Asimov on ‘Extra’ Ingredients

WINE TALK
41

The FDA estimates sulfite sensitivity at just under 1% of the population; other estimates are lower. People with asthma are most likely to have sulfite sensitivity (5-10% of asthmatics do). The symptoms are difficulty breathing, swelling of the tongue or throat, shortness of breath, flushing, headaches, and hives. Anaphylactic shock is possible, but extremely rare. A headache unaccompanied by any of the other symptoms is not indicative of sulfite sensitivity.

Sulfite labeling of wine started in 1988. Here’s a 1986 explanation, published in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/02/garden/pure-food-the-status-symbol-of-the-decade-labeling-wine-to-warn-of-added-sulfite.html

42

If we’re talking about voluntary labeling of ingredients, then the wineries can choose what to disclose (or not disclose). Really, this is more of a public policy question of what the government should REQUIRE in terms of disclosure, if at all.

If government is going to institute labeling requirements on ingredients, my suggestion is that there first be developed a list of ingredients (or additives, if you like) commonly used in the winemaking process that are known to cause health issues for some people. The primary reason for government-mandated ingredient disclosure ought to be for health reasons.

So let the TTB develop a draft list of proposed ingredients/additives that it would require be disclosed on every label, and then let the industry review the list and comment on it. That process seems much more rational to me than simply requiring every winery to disclose every ingredient/additive simply because one segment of consumers is curious and wants to know…

Bruce

43

Hi Adam

In the absence of concerted medical research on the issue “ascribing symptoms to substances” is all that we consumers can do (how else would consumers/patients find out, for example, about such things as gluten intolerance, where the medical testing is not always definitive?).

As someone not in the industry, I respect what you have to say about the economics of labelling. I do understand how impractical that would be for many winemakers (having read the lengthy appendix in Alice Feiring’s book listing permissible wine additives.) I’m guessing it’s more feasible for wine-makers on the natural side of the spectrum, since the list would be that much shorter and the label easily able to accommodate the list.

Anyway, I do think this whole argument is a sideshow to the changes that some in the wine industry are already making. Those wine-makers who cite the ingredients on the label will garner customers who care about that issue. Alice Fiering’s monthly newsletters spotlight wine-makers who use less additives and she also quantifies the sulfur ppm in the wines she talks about. It’s only in recent years that these resources have become available to wine drinkers.

44

The article is typical lazy Asimov writing. Other “additives” include reverse osmosis? So is that an ingredient that he wants on the label? His peanut butter - are the peanuts stone ground or ground with stainless steel or carbon steel? Does he have any idea at all what might have been done to those peanuts and what kind of peanut they are? Probably not but he’s banging the drum about wine again.

The problem is that he is once again trying to make something black and white by using gray - he wants wines that are “relatively” unmanipulated.

Cool. And exactly what is that?

Philosophically I don’t disagree with much that he seems to feel, but he has a hard time putting it into some logical form.

As far as the semantics behind what is and what isn’t an ingredient though, it’s not all so difficult. You take eggs, flour, sugar, some salt, etc., and you make a cake. Some people use leavening agents like sodium bicarbonate. Those are all ingredients. The fact that they may change form during the baking is pretty much irrelevant.

Whether it does any good to list those things is a different question. I would like to see lists of things that may be added, but the way in which those regs get written means that whatever I happen to see may well end up being of little practical value. Look at the list of ingredients on some packaged cookies or juice and they’ll include something like “natural flavorings” or some such. Good thing they included that.

OTOH, I don’t really think it will confuse customers to see sugar listed somewhere. Corn syrup or sugar is in just about every product that’s canned or jarred or packaged and people don’t seem to mind that, even when it’s in salty and savory snacks and sausages, so I don’t know that it would be all that confusing to see it on a wine bottle.

I do think however, that people will attribute all kinds of things to the various ingredients whether they’re valid attributions or not. Sulfites are a great example - notwithstanding the many studies that demonstarted otherwise, vastly more people claim to have reactions than are statistically likely to have problems. Those same people can eat raisins or dried fruit or salads from salad bars or sausage or who knows what else and they’ll ingest far more sulfites than in a glass of wine but they don’t complain of the symptoms.

So the question is whether it’s worth getting all the nervous nellies in a panic because they’ll be absolutely certain that they really really do have an allergy to the specific water added to some wine.

I say yes.

I remember drinking a bottle of Ridge Zin one time and thinking, “man, this is really crap.” So I looked at the back label and they had thoughtfully explained exactly what they did to make the wine so bad. I was so surprised and amused that I almost forgave them for the cruddy wine and I realized that they had given me an opportunity to pass on any such wine in the future if I saw the same information. Many people probably wouldn’t have cared so the label wasn’t there for most people, but for the people who do care, it was nice to see.

Here’s an article that might be of some interest:

Here’s something regarding histamines.

45

Katrina,

Thanks. I am enjoying the discussion.

Let me say that while I agree that the list of “additives” would be much shorter for “Alice’s wineries.” I am skeptical that the list of ingredients would be. As I mentioned before, uninoculated malolactic ferments are, by some studies, more likely to produce increased biogenic amines (one of which is histamines). Many winemakers cite uninnoculated primary ferments as being more complex because a wide range of minor (non-sacch) yeasts produce more interesting flavors. These flavors are in fact ingredients and things like acetobacter, pedio, zygo, etc. are likely to be higher. The wine may well be more interesting…but ingredient-wise the list is likely to be just as long if not longer, and certainly the quantities are likely to be higher.

Labeling and testing for these ingredients would, I guess, be much more expensive for Alice’s wineries that for larger wineries that control the process from beginning to end.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

46

Gregg,

Interesting point, and one that I contemplated. I think the difference is that with saugages, salty and savory snacks…they pretty much come one way. With wine,there are dry and sweet versions of many of them. Imagine if additions were listed rather than ingredients…you could have Raveneau Chablis listing sugar (since perhaps they chaptalized) but Rombauer Chardonnay not listing it.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

47

Thanks Adam. I am enjoying it too and learning a lot.

You’re again trying to redefine the term “ingredient”, though now in an unusually broad way. First you say that sugar isn’t an ingredient because it gets transformed during the wine-making process. Now you’re saying that any organism that manifests itself in the product should be listed as an ingredient.

If ingredients were redefined that way, the label on a package of chicken would make for interesting reading. As would the labels on cheeses and raw vegetables.

48

Katrina,

I don’t think I am trying to redefine “ingredient” in an unusually broad way. Sulfites, the focus of much of our conversation, are a substances that naturally manifests itself in wine and has to be listed on wine labels, above a certain level. Using that same standard, I’d come up with a huge list of potential ingredients that would need to be listed.

Sugar, as I mentioned, is not a product of fermentation…in fact it goes away as part of fermentation. Even when added it goes away. And, above certain levels, it isn’t in many wines (all wine technically have some level of residual sugar…so perhaps it should be listed on all wines?).

The other examples I have brought up…biogenic amines for instance, are required listing for export in some countries (so it isn’t unusually broad).

My whole point is that, doing less to a wine as far as inputs goes, doesn’t mean that there are less ingredients (some of which might lead to reactions in some people). In fact, due to the plurality of yeasts involved, more ingredients are probably present. That’s not bad…in fact, it is what their proponents argue make the wines more complex…but if listing is required, it may also make labeling of these wines prohibitively expensive, depending on what the list entails.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

49

Curious, Greg…what was it that Ridge did to make the Zinfandel crap??? Serious question.
Tom

50

That standard (all wines have to declare that they contain sulfites ) surely was one heavily lobbied for by the Industrial Wine Industry (I’m guessing – I don’t know the history of the rule) since this phrasing (given that something has to be listed) benefits Big Wine (to the disadvantage of artisanal winemakers and consumers). Its not any kind of standard that I would advocate because it tells me precisely nothing as a wine buyer. Now if a wine bottle details how many ppm of sulfur were added during the wine-making process, then I have information I can use.

It’s not as complicated as you are making it. A transparent wine industry would let us know what has been added to the grape. Anything that came in a box or a packet, or gets delivered by mail or on a truck. No-one is asking for a chemical analysis that details what the grapes have transmogrified into or what they may have ambiently absorbed. I don’t know what a biogenic amine is, but I shall go look it up

51
  1. Headaches, rashes etc are more likely the result of biogenic amines present in wine. Google “biogenic amines in wine” for a large number of articles and studies regarding these. Sulfites are only known to induce asthma attacks, at a certain concentration, in those who are allergic to sulfites. These seem to be mostly asthmatics and it is estimated that 4% of them are allergic to sulfites. Which is why the statement appears, by law, on everything that contains sulfites.

The reason why it is usually not as well noticed on food products such as dried fruit, it is because those are regulated by the FDA which allows the statement “sulfites added as a preservative” to be buried in the ingredients list. Whereas in wine the regulator is the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau, an arm of the Department of Treasury. TTB, as it is referred to, requires that the mention “Contains Sulfites” stand out by itself, and therefore it is much more noticeable.

  1. Switzerland was considering requiring that wines are analyzed for biogenic amines because of their ill effects. That seems to be a more important issue than listing ingredients.

  2. As to the list of ingredients, as has been shown in this thread, it is rather complicated.

-There are many ingredients in wine that were not in the juice, such as lactic acid, ethanol, methanol, glycerol, glycol, esthers. Some of these are in trace amounts. These were not added but they are important ingredients

  • There may be ingredients that were in the juice and are still in the wine such as salts of tartaric acid, tartaric acid itself, unfermentable sugars, and WATER!
  • There are ingredients that can be added that may not be found in the wine, such as bentonyte, a fining agent used to remove protein to make the wine heat stable. Bentonyte is not soluble and precipitates easily.
  • The point was made about added sugar which no longer there if the wine is dry.

Which ingredients should be listed? Which ingredients if present would make the wine manipulated or industrial? Who should decide which ingredients to list and which ingredients to omit? Will there be enough room on a label to explain all this? In the end once there is an agreed upon format, the printing of the ingredients should be a non issue.

52

I thought The Center for Science in the Public Interest was the main force behind the sulfite labeling? Their real goal is the banning of alcohol and tobacco and this was just tactical towards that…

53

Katrina,

And now I’ve lost you. You are more concerned with what has been added to the wine rather than what the wine contains. If the main interest in informing the public, letting the public know what wines they want to drink, letting the public know what allergens they might be exposed to, or any of those things…isn’t the real important thing what is in the wine, not what was added nor how it got there (my grapes get to me on a truck, btw)?

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

54

Roberto, I believe you are right…I do know that wineries were not thrilled with the law as it required changes to their labels and that cost them money.

Charles, thanks. I enjoyed the post.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

55

Main force? Not sure. A force? Absolutely.

From the article linked in post #41:

Wine is never totally free of sulfur. Trace amounts are produced in wine fermentation. Even the dedicated opponents of adding sulfur to wine, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, agree that most people will not be harmed. But the center says that if anyone is in danger of illness or death from drinking wine, there should be a label warning.

56

Now that we’ve drifted off to what are or are not ingredients, what sulfites do or do not do-- The big part of EA’s article was –

“Concerns about where food comes from and how it’s grown, processed or raised ought to be extended to wine.”

That goes beyond a list of ingredients or whether or not sulfites cause bouts of jazz dancing in lab cats…

57

But your logic is “post hoc ergo procter hoc.” There could be any number of things causing any number of symptoms. Randomly guessing is a poor way to figure out what is causing what. And further, the power of suggestion is indeed, not a misnomer. It is quite powerful; and it seems more so in some people.

58

Hardy

I think those were extended to wine a long time ago as evidenced by the proliferation of vineyard designated wines and, quite frankly, by the rise in boards like this and winemaker participation by folks like you.

Adam Lee

59

If the wine has brett it should be mentioned at the back, correct?

60

Added or naturally occurring?