Perhaps the only thing worse for winemakers than getting a below average review in a wine publication is being mentioned in any publication that describes itself as investigative. "Normal" journalists, namely those that don't normally focus on food, wine, or lifestyle issues, have a pretty lousy reputation in the wine industry, and sometimes for good reason.
Especially when they publish pieces like this. Or when they try for a "new angle" on a particular issue.
The issue of ingredient labeling on wine has been discussed at length in the United States, and it's apparently also under discussion in the EU. I've written about the subject here on Vinography before.
Now, apparently Channel 4 and its investigative program "Dispatches" has aired a program suggesting that much of the wine industry adulterates its products with all manner of ingredients. The discussion about ingredient labeling has now turned into a muck-raking sensationalist exercise, that threatens to completely misinform and alarm UK consumers.
While neither of these clips contain the worst claims supposedly leveled in the program (namely that winemakers use so many additives in the winemaking process, that what you get at the end isn't really wine), you don't have to see much of them to hear the agenda being pushed. Those in the UK can see the full program online for the next seven days.
Now, I'm all for truth in labeling when it comes to wine. I think winemakers should err on the side of disclosure. There are certainly a lot of things allowed in wine that most people have never heard of. I probably wouldn't make buying decisions based on the fact that a winemaker had used reverse osmosis to lower the alcohol of a wine, or that it had been fined with isinglass (a fish protein). But I wouldn't mind knowing those things, and some people have the right to make purchase decisions based on them if they like.
But I do object to the sort of "digging for dirt" that this program seems to have been after. Apparently they called Jamie Goode, looking for some sort of expert witness who could tell them all sorts of nasty things that people put into their wine. His impression was that they had already decided what conclusions they wanted to draw, and were simply looking for supporting evidence, which he declined to give them.
Apparently they ended up revealing the scandalous truth that sugar is added to most Champagne.
My sympathy goes out to retailers, producers, and distributors in the UK wine market who are rightfully upset at how this issue has been reframed as a "doctoring of the product" as opposed to a legitimate debate about how wine gets labeled.
I also cringe at the way that some folks in the wine industry use such occasions as an opportunity to push their own "if it's not biodynamic, it's poison" agenda. That's as inappropriate as the lousy journalism.
Vinography Images: Birth of a Grape Introducing The Essence of Wine Book Forlorn Hope: The Remarkable Wines of Matthew Rorick Vinography Unboxed: Week of November 24, 2013 Vinography Images: Down the Row Pinot Days Southern California 2013: December 7, Los Angeles When Should You Not Be Allowed to Be Biodynamic? Vinography Unboxed: Week of November 17, 2013 Vinography Images: Below the Clouds Don't Ask a Dinosaur for Directions
Masuizumi Junmai Daiginjo, Toyama Prefecture Wine.Com Gives Retailers (and Consumers) the Finger 1961 Hospices de Beaune Emile Chandesais, Burgundy Wine Over Time The Better Half of My Palate 1999 KirÃ¡lyudvar "Lapis" Tokaji Furmint, Hungary What's Allowed in Your Wine and Winemaking Why Community Tasting Notes Sites Will Fail Appreciating Wine in Context The Soul vs. The Market 1989 Fiorano Botte 48 Semillion,Italy