Text Size:

01.15.2007

Ingredients and Arguments: Government to the Rescue

I've long been a fan of full disclosure when it comes to labeling wine. I think the consumer should know exactly what the percentages of grapes are, where every single bit of them were grown, what vintage they come from (if they come from one different than the year on the label), if there have been any things added to "improve" the wine, like the infamous Mega Purple additive, and finally whether or not the grapes are "naturally" bred or whether they contain fish genes or other such GMO nonsense. All of these things I believe should be disclosed in fairness to the consumer -- that we might make fully informed choices about our wines.

And then there's the wine geek in me, who honestly would love to know whether the wine was fermented with native or inoculated yeasts, whether it was left on the lees, whether it was fined or filtered, how long it was aged, whether it had an extended maceration, etc. Of course, there's a limit to what can reasonably fit on a label.

Or is there?

If the government has its way, very soon most wine bottles will have an extra set of disclaimers on them that will usually (for at least 75% of all wine) read as follows:

This wine contains eggs, fish, and milk products.

If you're scratching your head at that one, join the crowd. Many wine industry groups are concerned that this new labeling requirement will leave consumers worried and confused.

The labeling requirement stems from the fact that most winemakers use at least one of these products in the course of making their wine, and some people are allergic to these things. Egg whites and casein (milk protein) are both used as fining agents (to remove sediment in the wine) while some filters use membranes made from the air bladders of freshwater fish.

This new legislative requirement has got every wine industry group under the sun hot and bothered because these products are not really IN wine. They are all things that the wine either passes through, or are things that are removed from wine prior to its bottling. Sure, there are probably a few parts per billion of these substances left in the wine, but there's probably that much of lots of other things that are worse for most people.

Of course, the other side of this argument is that for some people, allergic reactions are pretty serious business, and can lead to emergency room stays or worse. But there's precious little data (read: none) showing that anyone allergic to eggs, fish, or milk has ever had a reaction from drinking wine.

Which begs the question, so why do we need to add yet another warning to our wine labels when they're already jam packed with them already? It's not a 100% clear cut answer (which of course, is what makes legislation like this possible in a highly litigious climate of fear) but I'm tempted to side with the wine industry on this one.

How many people (allergic or not) are going to think twice about buying a bottle when they see it's got fish, milk, and eggs in it?

Read the full story. Thanks to Jack at Fork & Bottle for the tip.

Posted by: Alder on January 15, 2007 8:46 PM: Filed under: Ramblings and Rants; Like this post? Share it! Digg it! - Add to del.icio.us - Add to Stumbleupon - Add to Reddit

Previous Entry - Main - Next Entry

TrackBacks (1)

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ingredients and Arguments: Government to the Rescue.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.vinography.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6813

» What's Allowed In Your Wine and its Winemaking from Vinography: A Wine Blog

Tracked on April 29, 2007 4:57 PM

There's recently been a bit of a fuss about some proposed changes to wine labeling in this country. That discussion at the very least raises the issue that most consumers have no idea what is both commonly, and also occasionally, done to their wine dur... Read more

Comments (9)

Steve Edmunds wrote:

01.15.07 at 9:35 PM

Shouldn't we be more concerned about what the government is doing in our wine?

Jack wrote:

01.15.07 at 9:41 PM

No, we should be more concerned about the government not requiring the labelling of GMO and cloned meat/produce...and letting the consumer make the choice.

Alder wrote:

01.15.07 at 9:45 PM

You mean my wine has Government in it too?!? Oh no!

Alder wrote:

01.16.07 at 8:19 AM

My friend Derrick just pointed out that such labeling is particularly helpful to vegans who don't want to support wineries that use animal products. I suppose that's true.

Erwin Dink wrote:

01.16.07 at 11:01 AM

And here I thought that moldy taste was from the cork!

winehiker wrote:

01.16.07 at 1:42 PM

I suppose that if I drink too much wine with Government in it, I'll get birth defects.

Why, soon there'll be so many of the tiniest little words on our wine labels that our eyes will get crossed before we drink it instead of after!

Paul Sharp wrote:

01.16.07 at 10:08 PM

In NZ and Australia we have allergen declaration laws which means that you have to label any additions of fining agents like isinglass (fish), egg whites, bovine products etc. The trouble is the additions that you do want to know about don't have to be labeled like sugar, grapex (a grape skin based coloring and tannin boosting agent), water, and other tannin boosters.

Arthur wrote:

01.17.07 at 12:45 PM

I don't believe these fining methods are all that new. They have been around for some time and I doubt there has been a surge of anaphylactic reactions to wine.... This may be part of the general CYA, overly-careful trend in a lot of US industries. Who is behind this legislation?

Erin wrote:

01.22.07 at 5:32 AM

You know pretty soon if they keep this up there is going to be a warning label about the risk of paper cuts from the label or the foil around the cork...what a waste of our and the governments time in my opinion.