An interesting read… As a friend on the production side of the business recently put it - when does wine go from Pinot Noir to Red Wine Product?
As the marketing guy for a small brand which believes in natural winemaking (SO2, but no additives otherwise), it’s great to see some public discussion on the topic.
“At the same time, other consumers — the vast majority — continue to buy processed foods regardless of mysterious ingredients. They are motivated by costs, convenience and sensory gratification, or maybe they just don’t care.”
This pretty well describes most of the people I work with, and of those, the ones who drink wine are similarly laissez faire in their selections.
The ends justify the means, within reason. To me, the debate is over where to draw the line. I have no problem with the general idea of additives or manipulation. Too little can have just as much of a negative effect as too much.
He seems to be implying the additives are unhealthy but isn’t really specific. I doubt grape juice concentrate or enzymes are a health risk.
Whether they are unhealthy or not, I think one can make a case for disclosure. Personal autonomy alone is enough reason for disclosure. You should have a right to know what you are putting in your body with any product that is sold publicly.
I’m all for disclosure, but that doesn’t male this less of a poorly written article
Everybody’s free to put whatever they want in their own mouths, but for myself, I don’t subscribe to the notion that “if it tastes good I don’t care what’s in it.” As Mike notes, I’d like to know what I’m ingesting, and if we rely on palatability alone we’re just asking food and drink manufacturers to become ever more deft at crafting their products. If I choose not to eat a sheet cake from Costco with a list of ingredients longer than my arm, I’d like the same ability to make a personal choice with wine, or beer, or whatever.
I expect at least some smokers would quit if they saw the list of currently undisclosed, non-tobacco ingredients in their cigarettes. (Not at all equating smoking and drinking wine, just arguing for transparency.)
I didn’t get that impression at all. Instead, I understood him to be arguing for disclosure to facilitate personal choice, regardless of whether additives are healthy or unhealthy:
It’s not apparent whether additives in wine pose public-health risks. Nonetheless, if we want foods that are minimally processed, authentic expressions of what they purport to be (like cheese rather than processed cheese), then we want to be able to distinguish between wines that are relatively unmanipulated and those that are industrial products.
So let’s say I chaptalize my Oregon Pinot Noir…about 1 degree brix…as has been done for eons (Romans used honey, Chaptal was 1801, I believe). Perfectly legal on Oregon Pinot Noir.
Two questions:
Is that unmanipulated or industrial? Part of my problem with Eric’s article is that he chooses a very dichotomous approach to things…so very common in our society today where we are seemingly limited to two political parties, two world views, etc. when the truth is usually more complex and often somewhere in between…
More basic, should I list sugar as an ingredient? I added sugar…but the wine is dry, so it isn’t an ingredient, but it is an additive. Is it going to help consumers for me to have sugar listed on the label or confuse them?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Adam,
Do consumers get confused when they see sugar listed on their tomato sauce label? I hear what you’re saying, but as a consumer I might conclude that the wine might show unripe characteristics because you had to add sugar to underipe grapes. People interested in ingredients will read the list. Most people will not…
Adam,
I don’t consider that your wines are industrial wines, but neither of your two questions really provides a good answer why not to list additives, ingredients, etc. Not wanting to “confuse” the consumer is a straw man, IMO, and is close to saying, “Now, don’t you worry your pretty little head!”
Kyle,
No, I don’t think consumers get confused when they see sugar listed on their tomato sauce label. They realize that there is sugar in the tomato sauce (which there is). But if they followed the same logic, when they see sugar listed on a wine label, they would be misled as there isn’t sugar in it (in my example).
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Frank,
Then how would you want me to list sugar? It isn’t an ingredient.
I realize that you feel like I am setting up a straw man, but I am asking as someone who actually has to make decisions as to what to put on labels. That’s not a straw man. That’s a real life decision.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Adam is exactly correct.
Adding “sugar” as an ingredient to wines that are vinified dry would be a disaster of consumer mis-information. You’d have loads, and loads of people thinking it was a sweet wine, and rightfully getting angry that it was not a wine with loads of residual sugar. The purpose would be only to satisfy a tiny percent of the wine drinking population who could probably find out fairly easily without an ingredient list printed on the label whether or not an additives were used in the winemaking. Many, to most, who would be interested would already know. Adding “sugar” to the crap rieslings that don’t have enough natural sweetness for the market they are going after, and then retain the sugar, is another story, but having true winemakers who chapitalize on occasion (ala Henri Jayer and many other famous wine makers) add sugar to an ingredient list would not serve the public interest.
It would confuse the many for the sake of the very, very few.
Completely self-interested (so if necessary to delete, please do so)…but I wrote my recent blog on Ingredient Labeling in wine: http://adamleesiduri.blogspot.com/2013/06/ingredient-labeling-in-wine.html
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Why wouldn’t it serve the public to know if the wines they were drinking were chap’d, watered back, etc? I drink plenty that are, but I like to know that they are.
Hardy,
I don’t think Ben was saying that it wouldn’t benefit consumers to know if a wine was chap’d…he is saying that listing sugar as an ingredient on a label is an inaccurate and misleading way of doing that.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
It may require explanation. But who want’s to do that?
Adam,
I don’t want to change this useful discussion into a semantic debate, but I don’t understand the sense in which you’re using ‘ingredient.’ Can you explain why sugar added to the mix while making wine is not an ‘ingredient’? What is the distinction you seem to draw between ‘ingredient’ and ‘additive’? TIA
Bob
Almost none would understand. It would confuse far, far more people than it would help.
I would honestly be stunned if 1% of the population of overall wine buyers would be helped by this. It would understandably confuse a massive majority. That 1% would be better served with a website or some other vehicle to gain that information. Even better, just post on this board, because I assure you, no one that doesn’t read this board cares, nor would understand, what it means when a wine was chapitalized or watered back. And those people are most often so well informed that they largely know what’s going in to the wines they purchase anyway.
Even among the vast majority of passionate wine collectors, only a tiny percentage cares if there is chapatilization. They don’t care if Jeremy Seysses or Adam Lee or Henri Jayer used a standard winemaking procedure to make their wine. They trust their palate, and they trust the winemakers. There are other services that inform consumers of the basic winemaking, and if more are needed, fine, but mandating one that will confuse that vast (99+%) majority of the consumer population seems to be a bad idea to me.
Every retail store in the US would have very angry customers returning bottles they thought should be sweet, to satisfy the potential curiosity of probably less than a few hundred people in the entire US, who probably already know the answer of the question the list purports to answer.