Wine: What the bottle doesn’t say

Bill Zacharkiw, The Gazette 

Wine: What the bottle doesn&#8217;t say


Bill Zacharkiw


Dear Bill: You talked a few weeks ago about how you felt that wine labelling laws were “dubious.” My wife is allergic to sulphites, but she can have a glass of certain wines, which makes us wonder whether it’s because they have fewer sulphites. Why are the amount of sulphites never listed on the label? I thought it was law that all foods and beverages were to have the details about what is in them? Thanks.


A: Great question. True, for processed foods in Canada, there must be a list of ingredients, nutrition facts as well as possible allergens like “might contain nuts.” Wine is different because wineries are not required to list any of that.

Aside from basic information that cuts across all wine labels – such as alcohol levels, country of origin, vintage, grape varieties and the “contains sulphites” warning – each country has its own labelling requirements regarding imported wines and how their domestic industry labels its own wines.

What’s crazy is that even those basic requirements are sometimes not necessarily true. For example, because of excise tax laws in the United States, wines are taxed higher that are over 14-per-cent alcohol. Wineries are also allowed a 1.5-per-cent error tolerance for wines under 14 per cent, so alcohol levels have been known to be misrepresented to save money. I know of a few European wineries that have fudged alcohol levels for a different reason – because of a building consumer backlash against higher-alcohol wines.

When talking “country of origin,” a great example of how that can be misrepresented was seen here in Canada. In 2009, there was the “Cellared in Canada” controversy where wines that were made almost entirely with foreign grapes, but blended here in Canada, were labelled in a way that made them look as though they were, in fact, Canadian wines. It wasn’t illegal, but these wines were clearly not labelled in such a way that highlighted the source of the grapes.

In most countries, there exists what I call the 75-per-cent or 85-per-cent rules. Depending on which country you are in, the laws state that a wine must be at least a certain percentage of a particular vintage or grape variety to be labelled as such. So does your pinot noir have syrah in it? If the minimum amount of the grape is there, apparently you don’t have to know.

But to answer your question with respect to the actual sulphite amounts in wine, the reason they are not listed has nothing to do with being duplicitous or vague. The problem with sulphite levels is they are not stable. Sulphites are constantly being ingested by the wine, reacting with oxygen and other chemical elements. These are referred to as “combined” sulphites. Once ingested, they have little or no preservative effect on the wine, and pose little health threats to the estimated one per cent of the population that is sensitive to them.

The “free sulphites,” which can affect people, are the uncombined sulphur compounds that remain in the wine. So what the winemaker adds at the beginning might not necessarily be there when you drink your wine, which makes listing actual amounts impossible.

So in looking at what should be on a label, I don’t think that we can use processed foods as an example. Possible allergens is a necessary thing, but only the Australians seem to take into account all of them. These additives may include milk, egg and fish products, which are used as fining agents to clarify a wine.

Because any health benefits derived from drinking wine are still being studied, the question of nutritional facts is not an issue. What we see on some labels are warnings about the risks of drinking alcohol. That’s fine, I guess, but I must admit that warning people that drinking too much booze might not a good thing strikes me as redundant.

My personal bug with wine labelling has really nothing to do with health concerns, but rather with how the wine was made. I would like complete disclosure on every label as to which grapes went into making the wine. Again, only the Australians, who have what is called a “Label Integrity Program,” require that all grapes used in making the wine be listed on the label in descending order in terms of percentage.

The Europeans have laws within each appellation that state that only certain grapes can be used in making the wine if the winery wishes to use the name of the appellation on the label. If they use other grape varieties, they must use an alternate designation, such as Vin de Pays in France. But because most people don’t know the details of particular appellations, I would like to see the names of the grapes listed somewhere on either the front or back label because it is a way to help the consumer better understand the wine.

And this is what labels should be used for – to help educate. I understand the need for interesting front labels because they are there to help sell the wine. Back labels can be put to better use in general by giving the consumer useful information about such things as grape varieties, where they were sourced from, service temperature, cellaring windows, and even possible food pairings. But what else?

The more controversial issues, and where the industry is resistant to divulging more information, has to do with process. There are several additives used in winemaking, from enzymes to yeasts to colourants. There are flavouring agents like wood chips. There are also things to produce “manipulations,” such as machines to inject oxygen into the wine during fermentation (micro-oxidation) and devices used to remove alcohol.

There are already genetically modified yeasts being used in winemaking today, but they, too, do not have to be listed on a label.

The question here is what does the wine consumer need and/or want to know?

For instance, does it make any difference whether a wine was made in an actual oak barrel, or flavoured with wood chips? Many in the industry I have talked with believe that for the average consumer, wood flavour is wood flavour no matter where it comes from. But if the source doesn’t matter, is there a difference between adding essence of cinnamon, vanilla or chocolate – aromas usually derived from oak – instead of using oak itself? What about adding aromas that have nothing to do with the naturally derived aromas of either the grape or the winemaking?

I would agree that most people don’t care. But I have spoken to many critics and sommeliers who believe there should be complete transparency with respect to how a wine was made.

These need not be listed on the actual label, but the information should be available somewhere. Why? Because a discussion needs to be had as to what are the limits to the interventions that are possible. In short, when does it stop being a wine and become a fermented grape beverage? But until we all know what went into making it, that discussion simply cannot be had.



This week’s suggestions: From Slovenia to Portugal

I tasted so much wine during December that I lacked the space to talk about all the bottles I found really interesting. Here are few of the best, including what might have been my first ever Slovenian wine.

Sauvignon Blanc 2010, Dveri Pax, Slovenia white, $21.25, SAQ #11195763. Could be the first wine I have tasted from Slovenia, and it’s a beauty. Very elegant and refined. Has that combination of rich texture and citrus notes that one finds in traditional Sancerre, but much less expensive. Slight rindy feel on the finish adds some grit. Serve at 8C. Drink now-2015. Food-pairing idea: apéritif, pan-fried sea bass or other mid-weight fish with lemon and slated herbs.

Bourgogne 2010, Vieilles Vignes, Nicolas Potel, France red, $22.20, SAQ #719104. Elegance and refinement as per usual with Potel. Very red berried, moderate tannins, but with a puckering, crunchy, mouth-watering acidity and freshness. It’s the white-wine lovers’ red wine. Serve at 16C. Drink now-2016. Food-pairing idea: apéritif, grilled salmon.

Fleurie 2010, Poncié, Domaine du Vissoux, France red, $23.05, SAQ # 10837314. The violet side of the gamay grape, true to the name of the appellation. Good tannin, still very fresh and almost grapey. For the moment, simple and enjoyable, but with a year in cellar will gain some more depth. Serve at 16C. Drink now-2014. Food-pairing idea: apéritif, liver and onions.

Gigondas 2008, Cuvée Prestige, Domaine Grand Romane, France red, $24.85, SAQ #10936427. Lacks the depth and finesse of its neighbour, Châteauneuf-du-Pâpe, but this wine has that typical Gigondas generosity. This is ideal table wine for the “big wine” fan – solid tannin, built of proportionate fruit and earth and a black rock minerality if you look for it. Serve at 18C. Drink now-2014. Food-pairing idea: apéritif, liver and onions.

Vinho Regional Alentejano 2008, Aragonez, Cortes de Cima, Portugal red, $32.50, SAQ #10223726. In the Alentejo, it is known as Aragonez, but you might know it better as tempranillo. Big wine, lots of everything here. Fruit, tannin, oak, the whole kit. Bit jumbly on the first day, seemed like the oak and the fruit were fighting. Day 2, much better. Carafe minimum two hours. Serve at 18C. Drink now-2015. Food-pairing idea: pepper steak.

