The environmental argument: corks vs. screwcaps

WINE TALK
41

Hi Tim,

I am very excited to hear about the product you are developing and looking forward to the day when it comes on the market. But, I did want to see if you could clarify a few of your points in the above quote. First, which studies are you referring to that “have shown that a large fraction of corks can let in the 5ppm (oxygen ingress) we worry about in under a year.” What is your “large fraction” and what corks in question are you referring to, given that there are several grades of natural corks, as well as techincal corks and synthetic corks. Can you be a bit more specific about your data and sources please? Broad brush strokes in a field as precise as this are a disservice to everyone.

To my knowledge, the definitive scientific study on this was conducted at the University of Bordeaux and published in 2006 by Dr. Paulo Lopes et. al. and is considered the gold standard of clinical research to date on oxygen ingress of various closures, as it did not have to rely on the MOCON technology (that only accurately measures oxygen permeability of DRY CORKS- which is obviously irrelevant to any discussion of the material as a wine closure, since last I checked wine was still a liquid). I am sure you are familiar with Dr. Lopes’ study. In that study he looked at a variety of different closures- SC, natural cork of two top grades, technical corks such as “Twin Top” and “Neutrocork” and synthetic corks. Nowhere in his study is your findings of 5 PPM of oxygen ingress for natural corks to be found- though of course he was using the top two grades of natural cork in his clinical trials. Over the course of the 36 month trial for closures tested in horizontal position, the two grades showed oxygen ingress of 1.7 PPM for the top grade and 2.3 PPM for the second grade of natural cork- over 36 months mind you, not the 12 months you cited above (from which studies?), so I am curious what data you are relying on for this assertion.

Additionally, as I am sure you are quite familiar, given the product that you are developing for SCs, the study reports that the oxygen ingress of natural corks occurs in a completely non-linear fashion, with anywhere from 28-53% of total ingress over the 36 month period taking place in the first month after insertion (with much of this swing in percentages attributed by the authors of the study to the lower density- hence higher retained oxygen- of the cork membrane of the lower grade corks), and that subsequently the rate of oxygen ingress for natural corks is quite modest and consistent over the remaining range of the 36 month study. To my mind it is not an accurate representation of the research to characterize this oxygen ingress trait of natural corks as being "the MOST variable in the first few months of life, during what is called the “recovery phase”- as the research does not indicate variability (by which I am assuming you’re implying unreliability), but rather a strictly non-linear oxygen ingress curve.

If you wanted to state that natural corks allow the most oxygen ingress during the first month after they are inserted, this seems to me to be supported by this clinical trial, but again, the University of Bordeaux research does not anywhere approach your number of 5 PPM over the first twelve months. Are you sure that the studies you are relying on did not include synthetic corks in this data group- as this higher oxygen ingress figure would seem quite possible based on the data collected on these closures during the Lopes trials. Additionally, every other type of closure tested, including SCs, also allowed the most oxygen ingress during this first month after sealing, so again, this seems to be as much a function of the actual mechanics of the sealing of the bottles as it is the kinetics of oxygen ingress and natural corks. Again, a little precision about which studies you are referring to and what data you are relying on here would be most beneficial to my understanding your position.

Secondly, you state that “wines that improve with 20 years of age… are pretty tough to drink upon release. And they are more tolerant of the early oxygen.” On what data or experience do you base this comment? If you are referring to red wines with a high tannin content, then I can understand your assertion that they are more tolerant of early oxygen, as tannins are of course, a primary anti-oxidant in red wines. But many age-worthy wines that are crafted to last and improve well beyond 20 years are not dependent on tannic structure at all, and in fact many are not even red wines. There are a great many of the world’s longest-lived wines that age on their acidity, not their tannins, and therefore are indeed not “more tolerant of early oxygen.” German Rieslings or Loire Valley Chenin Blanc-based wines are both extremely long-lived (50+ years is no great stretch for many of thes wines- in the case of a great Vouvray estate like Domaine Huet, 100 years is the more likely aging capacity), and pinot noir-based wines with long track records for aging often do so based on their acid structures as well, rather than their tannins. None of these wines would I characterize as tolerant of early oxygen exposure. Again, I would be very curious to look at your data on this point, as it has not been my experience with these long-lived wines, and I have had a little history with some of these types of wines at quite advanced ages.

Finally, you close by stating that “the point is that corks fail both ways, and every wine consumer, regardless of price point, deserves better than a 5% defect rate.” Rather a broad brush stroke again. What cork failures are you citing here- the 5 PPM oxygen ingress states above over the first 12 months (cited in which study?) that is not supported by the definitive clinical trial at the University of Bordeaux and cited above. The inferred unreliability of corks because they allow oxygen ingress through a non-linear mechanism? I simply have no idea from what you have written what are the “both ways” that cork fails in your criteria, as I simply cannot make sense of this statement. And of course, it would be nice to see what data you are relying on for your broad brush stroke that consumers “deserve better than a 5% defect rate”- presumably from failing corks. Which studies are you citing here?

Now closure science, reduction issues and oxygen ingress variability are your business and I am sure that you are far more up to speed on the current technical research in this field than me, for I am a wine journalist and my business is evaluating wines and attempting to understand their historical and cultural values. In fact, I really hate to take time out of my schedule to plow through these scientific papers, as I would much rather be working on my historical piece on the important Barolo producer of Francesco Rinaldi and getting ready to taste the estate’s 1967 and 1958 Baroli. And, of course, I do not know how much wine you taste and I do not know what your personal experience is with older wines (20-50 years of age for instance), but that is my business and I worry from your comments above that you are speaking about this genre without sufficient experience to understand what is really at stake with closures that fail over the long-term.

Now no one in their right mind would try and argue that natural cork’s track record ten or fifteen years ago was exemplary, and I recently had a totally TCA-ruined bottle of 1899 Lafite, so I am very painfully aware of the problems presented by TCA contamination in corks in the past. But, on the other hand, the magical ability for many wines to age long and gracefully is only a relatively recent historical event that depended on the arrival of both adequate bottle technology and natural corks as a stopper to make long-term aging of certain wines a reality, and one has to make sure that any wholesale change in this aspect of the world of wine is based on sound science and real need. For what hangs in the balance is not the $15 bottle of white wine pulled out of your grocer’s cooler and poured at the table an hour later, but the ability of great wines to continue to age long and gracefully under their closures. So the relevant point here is what closure will both protect a wine’s long-term ability to evolve positively in the bottle and which closure will have a lower failure rate in doing so.

As Paul White so eloquently pointed out, the cork performance of ten years ago is not the cork performance of today (particularly from the industry leaders), and one needs to address this reality, rather than pretending it does not exist, if one is going to try and make a viable case for an alternative and be taken seriously. You do need to somehow understand what the real issues are here and address them with solid science and sufficient evidence to support your claims- not just spout out cocktail party shibboleths as if they were considered statements based on a sound understanding of the revelant scientific data on the topic. From your statements above, I do not see a whole lot of evidence for your positions and would welcome looking at your data. The product that you are in the midst of developing, if successfully implemented, could be a tremendous boon to wine drinkers currently stuck with SC technology as we know it today- which all relevant, accepted, contemporary studies admit has a higher failure rate than today’s corks. That your liners may alleviate one of the major problems of SC and lower the failure rate is a very worthy endeavor and you deserve all of the well wishes that can be mustered that you quickly master the technology and are able to market the liners. But please do not go down the same path with your firm as has been heavily trodden by others in the SC business, by reciting old, discredited data from methodologically and conceptually flawed studies, or even worse, make broad statements that are not even based on this shoddy science of yesteryear. Your product deserves better, and so do the wine drinkers out there- even if they are completely disinterested in the issue because they will most likely not be around thirty years from now to see if the closure technology worked or if their palates are not sufficiently developed to spot a flawed wine when they cross paths with one.

I look forward to reviewing your data.

John

42

Some excellent questions, and again we delve further into the minutiae of this infinitely complex issue.

let me try to address them pragmatically:

Can you be a bit more specific about your data and sources please? Broad brush strokes in a field as precise as this are a disservice to everyone.

I dont think I agree about the disservice to everyone aspect. Some people really don’t want to know all the gory details, and to a certain extent, this field is anything but precise. So I try to avoid over-generalizing while at the same time trying NOT to have to write huge amounts to cover every variable. As you can see from my posts so far in this thread, I am already failing at the latter… But I will be happy to discuss several sources.

To my knowledge, the definitive scientific study on this was conducted at the University of Bordeaux and published in 2006 by Dr. Paulo Lopes et. al. and is considered the gold standard of clinical research to date on oxygen ingress of various closures, as it did not have to rely on the MOCON technology (that only accurately measures oxygen permeability of DRY CORKS- which is obviously irrelevant to any discussion of the material as a wine closure, since last I checked wine was still a liquid). I am sure you are familiar with Dr. Lopes’ study. In that study he looked at a variety of different closures- SC, natural cork of two top grades, technical corks such as “Twin Top” and “Neutrocork” and synthetic corks. Nowhere in his study is your findings of 5 PPM of oxygen ingress for natural corks to be found- though of course he was using the top two grades of natural cork in his clinical trials. Over the course of the 36 month trial for closures tested in horizontal position, the two grades showed oxygen ingress of 1.7 PPM for the top grade and 2.3 PPM for the second grade of natural cork- over 36 months mind you, not the 12 months you cited above (from which studies?), so I am curious what data you are relying on for this assertion.

I am well aware of the work of Dr. Lopes. I think his research is informative, despite being funded by the Portuguese cork industry (APCOR) grouphug

I think his data is well-done and important, but I wouldn’t call it the gold-standard. Yes, the worst cork results are those obtained by MOCON with a dry cork, but I think that it goes too far to call that data “discredited” Certainly a very large majority of wines are sold through stores where they stand neck-up with a dry cork for months at a time.

The mocon data is useful to understanding how the wine behaves during that period of it’s life. It’s not discredited per-say, but it does require being put into context, and I agree that a wet cork study is more informative. If anything, the mocon data shows that NO wine should be stored upright for ANY period of time!

That said, I have seen so many studies on the cork OTR issue - and most disagree with each other by at least a full order of magnitude. But all of them, despite the absolute values of the oxygen measurements show the variance in oxygen is greatest with cork. - even horizontally stored wet cork.

Lets take Dr. Lopes’ work into consideration:
http://www.realcork.org/userfiles/File/Characteristics%20of%20Oxygen%20permeability%20in%20wine%20Closures.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Note that this is coming from a pro-cork website)
Go down to page 6.

It shows the curves associated with each closure. While indeed the corks behave in a moderate fashion, look at the error bars! If you go to the summary data table on page 8 you see again huge ranges stated for the performance of these closures. Look at the range for oxygen even after the large amount of initial oxygen in the first year: The stated range for a horizontally stored natural cork is between .1 and 2.3 micro liters per day. Multiply that range over the life of the fine bottles of wine we are talking about in parts of this thread, - lets say “just” 10 years: That range is between one cork letting in under .5 PPM to that bottle, and another letting in over 11. So from the same batch of cork you can have a prematurely oxidized wine, or a reduced wine.

So you are right, this study, which is one of the better ones does not show 5ppm in the first year (it does for synthetics - that much is certain) But look at the first grade cork by 12 months: that is 2ml of oxygen. Calculate 1.33mg of oxygen per ml in a container of 750ml and you have 3.5PPM of oxygen in that bottle by the end of the first year.

Now, he doesn’t state the standard deviations in that data. But other cork studies have shown the distribution to be pretty flat. He does state the absolute range however - which is very wide, So very few individual closures are likely to perform in that “average” manner - some will get to my 5ppm number that first year, others won’t even get to 1.5

I simply have no idea from what you have written what are the “both ways” that cork fails in your criteria, as I simply cannot make sense of this statement. And of course, it would be nice to see what data you are relying on for your broad brush stroke that consumers “deserve better than a 5% defect rate”- presumably from failing corks. Which studies are you citing here?

“both ways” talks about the data we were just discussing above.

The inference is that if you pick synthetics you get too much oxygen, if you pick screwcaps you get too little. The “corks fail both ways” is in refernce to the fact that with a cork, you can get either of these oxygen-related problems AND you can still get TCA.

Pick your poison - but it’s still poison. That is what I mean by failing both ways.

I think that the best data that is the most impartial can be found in wine competitions. Look at this one:

you can find the whole article that comes from here:
Closures & Capsules: Results from Competitions Indicate Bottles ..." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, these are the % of the wines with faults, and the overall fault rate was 6%.

You have to do the math, and there is no way to tell which faults came from which closures - but it shows that the wines that are noticably corked that were found was 1.7% and that oxidative problems were another 4%. Screwcaps were on only 7% of the bottle in the competition, and lets just suppose that the synthetics were responsible for the lions share of the oxidative problems…

You still get an all-in cork defect rate of almost 5%. That is just one of the independant sources of that kind of data. And keep in mind that the TCA was only levels that the judges could detect as noticably corked. It is well known that TCA negativley affects wine even when present at sub-threshold levels.



Secondly, you state that “wines that improve with 20 years of age… are pretty tough to drink upon release. And they are more tolerant of the early oxygen.” On what data or experience do you base this comment?

This is based on 12+ years as a winemaker. I have worked in the Stag’s Leap District of Napa making huge cabs, I have worked in Russian River of Sonoma making pinot and chard, and I currently consult a small estate making mountaintop merlot / syrah in Bennett Valley Sonoma. I hold both an Enology Degree and a MBA from UC Davis.

My credentials aside, you are indeed right that ageable = undrinkalbe young is not always true. My statement was far too simplistic, and admittedly exxagerated - but so is everything when talking about wine. Certainly however, the reactions that we refer to the most in wine aging is the softening of tannin. I’m sorry if that broad brushstroke was a disservice to anyone. [basic-smile.gif]

I have a 2006 merlot in the cellar, in-barrel right now that is beautiful. It wasn’t beautiful when we were “supposed” to bottle it. But two more years of oxidative storage in barrel has really brought it around. That is really the effect that I am talking about, but you are right, not all of the benefits of aging have to do with the softening of tannin. - Though you have to admit that a lot of us have learned to love under-aged wines, and “undrinkable” doesnt apply to our palates, but others in this thread would find them objectionable and would keep them in the cellar for 10 years… Others like me have just learned to like young wine. But then again, I have to taste wine out of the press-pan and start thinking about how those razor-sharp tannins are going to behave after 2 years in the barrel… I had better learn to like under-ripe tannin!

That your liners may alleviate one of the major problems of SC and lower the failure rate is a very worthy endeavor and you deserve all of the well wishes that can be mustered that you quickly master the technology and are able to market the liners. But please do not go down the same path with your firm as has been heavily trodden by others in the SC business, by reciting old, discredited data from methodologically and conceptually flawed studies, or even worse, make broad statements that are not even based on this shoddy science of yesteryear. Your product deserves better, and so do the wine drinkers out there

I couldn’t agree more! [cheers.gif]

43

Hi Tim,

Your post raised some very interesting points, which had me digging in my files again and checking the recent data, as you so aptly pointed out that this is a complex topic. I wanted to touch upon a couple of points you made. Let’s start with the MOCON tests. As I am sure you are aware, having read Dr. Lopes’ study (which you cite tables from in your last post), in conjunction with their 36 month trial of bottles stored horizontally, the team at the University of Bordeaux ran a concurrent 24 month trial of bottles stored standing up- as they would be in many of the retail environments to which you alluded. Their results showed no statistically significant differences in oxygen transfer rates for the various closures in either storage position- at least over the 24 months of their vertical storage trial. I am sure you have also seen the recently completed AWRI study that carried this out to the 63 month point with the same results- no statistical variation in OTR between vertically and horizontally stored bottles.

Of course the reason for this is that the interior of the wine bottle is at 100% relative humidity- in either storage position- at least out to the 63 month point covered by the AWRI study. This is why the MOCON data, generated by measuring dry corks, is not an accurate barometer for measuring cork’s behavior as a wine closure, as it cannot be done at 100% relative humidity. MOCON studies done at 90% and 80% relative humidity show such wild increases in the OTR of corks as the RH falls as to clearly point out that the relative humidity is the key factor in understanding cork’s performance as a wine closure. So the MOCON data is certainly discredited in terms of trying to describe what is actually going on inside a bottle of wine at 100% relative humidity, which is what I thought we were trying to describe here.

Let’s move on to your point about cork’s wide range of oxygen transfer rates during the first 6 to 12 months in the bottle. Here I was really a bit out of my element and had to check with someone who is trained in the chemistry in question. So I asked Dr. Alan Limmer (PhD in Chemistry and winemaker in New Zealand) to try and explain this issue to me in layman’s terms. As Dr. Limmer pointed out (and which I am sure that you are aware), recent studies show that natural corks absorb between 1 and 2 grams of water during their first 6-12 months in bottle. This water occupies the cork’s membranes that previously supplied the avenues for oxygen ingress during the initial stage after bottling, hence the leveling off of the curves in Dr. Lopes’ studies for OTR of natural corks between 6 and 12 months.

As Dr. Limmer pointed out, the reason for this is that once the corks are saturated with water, the oxygen transfer rates are then governed by a couple of basic chemistry tenets- Henry’s Law which “describes the partitioning of a gas between a gas-liquid interface” and Fick’s Law which “describes rates of diffusion, through various media.” At the point of H2O saturation by the corks, these two laws dictate that the rate of oxygen ingress decreases a thousand-fold- no exceptions. Which is why the data collected in the University of Bordeaux study shows the curves leveling off at the 12 month period for natural corks and to be nearly flat and constant from that point forward for the duration of the study. Based on this non-linear function of corks’ OTR because of these two laws, it is not accurate to extrapolate the data from the first twelve month period out five years into the future, as you have done. Additionally, it is highly likely that there is some oxygen insertion from oxygen stored in the corks membranes during the compression of the corks and their placement in the neck of the bottle at the outset, which further increases the measured OTR of corks during this initial 6-12 month period, so that these initial numbers are probably slightly overstated.

Let’s go on to your table from the Indianapolis Wine Competition, which you discussed in your post- interestingly taken from an article discussing the declining incidence of TCA taint at the competition over the last few years. As you noted, the data does not include any information as to what closure a wine was sealed under that was described as faulty by the judges- six percent of the wines in the competition according to the article. What useful information can be gleaned from this data is beyond me, given that there is no information concerning which closures were used for any of the wines perceived as faulty. In fact, the article states that the organizers this year declined to even open replacement bottles for wines deemed faulty by the judges, given the falling numbers of tainted wines in 2009. So you are citing data based on single bottles with unknown closures to demonstrate your point?

How do you arrive at a 5% cork defect rate using data that does not even keep track of which wines deemed faulty were sealed under cork? Given that no data was collected about which closure was even used for faulty wines, it is just as likely that 0% of the faulty wines were sealed under cork or 100% of the faulty wines were sealed under cork- as the organizers of the tasting did not even keep track of this rather important point. As I am sure you are well aware, TCA contamination can be generated in the cellars, in the wood used for pallets or barrels or other sources in addition to being generated from the corks Without any information about what closure was used for a faulty wine, your data is not particularly serious. On top of that, the website for the Indianapolis Wine Competition states that each judge is served the wines in pre-poured glasses, so there is not even any way to determine if the faults reported in the wines are attributable to closure issues, cellar hygeine or even poorly cleaned glasses. Is this really the data you want to base your argument upon?

Finally when I asked you about your experience, it was in the context of tasting and evaluating older wines. I did not want your CV and did not doubt for a second your professional credentials, I just wanted to get some sense of your depth of experience with older wines. For, as many in this post have opined, SC-generated reduction issues (as they stand today, before your new liners are made available) are really not of great import for wines that are destined to be drunk over the very short-term. But to date, every study I have seen on reduction and SC shows that nearly all wines sealed under this closure eventually develop sulfur-related odors with sufficient bottle age- i.e. reduction- if they are left alone long enough. AWRI has just completed a study on this.

But most data indicates that the first 18-24 months out from bottling is when the incidence of reduction is lowest- so wines that are going to be drunk up immediatly may slide through unscathed. The real issue is with wines that are destined to be cellared longer. Hence my curiosity about your exprerience with older wines, because if you are not drinking them, then of course, you are not going to miss them if the closure ends up killing them off.

I also found it interesting that you inferred that wines tainted by their corks are probably under-reported, with sub-threshold TCA taint harming the wines without their being reported as “corked” by tasters. Should we not also include in our discussion wines whose aromatics and flavors are “scalped” by SC- either through the early stages of sulphide reduction or through the various “preparations” pre-bottling for wines destined to live their short and unhappy lives out under SC- such as copper fining, which indiscriminantly targest sulfur-based molecules in the pre-bottled wine- both those that will be responsible for SLO down the line and the others that are the cornerstones on which a wine’s aromatic and flavor complexity are based? Surely this type of taint is also woefully underreported today, no?

In any event, I wish you all the best with your new liners, which I reiterate will be a very, very welcome addition when they are made available. But please, do not taint the perception of your product in the market by trotting out the same old tired and discredited studies that the partisans of SC have shamelessly spit out ad nauseum whenever they pull their heads out of the sand and try to sidestep the very real, documented problems with SC as it stands today.

Cheers,

John

44

With my bias out there, also understand that it is my partisanship that has caused me to look pretty hard at the environmental claims presented. I’m an environmentalist and I’m sure not going to produce a product that pillages the landscape - so this claim is important to me.

The thread topic has got a bit sidelined, although I believe all the science/chemistry based issues discussed above are totally related to respect for terroir and eco-systems as well. Going back to some of Tim’s first response.

Let’s start with basics. The real test is do you want it in your back garden or not? And the most basic fact is anyone can take a used cork and toss it in their garden and know it will do some good, rather than bad to the environment. It will eventually degrade and go back to mother earth within a year or so. You can’t say that about sc or synthetics or, for that matter, glass. They last a lot longer, decades, centuries even, and in the worst cases they leach out chemicals that are harmful to the environment. Any consumer, anywhere in the world can see that plain simple truth.

Purely in terms of carbon footprint, you can argue with pretty much the same logic. Before you tossed a used cork back into oblivion, you know from its birth it’s been doing mostly good things for the environment. Certainly much more good than bad, compared to synthetics or SC.

Tim, as a “concerned environmentalist not wanting to pillage the environment,” you’ve got a big fundamental truth to knock down. You can nibble at it, you can divert attention from the main issues with sideline arguments and dead-end tangents, but the real truth is this is one issue cork products have every other closure type beaten, hands down.

Add in the regenerative nature of harvesting trees over two centuries every decade or so–without cutting them down (most consumers still believe cork trees are cut down). Add in the carbon sink issue. Add in the biodiversity issue. Add in the active recycling programs. Add it all together, on top of the simple fact you could, were you so inclined :wink:, chew a cork up and swallow it without harming yourself, the argument in favor of cork is very compelling.

Your approach is to knock the eco-friendliness of cork down without providing more compelling environmental arguments in favor of screw caps’ aluminum and plastic based system.

It makes a lot more sense for SC people to admit the truth of the situation. Not only can they not beat cork on environmental grounds, but they can’t even come close.

It seems to me it would be better to simply admit it and focus on other stuff. The cork industry only started gaining credibility when they admitted big problems and pledged to solve them a decade ago. The SC lobby simply blows more of its increasingly smaller pile of credibility by promoting ever more incredulous PR. It’s a sign of desperation. People see through that easily.

So let’s have a look at some of your other points.

best, Paul

coming soon: http://www.winedisclosures.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

45

Fortunately, as I read through the report, I found what I expected: Highly biased assumptions that favor the client who commissioned the report > which if they were more balanced would quite easily favor the screwcap> .

I repeat, your approach is to knock the eco-friendliness of cork down without providing more compelling environmental arguments in favor of screw caps’ aluminum and plastic based delivery system.

In this case, Amorim have been smart in having ‘independent auditors’ write the report. It isn’t the same a ‘peer reviewed’ science, but it is better, more believable than straight ‘unaudited’ PR. And there is a transparency there that allows it to be challenged, which you are doing. At worst, at least its a starting point to feed a debate.

My understanding is that Price-Waterhouse approached SC manufacturers, synthetic/plastic producers and Aluminum companies asking them for their figures on recycling, CO2 footprint, mining and transport energy costs. Those sources either hadn’t done their homework or didn’t want anyone to know what their own figures were, so refused to cooperate. That information had to be gleaned from other sources, govt stats, etc… But a lot of that probably isn’t all that hard to project, aluminum used in a sc that weight in transport and as percentage of mining costs.

The fact is that SC lobby hasn’t countered with any credible studies, and probably won’t because the end result won’t look very good.

Which brings me back to “which if they were more balanced would quite easily favor the screwcap”

Easily? If so, why hasn’t the SC industry countered with its own study, let alone with one that is believable?

Best, Paul
http://www.winedisclosures.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46

The environmental study was comissioned by Amorim and done by price waterhouse coopers. The thing is 126 pages long. You can find it on the cork industry’s own site, so if you want to argue what I am about to say, please feel free to look it up yourself:
corkfacts.com - Diese Website steht zum Verkauf! - Informationen zum Thema Wine.> " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … report.pdf

You can read that study (though I wouldnt suggest it) and you will find a number of significant biases. My brain turned to mush pouring through the thing, but some of the most glaring biases are:

I read this when it first came out and I do not relish going back and scouring it for details to make counter arguments, but will, if need be. I have much better things to do than rehash old arguments.

1)The analysis does NOT include an analysis of the impact of the tamper-evident foil used for covering the cork. The whole point of a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is to provide an apples/apples comparison. Corks and synthetics both require a capsule over the cork as protection against tampering. Screwcaps have their tamper-evidence built-in and do not require a capsule.

My understanding was that the study did include capsules as part of the analysis, but I’ll need to check that fact out. Whether these are foils or plastic would change the footprint that much is debatable. Whether ‘tamper-proof’ foils are necessary is another matter, given that some producers simply leave the top of bottles unadorned. Frankly, at this point I’d rather be able to see whether a wine had a real cork or synthetic in its top so I know how quickly or not I had to drink it. At least with SC I know that.

Calling it ‘tamper proof’ seems a little odd, given that when exposed, its pretty evident if the cork has been pulled out or not. And I don’t really see how you can tamper much with an internally fitting cork anyway?

This does raise a huge issue with SC that hasn’t been widely discussed, tamper-proofing. You can’t easily see if a sc as been opened or not. It is in fact very easy to tamper with a screwcap, snap it open, grab a sip (which some supermarkets have complained about) or drop in something nasty, and then snap it shut. I can think of dozens of instances where I had opened a SC bottle, put it back in fridge, and accidentally left it there for a week because I thought I hadn’t opened it yet.

Several NZ producers have gone to putting paper seals across the serration to ensure it hasn’t been opened.

“This omission alone should swing the analysis pretty far towards the screwcap”

Huh? Capsules vs bauxite mines, transport across oceans or continents, smelting…the quasi-foreverness of aluminum/plastic/synthetics? The above omission alone swings the analysis FAR towards SC? This is the main basis of your argument?

Do you suppose that woman facing the supermarket shelf would be swung?

47

2)The LCA takes credit for the carbon-sink effect of the cork forrest. In essence, they are saying that if we do not put corks into wine bottles then the cork forrest will stop consuming CO2.

What is stunning is that this bias is called out in the peer review of the LCA itself (page 62 for those of you who are reading along)

“It is abusive to consider that the carbon capture of the oak forest could be, even indirectly, attributed to Corticeira Amorim”

No shock that this objection has been ignored and the claim is more fervently repeated by the industry than ever before.

Tim, you seem to have taken this statement out of context. You’ve put in the critical comment, but then you’ve left out the response to that criticism.

“Comment:
It is abusive to consider that the carbon capture of the oak forest could be, even indirectly, attributed to Corticeira Amorim. (Cf section 21)
PwC/Ecobilan’s response:
The sensitivity analysis performed considers that the exploitation of the cork oak forest is largely made possible by the activities of Corticeira Amorim, and therefore part of the positive impact on carbon capture of the oak forest could be indirectly attributed to Corticeira Amorim. In the sensitivity analysis it was only attributed to Corticeira Amorim the impact corresponding to the amounts of cork used for cork stoppers, when compared with the total impact in CO2 retention from the total forest.”

It sounds to me that in the end, the analysis didn’t take full credit for the whole bio-mass of the cork forest, but only the conservative portion that produced cork stoppers. That seems reasonable. But perhaps I’m misreading this?

You wouldn’t charge SC producers with the total CO2 impact of Bauxite mined in the world, but could reasonably charge them with the amount of Bauxite it took to make a screw cap.

Regardless of the argument above, I see a direct correlation between cork producers and their material suppliers. One can’t exist without the other.

Tim, have you visited any of the cork forests of Portugal, Spain, Italy or North Africa? I was on holiday in southern Morocco last year. You drive for hundreds of miles along the sand dunes and desolate scrub of the Sahara (think Death Valley-like landscapes) and the only thing growing between that–and civilization on the other side–are cork trees. Not much else grows there. That is the first time I literally understood those trees were holding back the desert.

If the Barossa and other inland wine regions of Australia had a bank of cork trees standing between them and the Great Outback, they might not be in the mess they are today. Australasians might speak with a little less arrogance and a lot more wisdom.

If you believe in global warming, cork forests appear to be one thing keeping the ‘canary in the mine’ alive. Move up to Southern Europe and those forests are growing on land that isn’t suitable for much else but growing cork. Conveniently these also drop acorns that Patra Negra pigs eat to make some of the tastiest ham in the world. People, in dying villages in the poorest part of Europe, work the trees and tend those pigs. Take the cork business out, with its free acorns, and the ham business isn’t sustainable. Take the pigs out and their manuring stops replenishing the top soil that allows much of any life to survive there. ALL this, I might add is organic agriculture that doesn’t need irrigation, pesticides, fungicides…

Tim, as a “concerned environmentalist not wanting to pillage the environment” wouldn’t you agree that’s probably a pretty good thing?

I’ve never been hugely interested in the endangered Minx angle used to argue for the protection of the cork forests—too cuddly, too airy-fairy. It’s these other issues, desertification of the land (and villages) and efficient regeneration and human ecology that’s much more compelling to me.

And if that wall of cork trees doesn’t hold back Africa’s heat whose to say what impact this might have on the future climates of Douro, Rioja, Piedmonte, Rhone, Burgundy and Alsace? Alarmist, emotive talk? Perhaps, but some of the producers I visited last month in Bordeaux, Southern France, Penedes and Dao are concerned about their future climate. It’s much easier to sit in California or Adelaide and not see any direct link.

There is a compelling case to be made that if corks are no longer harvested from those trees, the forests won’t exist because they aren’t economically viable. And yes, in that case that CO2 sink could be lost.

“It is abusive to consider that the carbon capture of the oak forest could be, even indirectly, attributed to Corticeira Amorim”

I hadn’t caught that point before you lifted it out of context. Nevertheless, this doesn’t deny that the cork forests supply a carbon sink. Literally, it seems to say that because Amorim didn’t plant the trees it can’t claim any connection, which seems pretty naïve to me or anyone who understands the economics and ecology of the cork forest. Nor does this quote deny that if cork suppliers couldn’t buy cork from local cork farms, because the market for wine stoppers had disappeared, that the cork forest wouldn’t be reduced. Cork farmers don’t do it for fun, nor can they afford to continue growing cork if they aren’t paid a sustainable wage for it.

Perhaps the SC industry should start planting cork trees and subsidizing their farming as a way to offset their carbon footprint? Take away cork stoppers and that is the only way those forests would survive.

best, Paul
http://www.winedisclosures.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

48

1)The only way to stop the cork forrest from capturing CO2 is to both cut it down, and ensure that nothing else grows in it’s place.

Who’se hands would be on that chainsaw? Portugese cork farmers, including Amorim.

If you look elsewhere in the cork industry’s own “green” publications they talk about how those forrests are currently protected by law.

So for the environmental danger that is threatened to manifest itself, they would have to first change the law, and then cut down their own trees.

Here is the kicker: What is the crop they might plant instead of cork oaks? Other fast-growing trees for paper pulp production… Yeah, those plants sequester MORE carbon than the slow-growing oak…

I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. I know that in the past (not sure how far back: 20, 30, 40, 50 years?) there was a huge push (I think govt/tax driven) to cut down cork oak and replace them with fast growing Australian eucalyptus trees for pulp paper production. Eucalpytus trees were the best (only?) alternative that could grow in the same poor soils and dry climate. This proved an environmental disaster given its impact on the broader bio-diversity of the region, its species, and their interconnectedness.

Ever walk under a dense Eucalyptus forest? Not much grows under the forests I’ve walked under in Australia? Certainly not much grass for grazing, no acorns. Ever smell eucalyptus in a shiraz? The pollen is strong , pervasive and sticky (perhaps a little toxic?), it gets on grapes, it gets on everything. While the trees look kinda cool with kangaroos bouncing around underneath them, they aren’t really very nice neighbors to have in your forest, IMHO. In southern Portugal they were aliens in an ancient, climatically borderline eco-system. All they brought was lots of bad news.

Eucalyptus trees are notorious for trashing the soil, sucking out nutrients quickly resulting in pretty horrible soil erosion. I’ve seen remnants of this and it’s not pretty. The fact that these are short term plantings with aggressive harvesting tactics only exacerbated that problem. Because they didn’t drop acorns for the pigs, the manuring stopped and those farms turned more toward monoculture. Over time the quick cash crop solution ended up a downward, the new solution wasn’t working as well as before. The government eventually realized it was a horrible mistake and put in measures to discourage cork replacement with eucalyptus.

I’m not totally sure that’s where the law against cutting cork oak stems from directly. It may be an ancient law given that cork oaks take 25 years for their first harvest and another 9-11 for subsequent harvests. In this case the long game is important. The temptation is always there to cut down an oak tree and sell it off as wood or replant with eucalyptus for a quick cash flow advantage.

I don’t see scrawny fast-growing trees like eucalyptus sequestering much CO2, especially if they get turned around into paper or are burned for electricity production.

I have no doubt that were cork forests to become un-viable, that the producers themselves would lobby to change the no-cut law, and move on to something else. My gut feeling is that there isn’t really much else to move on to. What then, abandonment and devolution of an eco-system that seems to be working pretty well now?

Just an aside. Co-incidentally, I visited a northern Portuguese organic/biodynamic producer last week in Dao, Casa de Mouraz. They showed me their newest vineyard and, in passing, mentioned it had been an eucalytus forest before they took over the land. They said it took three years of concentrated effort to restore the soil to a point where they could start planting their vineyard.

All in all, it seems pretty ironic that Australian trees reeked havoc on the cork forests a generation ago, and then Australian riesling producers came back for another go at them this century. On the brighter side, if the Australians hadn’t come after them, corks wouldn’t be as clean as they are today.

49
  1. The study uses the worst-case scenario for considering the environmental impact of aluminum

Firstly, if SC lobby and aluminum industry can’t provide an independently audited source to counter these arguments, how are we to know what is worst-case or not? Show us some trustworthy facts please.

SC lobby have failed miserably in delivering sound science in the past, perhaps this will be an easier tast to accomplish.

a ) The assumption that 100% of the energy required for refining aluminum comes from non-renewables

That certainly isn’t the case, if that assumption has been made. In Oregon, where I come from, smelting is (or was) run off hydroelectric power. France is mostly nuclear so Stelvin SC can probably claim that as some of its power source. On the other hand, if the aluminum industry doesn’t provide accurate, independently audited, information to the contrary, what do you and the SC lobby have to counter offer that is more trustworthy?

b ) The assumption that cap aluminum is not recycled,

I find quite the opposite, my general impression, when I read and hear counter arguments from pro-SC journalists and winemakers on this point, there is a tendency to imply that SC are made from 100% recyclable aluminum and are recycled at 100% rates. I’ve never seen any stats to support this.

In fact the only stats I’ve ever seen on SC recycling were from an Oregonian article, which I can’t lay my hands on right now or else have lost. I recall that confirming 4% recycling rates for SC at Portland Oregon’s recycling center. The reason was that SC fell through the wide bars of the collection grates and ended up in landfills instead. Beer and soda cans made it, but not the little stuff.

I did find a second article from The Oregonian that explains the situation and how to improve the poor rates of SC recycling.

“Foiled again…by a screw cap Posted by Shelby Wood, The Oregonian January 16, 2009 00:02AM
We drink the wine. We rinse the bottle. We chuck it in a bin for glass. That leaves the cork, or else, the screw cap.

It’s metal, right? The roll cart rules would appear to allow it in. But that would be too easy.

Screw caps are small. According to the recycling gurus at Metro regional government, small metal items should be “crimped” inside of larger metal items before they are placed in roll carts. Crimping, not to be confused with crunking (a dance) or cramping (which is often painful), is the act of folding a can with your hands to seal the cap inside.

If the caps are not crimped inside a can, they will most likely be screened out with other too-small items once they reach recycling centers, says Joe Cawley, a general manager at Far West Fibers, which receives and sorts Portland-area curbside recyclables.

In other words, we’re fooling ourselves to think that the screw caps we toss willy-nilly into roll carts will one day live again in new products. Those babies are landfill-bound…”

What this suggests is that it isn’t straightforward. Even in Oregon, which has had house to house recycling since the early 1970s and a strong green-focused political base, there seems to be little actual recycling of SC. I suspect here in NZ where 90% of wines are under SC, that our SC recycling rates will be in single digits at best. There are intentions and then there is reality.

b ) The assumption that cap aluminum is not recycled, and that only 1/3 of the source aluminum comes from recycled sources

“Comment:
It has been considered that the production of aluminium sheet for closures is made with 35 % of secondary aluminium. This must be check (secondary aluminium is more used in thick product (motors) than in thin products (sheet).
PwC/Ecobilan’s response:
We have used data from Association Francaise de l’Aluminium, which refers that 35% of the total aluminium put on the French market comes from recycled aluminium. Once more, worst case scenario for cork stoppers was used (i.e., even if only virgin aluminium is used for the production of aluminium sheet, we are considering the recycled aluminium scenario).
Page 63”

I dunno here. Stelvin is a French company isn’t it? Why not use French recycling stats? The above response seems to indicate the opposite of what you are saying. Unless I’m reading this wrong, the peer review suggests it is more likely that SC would be made from virgin aluminum than the recycled stuff which goes into things like motors. The report took the ‘worst case’ recycled figure that favored the SC cause.

Again, I can only say that SCers and aluminum industry need to come up with an independently audited report to provide some basis of fact to counterpoint this report. There certainly has been ample opportunity to get their act together on this, the Amorim study is 3 years old now.

And of course that presupposes that any SC report won’t have a bias of its own or intentionally hide more accurate data.

I suspect this eco/CO2 debate will go around in circles of some time to come.

But for the guy deciding which wine to buy at Wholefoods it will mostly come back to what closure they wouldn’t worry about tossing out the back door.

50

Holy avalanche of counter-points batman!

I’m not going to respond to the wall-o-rebuttals point by point, certainly I think that a lot of what you bring up is a valid addition to my comments but if anything it shows that all of these issues are highly fractal, and all of them defy being adequately treated in a forums such as this.

Is there anything you have posted that detracts from the core statement that all of the “green” credentials claimed by the cork industry should be viewed with a significant amount of skepticism? I don’t think so. And I dont think that there is anything in what you have written that refutes my opinion that the “green” stance of the cork industry is “convenient” at best, and transparently self-interested at the least.

Yes, the data I have referenced is incomplete, or flawed, and all of your observations are correct. - except for the inference that my statements were intended to be definitive and absolute.

I have tried to find the data that is most impartial, the most objective. People criticize AWRI data as being pro-screwcap, - (which I see as pro-quality because caps are just better - but then again, I will cop to my quality-first bias there) but even if there is a bias there - you cannot say that the data coming from cork-funded studies is objective either…

The gaps in the data you are talking about are very real and something that SC producers need to address. Indeed the issues of recyclability need to be improved as well as the use of renewable energy in aluminum production.

I’m aware of the hydroelectric-powered aluminum refining you mentioned (which is why I questioned the reports validity in that regard.) I hope you can see how easily the results could be VERY different if you merely substitute a different set of assumptions. Actually include the tin capsules used with corks, remove the silly carbon-capture of the forrest thesis, assume some of the aluminum is refined by renewable or nuclear power - you have just yanked any “green” advantage from the cork entirely!

Finally let me perhaps clarify that you perhaps expect more from me than I can provide at this point. Please understand that if I am a member of the “SC industry” - then I am only the lowest bastard stepchild thereof. We are a startup company - and the modest money I have raised to make this real is spent only on solving the problem of screwcap oxygen. Most days I wear shorts and flip-flops in my lab, I hope to be able to add more real data to this argument in due time, but first things first, I need to get a controlled-oxygen liner to market. We are damn close to that. But commissioning my own life-cycle assessment to go toe-to-toe with the one Amorim put out? You are going to have to spot me a few years on that one…

Amazing that a subject such as this - how we seal a wine bottle - something that should be merely an afterthought -provokes so much passion!

51

Here in Austria screwcaps are used more and more for the “easy” wine for everyday and immediate consumtion! This is fine … the work perfectly for these wines …

My fear is that more and more wine-makers are going to use them for the “Vins de garde” - for wines that need several years if not decades aging in bottle.
Already a fine producer in Austria is closing the bottles of his top wine with SC. I´m absolutely not happy. Nobody (really NOBODY) knows how aging works below these closements … the worst that can happen is that the wines afte 10 years taste like 5 year old …

On the other hand the alternative closures like SC should improve the quality of the new corks in the long run … and I think there are some signs that it´s getting better already …

But heavens beware that I someday will receive my Chateauneuf-du-Pape, Hermitage, Richebourg or top-Bordeaux (ok, I´m not buying anymore) with SC … !

52

Dear Gerhard,

I wish the producers would let the market decide. I would like all of my wine in screwcaps. A lot of other crazy Australians would agree. If you are prepared to buy en primeur you should be able to specify closure !

Anthony.

53

I’m not going to respond to the wall-o-rebuttals point by point, certainly I think that a lot of what you bring up is a valid addition to my comments but if anything it shows that all of these issues are highly fractal, and all of them defy being adequately treated in a forums such as this.

I’m afraid I couldn’t disagree with you more here. You raised ‘point by point’ complaints with the ‘independently audited’ Price Waterhouse report (as you’ve impugned their professional reputation, I’m surprised they haven’t commented here yet). I counterpointed your points with analysis and evidence that showed some (most?) of your arguments were misguided, misleading or just plain wrong.

You can’t easily withdraw from a discussion you started by making ’ highly fractal’ statements because it starts going bad for you or by then pretending I am somehow in agreement with what you’ve said or that it is impossible to adequately treat these issues in a forum such as this. Well actually you can withdraw, but it doesn’t look good for your cause.

I would argue these sorts of forums are the only place where these issues have any chance of being aired. Most wine magazines steer away from any depth of discussion on closures for fear of losing advertising revenue or fear of embarrassing their staff writers’ flimsy positions on the subject. I have read most of the scientific literature on closures written over the last decade and, from experience, I know that almost all of this has been buried or is difficult to access. The more this and other forums can steer people toward solid sources of information the better for all.

If you value the readers of this forum enough to jump in and make bold, poorly supported statements, you owe those same readers an extended discussion by either defending or conceding your weaker points.

We all look forward to your future contributions. And I will watch the development of viable, non-polluting, healthy, environmentally friendly, oxygen permeable liners with great interest.

Post-bottling wine maturation, is and always has been, an oxidative process. It’s good that some in the SC movement are looking for solutions to what has been an unsolvable problem for them so far.

best, Paul

54

The discussion wasnt “going bad” for me. But I am smart enough to recognize that you are willing to write far more and to pick apart everything I write for far longer than I do. I don’t think that engaging you any more will either convince you or illuminate anyone reading this.

So I know when to let what I have said stand. I stand by what I have written at the same time that I acknowledge that they cannot cover the entirety of the truth in minute detail. You are going to have to live with that because I really don’t care to split hairs.

So you win… for now…
deadhorse

55

The discussion wasnt “going bad” for me. But I am smart enough to recognize that you are willing to write far more and to pick apart everything I write for far longer than I do. I don’t think that engaging you any more will either convince you or illuminate anyone reading this.

Tim,
Sorry, I shouldn’t have put you on the defensive like that. I think we can probably let the readers decide how things have gone in the discussion so far. That said, I suspect some here wouldn’t mind me picking apart any other points you’ve made that appear accidentally mistaken, counter-factual, or to have misrepresented the truth. So, if you don’t mind too much, I’ll carry on along those lines for the illumination of interested readers here. The important thing is to get the discussion out in the open and give it some airing. Feel free to pipe in later if you want, I’m not going to go away for a while.

And you are wrong, I can be convinced by well argued, well supported, logical discussion.

56

Actually include the tin capsules used with corks,

Tim,

You’ve stated twice that the PwC study does not include the foil. I’m beginning to wonder if we all are reading the same report?

Actually it does include the capsule–mentioned at least 3 times-- if you bothered to read the report as you said you have, you would have seen on page 16 and 20 that it reads: “The bottling process includes the inclusion of a PVC cover, which is included in the cork system.”

Don’t like that one? Well, try then page 13: “Cork and plastic closures are accompanied by PVC cover whose production impact has been taken into account.”

It appears to be included even considering that it is a decision made by the winery, not the cork industry. Considering it’s likely that the majority of the CO2 associated with cork comes from the foil, the report appears to be picking the worst case for cork: checked again and again!

57

The gaps in the data you are talking about are very real and something that SC producers need to address. Indeed the issues of recyclability need to be improved as well as the use of renewable energy in aluminum production.

Thanks for admitting there are some unresolved issues there.

I’m aware of the hydroelectric-powered aluminum refining you mentioned (which is why I questioned the reports validity in that regard.)

Actually I had second thoughts about that too and may have been very wrong about SC/aluminum industry’s use of renewable energy. I got to thinking about my Oregon example. When the aluminum smelter was built back in 1960s, it did draw mainly from hydro power then. However, after consulting with my brother back in Oregon it appears things changed. Oregon’s power gets fed into a grid, drawn from all sources of power, so it’s impossible to extract what is renewable or not at end use. Unless you make your own power of course.

AND, a lot of Oregon’s power gets on-sold to other states, California primarily. And then other states/companies sell energy back to Oregon’s grid for Oregonians to use. So it all seems a bit confused there as to where it comes from, how much is renewable and who gets it. Perhaps someone else here knows more on this?

And that got me thinking about all those hydro-electric dams in northern Portugal and on the Douro River I saw on my way to taste up in Tras-os-Montes 2 weeks ago. It turns out Portugal’s renewables are over 20%, with a target projection of 32% in future. Scandinavians are in high 20s now, UK in 2-3%. Don’t know what France is, nor US. So it is pretty clear that you probably can’t project with much accuracy how much, if any, of SC’s energy consumption is from renewables. Given that the aluminum and SC manufacturers refused to supply independent auditors, PriceWaterhouse, with any information along these lines, PW seem to have done the best they could under the circumstances.

All this also reminded me of several modern cork processing plants in Portugal which are basically self-contained. They use only recycled water, clean up their own effluence on site, and the PRODUCE their own energy on site by burning cork waste. As I recall somewhere in the report the burned cork dust is discounted as CO2 used against CO2, absorbed by each cork.

Navarra is a net exporter of wind generated electricity and it could easily be that the electricity that powers much of Spain’s cork production is sourced from there. I don’t think this was counted in cork’s favor because it was tenuous. At least as tenuous as imagining what percentage of renewables offset the CO2 spent mining bauxite, transporting and smelting aluminum and manufacturing SC. pepsi

58

Paul,

Thank you for tackling all these ecological issues that were lost somewhere along the way in this thread. Your points are very well taken and I am sorry Tim folded up his tent and went home, as I would dearly have enjoyed having him provide a bit of evidence to support his assertions. It certainly seems to me from here that he was simply not on solid ground with his arguments and could not produce any data on his own behalf regarding these ecological issues, and I think we should all read his hasty retreat as validation that the cork industry’s carbon footprint is a hell of a lot more eco-friendly than the screwcap industry’s. If there are any SC partisans out there that would like to supply some real evidence that this is not the case, we would of course certainly welcome reviewing the data here. Thank you for taking the time to review the literature out there and present it to us in a detailed manner.

All the Best,

John

59

Thank you for tackling all these ecological issues that were lost somewhere along the way in this thread. Your points are very well taken and I am sorry Tim folded up his tent and went home, as I would dearly have enjoyed having him provide a bit of evidence to support his assertions. It certainly seems to me from here that he was simply not on solid ground with his arguments and could not produce any data on his own behalf regarding these ecological issues, and I think we should all read his hasty retreat as validation that the cork industry’s carbon footprint is a hell of a lot more eco-friendly than the screwcap industry’s. If there are any SC partisans out there that would like to supply some real evidence that this is not the case, we would of course certainly welcome reviewing the data here. Thank you for taking the time to review the literature out there and present it to us in a detailed manner

Wait, but there’s more…lots more to discuss here. And I will in time.

60

Sorry if I missed it, but is there any data discussing the carbon footprint of the GLASS BOTTLE (and the heavy juice shipped around inside) itself and how it relates to the footprint for the enclosure?