| To: sense who wrote (434) | 1/7/2016 9:39:36 PM | | From: Savant | | | | Time flies, and Vintners ....umm...lie....to placate the public's idea of what should be.....
(I'm in favor of knowing the actual, not some made up number)
(no reflection on this board's vintners)
washingtonpost.com
The big wine lie
By Roberto A. Ferdman January 6
(AP Photo/Christophe Ena)
Behind the picturesque rows of grapevines at vineyards around the world, winemakers are bending the truth. It's not the sort of thing most wine drinkers would have noticed, because it's happening behind the scenes, before bottles are shipped out, and it's tough to tell by taste. But it's hard to imagine anyone would appreciate it.
Many winemakers have been a little loose with the information shared on their labels. Not with the region, vineyard, year and varietal, which people — both expert and not — look to when buying wine, but with the alcohol content, which they have been misreporting on bottles for decades.
The percentages reported on bottles aren't the precise measurements consumers likely believe them to be. A number of factors, including tastes, expectations, associations, rating systems and even international tax laws appear to be nudging winemakers to round the alcoholic kick of their respective wines up or down a notch on labels in ways that might make the bottles more attractive to prospective drinkers. And the problem is widespread.
"The errors, whether deemed 'small' or 'large,' are systematic," said Kate Fuller, who teaches agricultural economics at Montana State University.
This past fall, Fuller, along with a team of researchers that included Julian Alston, a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California at Davis, and James Lapsley, a retired professor who has written and researched extensively about wine, set out to test two theories. The first was something experts have been warning about for some time: Wines, for various reasons, have been getting more alcoholic. The second was something else: Winemakers have been inaccurately reporting the alcoholic contents of their wines.
The team dusted off data from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which oversees and tests all wine imported for sale in Ontario, Canada. The sample included more than 127,000 wines (roughly 80,000 of them red, 47,000 of them white) imported over the eighteen years between 1992 and 2009. And it told an interesting tale.
As suspected, wines are getting boozier. On average, they were about a percentage point stronger in 2009 (13.8 percent alcohol by volume) than they were in 1992 (12.7 percent). "There was growth in alcohol percentage in every country," the researchers wrote. The chart below shows the worldwide increase over time.
Some suspect that global warming and the rising heat index, which could be altering an already fussy production process, are to blame. Michael Kaiser, who is the director of public affairs for Wine America, a national association that represents American wineries, says the sugar content of the grape, which in turn affects the alcohol content of the wine, is altered by climate. "In some places, winemakers have had to change the types of grapes they're growing to adjust."
But Fuller and the team believe it has less to do with external factors than it does with the practices of the actual winemakers. "Our findings lead us to think that the rise in alcohol content of wine is primarily man-made, even if as an unintended consequence of choices made by grape growers and winemakers," they wrote.
Kaiser, for his part, admits that evolving tastes might be playing a role, too. "The palette of the consumer is probably partly to blame," he said. "Americans tend to like sweeter beverages. So winemakers might be leaving the grapes on a little longer to get a wine that is a little fruitier and has a higher alcohol content."
Many winemakers, however, don't appear to want to let consumers know about the trend. In fact, they seem to be going out of their way to conceal it. The analysis uncovered a sizable discrepancy between the alcohol content reported on bottles and the actual alcohol amount observed during testing, largely due to systemic underreporting.
It's legal. In the United States, wines with 14 percent alcohol by volume or less are allowed to have a range of 1.5 percentage points from the amount stated on the bottle. In Australia and New Zealand, it's 1.5 percentage points, too. And in Europe, the permitted range is half a percentage point, which is about as stringent as it gets.
But Fuller says it is no less disturbing. "I thought there would be some discrepancies between the actual and reported [alcohol contents], but I didn't expect so many would be underreporting," said Fuller.
Nearly 60 percent of the more than 100,000 bottles observed had more alcohol by volume than their bottles would lead people to believe, while just a shade over 20 percent had less.
On average, wines around the world tended to understate the alcohol percentage by volume by 0.15 percentage points. New World wines (red and whites from the United States, South America, Australia, etc.), underreported by closer to 0.2 percentage points on average, while Old World Wines (largely those from Europe) tended to understate it by just over 0.1 percentage points. The wines from Chile, Argentina, the United States and Spain, meanwhile, which underreported alcohol content by 0.27, 0.24, 0.23, and 0.21 percentage points respectively, carried the least accurate labels.
These discrepancies likely won't make much of a difference — in terms of health or driving ability — if you are having a single glass of wine, but could if you're having more, Fuller warned. What's more, they're averages — meaning that many wine bottles have been underreporting the alcohol percentage they contain by a good deal more. In the study, the researchers used choice words to describe what they observed: "substantial, pervasive, systematic errors in the stated alcohol percentage of wine."
Although it's hard to pin down the precise reasons for the prevalence of these inaccuracies, there are a few things that are likely at play.
There is, for one, something practical: taxes. In the United States, for instance, wines with more than 14 percent alcohol by volume are taxed at a higher rate (the federal excise tax increases by $0.50 per gallon for those above that threshold). Bulk winemakers, especially those selling some of the cheaper wines available, might be underreporting the alcohol content of their offerings in order to avoid the added tax, since their customers are more price-sensitive.
This quirk has led some to question whether it might be reasonable to change the definition of table wines, which have less than 14 percent alcohol by volume, especially given the broader increase in the alcohol content of wines.
"Maybe it’s time for the government to reevaluate the alcohol levels for tax reasons," Kaiser said.
But it's a matter of tastes, too. People, as well as experts who rate wines, expect a certain narrow range from specific varietals (more, for instance, from a Cabernet Sauvignon, which is heavier, than a Pinot Noir, which is lighter), and winemakers, rather than shunning this desire entirely, cater to it by tweaking their labels.
A quick look at the distribution between the declared and actual alcohol percentages shows how this affects the greater wine landscape. Notice how the wines more or less all fall into one of six declared percentages (in the chart on the top, below) but many more actual percentages (in the chart on the bottom, below).
That right there is winemakers bundling their wines into "desired" alcohol contents, rather than actual ones. Fuller and the team point out that this is likely deliberate, since wineries must know the actual alcohol content of their wine given how easy and inexpensive it is to measure it with precision today.
"I have spoken to many winemakers about this question over the past five years or so," said Alston, who co-authored the study. "Let me say this: I would expect most winemakers to have a fairly precise idea of the alcohol content of the wines they make."
At the heart of the discrepancy, however, is a funny little tug of war wine drinkers are forcing producers to partake in. People — on the whole — tend to favor wines that are less alcoholic. This alone means that, all things equal, rounding alcohol percentages down is better than rounding up (and, of course, not rounding at all). But it's being exacerbated by a concurrent demand for wine with more intense and ripe flavors.
Consumers want "wines with 'bigger' or fuller flavors, but they do not want (or at least, do not want to know about) the higher alcohol content that typically comes with those attributes," Fuller said.
So winemakers have made do by giving people what they want — wines with bigger bodies — and hiding from them what they don't — the extra alcohol that comes with it. And it's hard to see why that would stop, so long as it's legal, and effective, and preferences don't change. Well that, and people don't find out about the little fibs.
“What remains to be resolved is why consumers choose to pay winemakers to lie to them," the researchers wrote. |
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Savant who wrote (435) | 1/8/2016 12:47:48 AM | | From: sense | | | | Not a whole lot to quibble with on the face of that... but... there is an issue or two lurking beneath it, that means the article first begins to expose the issues, but then sort of proceeds to miss the point...
"People — on the whole — tend to favor wines that are less alcoholic" is pretty wildly incorrect... at least, it is not anywhere near the mark if what you're addressing is demonstrated consumer taste preferences rather than the consumer decisions that get made purely based on looking at the labels plastered on the bottles as they're sitting there on store shelves.
Yours is a lot closer with: "lie....to placate the public's idea of what should be". I also agree with your stated preference: "I'm in favor of knowing the actual, not some made up number"... but, that still leaves a whole lot missing in terms of gaps in the larger task in communication that the label is intended to enable. (Or, not... as the article also underplays the impact of the generic "table wine" designation, essentially meaning any wine can be labeled as 12.5% as long as the variance from that number isn't too large. Then, they ignore the incredible bureaucracy involved in getting labels approved... which means its best not to change anything you don't have to on any previously approved label... no matter what changes in the contents of the bottles there are.)
"Truth in labeling" would be a great place to start in addressing a number of large and still growing disconnects that exist between wine reality and wine marketing... but, you probably won't ever get to any bit of that without also reducing the surplus in the extant burden in the dysfunctional and over-weaning bureaucracy... who are probably even more defensive of their turf than the wine makers.
The differences being addressed are still mostly borne of the conflicts that are intrinsic to conflicting consumer preferences (in taste, versus the numbers on labels)... which differences are then greatly exacerbated by the nature of the choices made in context of, if not quite because of the drivers that dominate, marketing.
That consumers tend to prefer riper fruit flavors inside the bottle and lower alcohol numbers on the label... is only a part of the story. And, the "magic" in the numbers on the labels is only a smallish part of the story in terms of the "bait and switch" being practiced in wine making... or, at least, in wine labeling and marketing.
The real problems that exist are a duality that splits between a viticulture problem on one hand, and wine quality concerns (and reality versus perception) on the other. It's not really an issue in terms of any wine making problems... rather than the opposite. Wine making and viticulture have both gotten a lot better over the last 40 years, and continue to improve, so that today even problematic fruit used as an input can be converted into perfectly palatable wines that most consumers will find appealing. Vineyards tending to be generally not overly portable means that wine "tends" to reflect the experience of the particular vineyard in a particular vintage... and then, of course, the wine makers choices... the dirty little secret being that a lot of non-European wine is grown in vineyards that are, certainly relative to Europe's, quite incredibly hot. The last thing existing producers want to be threatened with... is an expose revealing they're growing grapes "in the wrong place". So, they continue to push the envelope in using wine making to correct for the intrinsic deficiencies in the inputs they have to work with... driven by the unmentionable fact "they're growing the grapes in the wrong place". If you want to focus on the reality rather than the marketing schtick... look at the nature of the problems producers tend to have, and the solutions being applied to address them, rather than the stories they tell in marketing.
That increasingly reduces to "wine quality issues" they'd rather avoid addressing (publicly), as the methods of compensating for overly hot vineyard conditions come in to play. One of those compromises made, of course, is to increase vine yields to slow and delay ripening... and the market reality is, most consumers really can't tell the difference, anyway, between a really good wine and basic high yield mid-market industrial plonk. Conflicts emerge there, again, between wine reality and what consumers demand... as what the consumers want is "the world's best wine"... for $13.99 a bottle, or less. And, often enough, they can be convinced easily enough by "more oak flavor"... even to the point that it makes the wine essentially undrinkable, while masking its inherent lack of quality. Or, otherwise, by increased extract, reduction to enhance fruit perception, etc.
From there we could divert to a discussion of what quality really is...
Or, we could re-focus on other aspects of the problem that does exist, and how it is being addressed on the wine making side... if you want to Google "spinning cone" technology... or want to start talking about how much water used in "cleaning the equipment"... ends up operating to reduce potential alcohol while converting water into wine by somewhat less than biblically correct methods.
There's going to be another split that occurs in the market, there, too... between giant companies whose products are "made", in the worst sense of that word, using all the available tools while leaving nothing to chance... and the smaller producers who are limited to applying more traditional methods while hand crafting quality products by getting everything right in the first place, rather than by using technology (secretly) as a means of correcting for problems after the fact.
The marketing schtick, of course, emphasizes the "romance" of vineyards and winemaking... when the reality for most larger volume producers is really all about industrial agriculture, and industrial processing, of what are essentially industrial products.
Thanks for inducing the rant. I quite enjoyed spilling that here... |
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: sense who wrote (436) | 1/8/2016 2:34:54 AM | | From: Savant | | | | Whew, a lot in that post... pretty much spot on.
While I was thinking about placating/seducing/fooling...the public...I couldn't help thinking about an analogy with politicians... rather than doing what I feel they're supposed to do, they do/say what they think the people want to hear and have done to/for them.
I recall many efforts to fool wine drinkers over the years...the alcohol content 'issue' is, to me, a small matter...
just thought it interesting.
I recall Germans 'sweetening' their wine, in the 70's...and getting caught....and they were supposed to have had high standards.
I recall Italy fooling around w/their additives.
I also remember the bursting of the myth of European wine superiority...I think that was in the 70's also..they made a movie about it.
And yes, you're quite correct....there are a lot of wine snobs here in the US, and other countries....
That couldn't/can't actually taste their way out of a bucket, if they tried.
I don't profess to be an expert, but I know if a wine suits my taste, and mostly can tell the quality....to a point...
w/out looking at a label. I also am fairly good at pairing w/foods...to suit my tastes, of course.
In short, I enjoy a nice glass of wine.
I don't degrade those that can't tell the difference, ....unless...they're being snobbish.
Ultimately, for most folks, you're correct...the price point is v.important to most folks...
Both for the casual users...(on the modest prices)...and to the snobs, that like to brag about how expensive it is.
Also, styles come in and out of fashion...I recall when German Rieslings were out of fashion...I luved that..
It was a lot cheaper..lol.
Then, when the market collapsed after 2000...I grabbed some great buys.
Enough for now, cya later.
PS...
What are we going to do about the bee problem, it is getting worse. I bought a FlowHive from Kickstarter recently, for my own satisfaction, and to perhaps help the local bee population...
A mere drop in the honey pot...but, it's something.
PPS...
I made a batch of sparkling apple cider/wine last year....enjoyed it these past holidays...guests thought it was
'champagne'...it was pretty good...however, had another batch...that well...... |
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4) |
|
| To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 4:23:23 AM | | From: sense | | | | The bee problem...
I heard a quick bit on NPR this week... the gist of which is that they've (researchers... not the industry) finally acknowledged/proven that the problem is one of neo-nicotinoids killing bees. The issue seems it is being presented now as a problem that is a dependent function of the particular plants the stuff is being applied to, and how/when they're applied. Some plants seem they just aren't a part of the problem... while others, just from having had seeds coated, will put enough of the stuff out into the pollen they produce upon flowering that bees collecting that pollen are being poisoned by the treatments that were applied to the seeds. That suggests that all you need to do to resolve the biggest source of risks is to limit the labeled uses to exclude application to those specific plants, or limit the use of "systemics" on those particular plants, that present the biggest problem to the bees.
I don't doubt that they're correct in terms of the nature and source of risks... however, I'm still skeptical that you can resolve the problem for the bees, now, at this late date, with that limited approach, the way you were able to (eventually) resolve the pending extinction of bald eagles and meadowlarks by eliminating DDT.
The guys who run bees for a living are still having to allocate a larger and larger share of their time each season to detoxifying periods between jobs... and I think that's an indication the problem really is about more than a single class of chemicals... but both about the growing diversity of chemicals being applied, and the increasing density of them. New products being developed aren't being substituted for older ones they replace... but are instead just being added to the soup. Studies of the density of the agro-chemicals sampled from the air in farm country show that the air is increasingly thick with all kinds of crap that is being sprayed, now. That's a positive only if you're focused on the profitability of the ag chemical pushers... and don't have to worry about things like... living and breathing in farm country... where the bees are just the canary in the coal mine.
|
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 4:45:22 AM | | From: sense | | | | "sparkling apple cider/wine"
I've previously done a bit of work enabling and fostering (U.S.) west coast cider industry development which it might be fun to get into at some point... and, as it happens, just planted a small orchard last year with around 100 different varieties of cider apples the potential of which I hope to be able to evaluate in a couple of years time.
My gardening projects for this year are mostly back to being focused on wine grapes, though. Have already ordered the plants to establish a new motherblock this year... mostly focused on new selections of grapes I already know well enough, but with a few new things, and a couple research project potentials thrown in, just to keep it interesting... |
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Savant who wrote (437) | 1/8/2016 5:48:32 AM | | From: sense | | | | "Ultimately, for most folks, you're correct...the price point is v.important to most folks...
Both for the casual users...(on the modest prices)...and to the snobs, that like to brag about how expensive it is."
Yeah. Can't ever get away from the issues with the $ for long. My focus in wine interest tends to be on "the best"... by which I mostly mean truly well made, small production, artisanal wines... and well cellared wines worth the cellaring... which doesn't mean I don't appreciate the fact, as a consumer, that the biggest changes that have occurred in wine in the last half century haven't been at the high end in quality. Market reality today is that there really isn't much "bad" wine being made now... and that wasn't close to being true 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Still, with winemaker buddies it is usually more fun to uncork something entirely new to them... or something older... than something "known" that they should be "impressed" by because of what it costs... which, to people who can taste, is a pretty foreign concept.
I do know people who always want to talk wine... by leading with how much (high figures) they paid for this or that bottle... which, at the best, shows they use $ as a market proxy for quality, given an inability to tell the difference, otherwise. A lot of consumers are quite easily sucked into the "fad" generation focused on some "hot" new or hard to get label, or "limited release" products, etc., and end up overpaying as a result, for what is still fairly ordinary wine, that simply costs them a lot more without value for the $. Reality is some consumers genuinely want to pay more, for wines like that... because what they paid is an important part, to them, of being able to enjoy what they bought. As a producer, there's really no way to satisfy those customers, or give them what they want... other than by charging them more. I find that pretty twisted, personally... but I don't deny the truth of it. People who I tend to share with more often, will instead tend to brag on how little they paid for some wine of unusual quality that they've found in the market...
I find a problem with the inverse, too... as there's a whole new genre of snobs out there whose focus is on avoiding ever paying more than $10 or $20 for a bottle while bragging to others about believing that wine is really only for quaffing in quantity, not for "appreciating", and that others talk about quality for $ is only snobs talking bullshit. Given a market largely focused on immediate drinkability at the low end, the fact they can't taste the difference between a decent $10 quaffer for now and something of greater quality worth cellaring is perhaps an important personal benefit... but still not something to brag on. The lack of an educated palate... isn't much of a bragging point, either... not that there's ever any utility in debating the inverse snobs, given they really can't tell the difference. Reality today is... more if you can't tell the difference... you shouldn't ever have to pay more than $10 or $20 for "really good" drinkable now wine... which still leaves a pretty significant gap, for those who can tell the difference, between "really good" and "the best there is"... as tends to be true in most things. |
| | Winery | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
