mezcal lover, was awarded the honorary title of “Distinguished Visitor” by the Oaxaca de Juárez City Council in 2025 for his work supporting the Mezcal Denomination of Origin and protecting Oaxaca’s mezcal industry from an unreasonable extension of the Denomination of Origin to other states. “There must be marketers who say, If the mezcal says cristalino, there will be a segment of the market that buys the drink simply because it says cristalino,” he said.
Although the logic of supply and demand may be older than the oldest mezcal, many producers criticize the proposed change.
The German Technical Cooperation (GIZ), an agency that helps promote sustainable international development, has been consulting on the draft in coordination with Mexican partners and stakeholders. In a written statement, GIZ reported that one of the most frequent complaints in the working groups held in Oaxaca and Puebla was the inclusion of the cristalino process in the NOM.
Higher limits for chemical compounds in mezcal
The draft proposes raising the maximum levels of higher alcohols from 500 to 1,000 mg/100 mL, methanol from 300 to 500 mg/100 mL, and furfural from 5 to 10 mg/100 mL. All three are measured per 100 milliliters of absolute alcohol.
Furfural is an organic compound formed through the dehydration of sugars during heating. You can think of it as a byproduct of the browning reactions that take place during cooking. It contributes to the caramel, agave-honey, and roasted notes associated with mezcal’s flavor profile.
The original NOM-070 did not set a maximum level for furfural. The version published in 2017 introduced a maximum of 5 mg/100 mL of absolute alcohol to align with Mexico’s sanitary requirements for alcoholic beverages.
Although furfural can be toxic at high doses, producers argue that the current limit is unreasonable for mezcals made from certain wild agaves. For example, because Tepextate typically has lower sugar content and requires longer cooking times, it is more likely to exceed the 5 mg ceiling. Artisanal and ancestral mezcaleros face particular challenges under the current limit, as cooking piñas in pit ovens involves prolonged heating, unlike the highly standardized processes used in industrial autoclaves. Raising the limit from 5 to 10 mg could give these producers more room to work within their traditional methods.
Methanol is another chemical compound addressed in the draft. Like ethanol, it is an alcohol, but it is more toxic. In mezcal, methanol occurs naturally as pectins in agave plant tissue break down during processing.
Methanol levels vary for several reasons: the agave species used, the plant’s maturity, its geographical origin, harvesting practices, jimado (the trimming of the agave’s leaves), cooking temperature, milling, the shape of the still and the handling of the distilled fractions.
Although a limit on methanol content is reasonable, the current maximum established by Mexican health standards isn’t compatible with mezcal-making traditions–nor does it hold up to scientific scrutiny.
In 2020, researchers from the Colegio de Michoacán published a scientific paper analyzing the toxicology of distilled spirits with the goal of promoting discussion and the eventual revision of methanol limits for mezcal. They analyzed the methanol content of 16 mezcals made from different agaves and found that six exceeded the 300 mg limit. The authors argued that exceeding the regulatory ceiling did not, on its own, establish a health risk to consumers. The paper compares Mexico’s low ceiling with higher limits permitted for certain spirits in the United States and Europe and concludes that increasing methanol limits does not impede health requirements
The low methanol ceiling is a constant challenge to producers. After the first revision of the NOM-070 in 2017, Del Maguey released a statement explaining that, to comply with the current furfural and methanol limits, some of its mezcals would need to be diluted with water or made using special yeast strains and nutrients during fermentation. In the name of preserving “traditional production practices,” the company opted to instead increase the bottling strength of some expressions by cutting more of the tails, the later fractions of the distillation, where methanol and furfural are concentrated.
Abelino Cohetero Villegas, president of the board of directors for the mezcal regulatory agency COMERCAM, argues that the current methanol limit is too low, especially for traditional production processes. “If we went back 500 years and decided to put some rules around this drink and call it mezcal, we would analyze it, and I assure you that 500 years ago it didn’t have less than 300 [mg/100 mL of absolute alcohol] of methanol.”
But even with these arguments, raising the limits may remain contentious. Cohetero Villegas doubts that the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risks, COFEPRIS, will support the proposal.
“So, on this point where everyone in the sector agrees, I don’t think the government will agree,” he concludes.
Blending mezcals from different states
To understand the objections to blending mezcal from different states (within the Denomination of Origin) is to understand the individual imprint that each region leaves on the finished product.
The region influences the taste of mezcal long before distillation. A great diversity of agave species is spread across much of Mexico’s territory, and the people of each region have developed different agricultural and production practices, specific ancestral knowledge. The act of selecting, planting, and caring for young agaves, draws on biocultural knowledge tightly interwoven with the place where it developed. Wild yeast populations differ by region and also contribute to different flavour profiles.
Ana Laura, a sixth-generation maestra mezcalera from San Baltazar Guelavila in Oaxaca, whose mezcales have won several Medals at the Concours Mondial de Bruxelles (CMB) competitions, explains the regional factors she believes influence a mezcal’s flavor.
“It varies a lot depending on the soil. The climate, the plants growing around it, the pollinators—all of that influences its flavors.” She also points to water: “Water also has a considerable influence during distillation. In our case, we use well water. The water in our village is more mineral, and those notes can be distinguished in the mezcal.”
Her family experimented by taking part of a batch to the Sierra of Oaxaca for its second distillation. “It was the same agave, the same production, but the second distillation took place in different locations, and the flavor changed considerably,” she says. She attributes the difference to temperature: “It’s colder there. Our village is warmer.”
The anteproyecto proposes explicitly allowing the blending of mezcals from different states within the DO. On the label, this blend of origins would need to be identified by listing the origins of the mezcals in descending order by volume.
For Rangel, blending mezcals without explicitly stating the volumes poses risks. He offers a hypothetical: “I could have 100 hectoliters of mezcal—or agave distillate, let’s call it that—from Aguascalientes, take it to Oaxaca and add, for example, one hectoliter of mezcal made in Oaxaca.” He could then describe it as containing mezcals from Oaxaca, “which is true, but most of the distillate being used does not come from Oaxaca.”
Rangel also worries about the effect on prices. “Then prices will fall, and people will have more difficulty selling their product,” he predicts. In his view, diluting mezcals from different regions might also dilute the integrity of their origins—and, with it, their market value.
Who profits from the new blending rule?
“There is a risk of asymmetry,” GIZ answers when we ask whether companies with greater purchasing, bottling, distribution, and marketing capacity could benefit more from the flexibility around blending than small palenques.
And there is a considerable asymmetry among the market’s stakeholders. Especially since the mezcal boom drew big companies like Pernod Ricard, Diageo, Campari, and Bacardi into the sector, small family palenques might feel like David fighting Goliath in their quest to preserve their cultural heritage.
In our conversation with Pilar Montero, professor of commercial law at the University of Alicante and a specialist in geographical indications, she pointed out that standards change—and that we need to acknowledge that. “There have been denominations of origin that change their methods of production. Not everyone is always happy; not everyone always agrees,” she says. But there is a boundary: “If that harms the link with the territory, that is a limit to the modifications.”
Abelino Cohetero Villegas also believes that modifications to the standard must reflect new realities. He points to machinery now used in artisanal production, such as the desgarradora, a mechanical shredder for milling cooked agave. He explains that artisanal production now uses equipment that was previously unavailable or unfamiliar to producers. Its inclusion in the 2017 standard, he says, recognized a practice some producers had already adopted.
Still, the question lingers: how much can we stretch the definition of what is mezcal?
The danger in each revision of the NOM is not simply the revision itself, but who gets to shape it. Lawyer Sergio Rangel questions the participation of people whose expertise does not come from making mezcal. “The problem is that these people express a view, and that then ends up in the regulations,” he says. His position is clear: “Who should establish what mezcal is and what its parameters are? Those who produce mezcal.”
With such unequal economic power among market players, the question is whether the mezcalero’s voice carries enough weight at the negotiating table.
The draft remains under revision. Over the course of the year, several working groups have met to discuss the 27-page document. Once their comments have been evaluated and the draft revised, a public-comment period will allow further adjustments, Rangel said at the time of the interview.
He contrasts the current process with earlier negotiations over the standard, when repeated trips to Mexico City made participation costly and exhausting for producers from Oaxaca.
“I think there is now a better, much more organized group, and that doors are being opened to small producers and others so they can express their views, and so that the Ministry of Economy—specifically the Directorate General of Standards—can understand what is being sought,” Rangel says.
For now, we wait—and drink mezcal.
Leave a Comment