Wine contains only grapes and sulphur
Other ingredients like ladybugs etc should be avoided
Grapes + sulphur = juice.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
No it is wine
Anton, I am (as I’d wager most of us are) well aware of the panoply of things that can be and are often added to wine. In most cases, those are added less-so to change the flavor profile but, rather, to add stability, mouthfeel, color, etc. etc. to the wine and not to add flavor (with the exception of sugar, I suppose, but that’s still to enhance sweetness and not to necessarily change / add flavor).
OK.
No yeast?
Who or what turns it into wine? The sulphur?
Grapes + sulphur = fermentation, ergo wine?
After mulling my flavored beers though over for a while, I think I’ve come to a conclusion as to why I don’t have trouble with flavored beers but would have trouble with flavored wines. Beer is mostly water, and various ingredients are added and a mix to produce the final outcome. It’s more of a mixture, a soup. Wine, on the other hand, is based on one ingredient: grapes. Since beer is already a mixture of stuff, why not add other flavors? Wine, to me, is showcasing nature while beers isn’t (as much). At least, that’s as close to a justification as I can get.
Somewhere I still have a bottle of spiced wine from a Virginia winery we visited many years ago. Mulling spices. I don’t have a problem with people making mulled wine at home, and thus I don’t have a problem with a winery making mulled wine and bottling it for sale as long as it is disclosed.
I have no interest in buying or drinking Cote Rotie with added olive extract, but I’m a particular type of consumer. I’m having a hard time coming up with why Yellowtail or Barefoot or whoever shouldn’t be allowed to sell, with disclosure, flavored wine. For some reason, people who aren’t me drink Fireball whiskey and while it’s not my style, I’d hate to impose some law or social more that would deny the manufacturer and consumer the right to make and drink the stuff. Ditto if someone wants to put red hot candies in off-dry white wine and sell Fireball moscato. To each his own, just don’t lie about what’s in the bottle (and don’t call it Fireball unless you own the TM).
The Romans were happy enough to add other stuff to wines to flavour them.
Why not? I suspect it has much to do with the historic appellation system, where what goes into a wine was more tightly controlled. I guess Bavaria and it’s purity laws provide a beer equivalent of such controls.
Outside of that, there is a feeling that beer is less about the terroir and more about the ingredients chosen and the skill / creativity of the brewer, without the constraints, but barring some specific places, little regional discipline to bow to.
Larry, have you had the Buttonwood dry-hopped Sauvignon Blanc? Not for everyone but I thought it was a pretty interesting and fun wine. Karen said it took them a few rounds to get the COLA approval for that. Holly’s Hill in El Dorado County does a dry-hopped wine too, I understand.
A really good question Chris – very thought provoking. I tend to agree with Brandon and David. I think part of the mystique (and yes it is a mystique) of wine is that is a reflection of its natural environment. We claim to be able to taste all sorts of things that reflect soil, minerals, surrounding environment. I understand that some of it (maybe a lot of it?) is suggestive rather than direct causation. It seems to me that one might be able to recreate in a lab the same taste as a really great wine. The intellectual side of me thinks, well why would that not be ok? But I think we all realize that our experience is based in part on more emotional, less rational, influences. The idea that this wine grew in x year; that the weather that year was y, which means it is a wine that is more z than other vintages, etc. For me if I drink an old wine, part of my pleasure is that intangible sense of going back in time. The same flavor in a wine produced yesterday would not have that same effect on me. Though of course i could easily (perhaps) be fooled then. Wasn’t it Helen Turley who made fun of people waiting for a wine to age and be drinkable, arguing that we should make wines to drink now that are of a high quality. (I think it was Helen Turley?)
Chris - I am all for winemakers adding whatever they want to the grapes during fermentation, barreling, and bottling, as long as it is on the label so folks know. They own their vineyards, the make their wines, and they sell whatever they can. If people like it, then great. Otherwise, the market will sort out who makes the wine the consumer wants to purchase. Lat’s not hold back progress - if there’s happens to be a little stardust in your wine, it’s gotta look like the future!
I think many existing products do this and hide behind the phrase “with natural flavors” or “wine with natural flavorings added”.
As a friend once pointed out, what’s the alternative? “Supernatural ingredients”? 
Wood flavors/chips/sawdust are permitted, as is MegaRed, or (in the case of hard liquor, aka whiskey/whisky) “caramel coloring”.
When I see a bottle of “Wedding Cake” flavored vodka, I throw up in my mouth a little bit. 
Just like eucalyptus, pine notes in some California Cabernets are considered terroir since those vineyards are surrounded by evergreen trees - that “natural environment” brought up above.
I don’t know of any vineyards surrounded by wedding cakes, stardust bushes, or panoply plants. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
![[tease.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c5b32b76bebaa359b0452ae247b61189ffe5fa7e.gif "tease"){kind=small}
Bold claim. Your “friend” certainly has strong opinions. I wonder if he has an agenda.
I admit I have tried wines from producers who add yeast.
I think the reason why it is not done more often is marketing and cost/benefit rather than the legal and regulatory loopholes that have to be navigated.
The wine geek crowd like us is resistant - you can see that in the replies above. It just rubs many of us the wrong way. Even if you were able to magically add just the right ingredients to reproduce the experience of a great Martha’s Vineyard, a 1945 La Tache or a 1900 Margaux at peak, how big would your market really be? Would geeks accept it or reject it as “fake wine?” If cheap enough, it could be marketed to the wider public but I wonder how many people would actually enjoy it enough to be repeat customers after the novelty wore off.
To appeal to the wider non-geek marketplace, what would the winemaker add? And at what cost? The average buyer isn’t that interested in garrigue or eucalyptus. The examples above give a hint: Chocolate. Almond. You might appeal to one segment of the market but turn off others.
So I don’t see successful wineries doing this unless they are looking to expand into a niche with an obvious flavor additive.
Because that would be gross!
Someone brought a bottle of one of those Bourbon barrel aged Cabs to a neighborhood gathering, reminding me that some flavorings are allowed. Incidentally, it remained unopened.
Beer makers add all kinds of rubbish to their brews, coffee, chocolate, fruit, spices, and worst of all, pumpkin. Not only are these flavorings tolerated, the beers are highly sought out and praised.
I was never completely sold on the Martha’s Vineyard eucalyptus, and never liked the note in any other wine, but I don’t see much difference between planting a vineyard next to trees, or putting a handful of leaves into the must. Remember Randall Graham’s attempt at inducing “minerality”?
I would personally avoid any such wine but I don’t think it should be outlawed as long as it is disclosed. The fining agents and other additives that can be added without listing I’m more ok with (except mega colors which I think should always be disclosed) because they largely don’t remain in the wine.
I will say that I am strongly biased against flavored wine but it is consistent with my other beverage preferences. I don’t like flavored coffee, tea (with exception of bergamot or jasmine), beer, or spirits. To be fair to spirits, I really don’t like any of them flavored or not.
I love beer and I realize that the currently accepted list of base ingredients is the result of the evolution of the drink in various forms throughout history. Besides malt, hops, yeast, water, and the occasional barrel or beneficial bacteria and sometimes coffee, I really don’t like anything else in my beer.
I think there is nothing wrong with adding flavors to wine, beer, spirits, or any other beverage. It’s just not my preference.
That is not to say that flavored wines would be successful however. I’ve had the Wilson Creek Almond flavored wine and let’s just say it left a lot to be desired. I’ve not tried the bourbon barrel aged wines but I know that I would detest them since I don’t like anything aged in bourbon barrels including bourbon. Those who have tried them haven’t had many good things to say.
My big exception to the non-traditional flavor additives are dry-hopped ciders. I think that hops go exceptionally well with dry ciders so I would be interested to find out if I would liked dry-hopped wines. It seems like there are many people that find these at least interesting in not legitimately good.
My concern would be that flavored wines would take market share away from “pure” wines if enough people liked the flavored wines. Potentially this could lead to even more poor winemaking since flavoring could cover up flaws in these industrial wines. That could really hurt the lower end of the market for winemakers trying to make more affordable wines without flavorings. I doubt it would effect much of the higher end of the market since most of those consumers would likely avoid flavored wines.