I expect one of the hottest issues for the alcohol beverage industry (including wine, beer and spirits) in 2008 to be whether producers should be required to include consumer information on their labels. The fact that there is controversy over this is in the industry is puzzling to me, especially when it comes to wine.
Since wine connoisseurs and aficionados, not to mention advocates, spectators and enthusiasts, regularly insist that wine is not merely a drink but actually food, why shouldn’t its packaging provide consumers with similar information to that required of other food products? This was the question that came to mind when I read (according to The Wine Spectator and WineBusiness.com) that some in the wine industry are opposing three labeling proposals for alcoholic beverages issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
One rule would require all alcoholic beverages sold in the United States to carry serving facts information, such as alcohol and calorie content, carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Another would require a listing of ingredients, including products used in the winemaking process like grapes, yeast and preservatives. A third would require warnings as to whether the product was made using any of a list of allergens, such as milk, egg or fish products (which are commonly used as fining, or clarifying, agents).
As you might expect, the proposals are generating quite a bit of controversy. Notable supporters of the serving facts and ingredients proposals include the National Consumers League, the Center for Science in the Public interest, and Diageo, the eighth largest drinks company in the world.On the other hand, industry groups such as The Wine Institute and WineAmerica, reportedly are opposed. From the reading I’ve done, the most often stated concern of opponents is that the regulations would be a financial burden, especially on small producers.
With the allergen regulation, they also contend there is no proof of any allergen remaining in finished wine. Concerns also have been raised that the regulations actually could result in inaccurate labeling. This is because producers often decide whether to fine (clarify) a wine and which fining agents to use shortly before bottling, while labels are ordered much sooner. The timing disconnect could present a dilemma for winemakers, leading to labels that list an allergen when none was used. Understandably, that is not good enough for allergy sufferers who aren’t willing to
take that chance, even if cause and effect cannot be established beyond doubt. With some allergies resulting in serious reactions, even death, allergy sufferers insist that warnings are necessary to make informed decisions to protect their health.
At least one winery isn’t waiting for all this to play out. According to reports in The Wine Spectator and EnoBytes.com, Bonny Doon Vineyard (of Santa Cruz, California) has announced that it will include a list of ingredients on its new releases this year. Bonny Doon is believed to be the first major U.S. brand to display such information. Bonny Doon owner Randall Grahm probably isn’t going to make many friends over this move. But this isn’t the first time Grahm has surprised the industry with his foresight. He raised eyebrows when he switched 100% of his production to screwcaps several years ago, the first to do so in the U.S. I believe. A Bonny Doon representative has been quoted as saying they hope other winemakers will feel responsible for acknowledging their own additions and interventions and that full disclosure will encourage winemakers to be more hands-off and less interventionist.
The move also displays a commitment to transparency that can only generate goodwill with consumers. By opposing the proposed labeling rules, other producers risk a breach of faith with consumer that will be difficult to restore. Just about every winery – from the smallest family-owned farm to the largest multinational conglomerate-owned operation – now markets their wines as the product of a natural process and a commitment to translating the authentic nature of the site where the grapes were grown into the bottle. In my opinion, by opposing these rules, producers just look hypocritical. Why not use these requirements as an educational opportunity? Consumers will reward the producer who gives them more information about the foods and beverages they choose.