The wine world is reacting with fury to a Channel 4 documentary suggesting most wine is so industrially processed as to be little more than 'alcopop'.
'Dispatches', C4's flagship investigative programme, screened in the UK on Monday night.
It lists dozens of additives found in wine, from yeast to egg, milk and gelatine, tannins, ascorbic and tartaric acid, clay enzymes and 'malolactic bacteria' and quotes critic Malcolm Gluck saying, 'Many, many wines are no better than alcoholic cola.'
Blossom Hill, Jacob's Creek, Hardys and other producers are cited as admitting to using many of these additives.
At the same time the programme describes recent genuine scandals such as the 70m litres of Italian wine that were found to be adulterated with water, sugar, and – allegedly – hydrochloric acid.
Huon Hooke, one of Australia's most respected wine writers and a Decanter contributor, said in the Sydney Morning Herald it was 'outrageous and completely wrong' to believe Australian winemakers misled buyers.
The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation has called the programme 'a beat up' and said likening wines to alcopops is 'a throwaway line.'
Spokesman Steve Guy said, 'Of course they add yeast. Yeast is the organism that turns sugar into alcohol. It's totally misdirected to criticise winemakers for using yeast.'
Both ascorbic and tartaric acid were naturally present in grapes, he said. Similarly, eggs, milk and gelatine, were 'natural things' known to be 'used in wine production for centuries.'
Bill Hardy of Hardys told decanter.com he thought the programme was 'muck-raking sensationalism designed to scare'.
Christophe Mangeard of Bordeaux negociant Yvon Mau said, 'There are no dangerous additives in wine. It is one of the most tightly controlled of all agricultural products. Oenological products are then added, such as citric acid, bentonite or sulphur, but are all carefully controlled by the EU.'
The programme also takes the wine industry to task for not disclosing additives on labels.
Industry watchdog the Wine and Spirits Trade Association says it would simply cost too much. 'No two batches of grapes are the same. This variance and the need to translate materials into 27 languages to satisfy EU single market requirements mean precise labelling for wine covering full ingredients would be massively expensive.'
Jancis Robinson MW – who is interviewed on the programme – disagrees. 'I don't buy this argument,' she says on www.jancisrobinson.com. 'Food manufacturers…have complied with the much more demanding regulations governing food labelling for years.'
Additional reporting by Jane Anson in Bordeaux
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
Sorry, but this discussion is ridiculous !
There have always been, are and always will be all types of organisms that will be harvested/picked together with the grapes. Together with these organisms come chemicals and mycotoxins ( to name just two ingredients ) which have to be extracted out of the must before fermentation.
Not every must contains the optimal mixture of substances needed for the yeast to ferment ... and this is not just glucose/fructose and O2 ... so these are often added to enable a secure fermentation und consequentially a better sale of the end-product !!
And then finally .... how do you remove the remains of the yeast from the finished wine ? You´d need a hell of a lot of filter papers if you wanted to clarify wine this way !! So ... once again you are forced to use a number of fining agents - carefuly chosen because they might ( if applied at the wrong time or wrong amount ) take out too much aroma !
To summerize the above - Yes, additives are being used and have to be used ! That is not question. The problem here is the interpretation of the product wine: How good must it be ? Does it need to be a perfect vintage every year ? How much
responsibility do the wine authors ( like Ms. Robinson ) have when it comes to creating a public opinion ? And ( with all due respect ) why do these modern day wine journalists hype up opinions instead of giving reasonable explanations ? Don´t they know how to make wine ???
.... I´d suggest a trainee-period at a small unknown winery .......... ;-)))))
Ch. Jessen
One important point is to distinguish between “additives” (which remain in the wine after bottling) and “processing aids” (which are added to the wine during its production, but are eliminated either naturally or by filtration before bottling). Yeast and bentonite, just to take two examples, should not be considered as additives.
The reference in the programme to “artificial yeasts” betrays a complete lack of understanding of the basics of wine science on the part of the programme makers.
David Rowe, Bordeaux, France
Many will remember a time when almost any Cabernet Sauvignon from anywhere needed at least a couple of years to mellow a bit before becoming at all drinkable. When did the Martians land and zap all these vines so that they are now on the shelf scant months after harvest?
Those who claim that additives in winemaking are normal should purchase a tiny quantity of one of the newer, designer tannins which are available to home winemakers, at least in Canada, and I'm sure everywhere else. 10 grams of Tanin Plus per 100 litres of wine will make almost anything taste "Australian". And one drop per bottle of fruit extract will have a dramatic influence on the flavour of the wines. Dead yeast cell products that create the mouthfeel and characteristics of months of sur lies treatments are becoming commonplace. Addition of tannins at the onset of fermentation will darken almost any red wine (when did you last see a very pale Gamay or Pinot?). Addition of certain enzymes will allow an aromatic white wine to "smell" mature, much more powerful, within months of harvest. Didn't these take time to develop at one time. Damn Martians!
I have tasted many commercial wines from around the world that I believe to contain such things - and to my experience the larger the producer the more likely this is to be true. My three cents worth,
Larry Paterson, President, Amateur Winemakers of Canada
I disagree the point of view of Jancis Robinson (whom I deeply respect by the way) on her comparison between Food industry and Wine industry. Food industry acknowledges consumers on peanuts presence in aliments, but they keep silence about indirect contaminations by GMO for example. So, it is true that we have to be more precise on Wine contents but as a living produce, made in the same conditions as our grand parents used to, the wine should keep its part of dream. Winemakers around the world have to follow rules dictated by CODEX ALIMENTARIUS and European/National Legislations strict with all agricultural products. I don't understand why wine is attacked like that, by anti alcohol lobbies, hygienists now…
Damien, Tokyo, Japan
I do think they went over the top with the whole egg, milk, yeast and gelatine. But people should be made aware of how the big commercial wines are made. It's impossible to produce a wine that tastes the same every year without playing around with chemicals. Buy wines from smaller vineyards they tend to be cleaner and are far better value for money. It's about time these big houses were named and shamed.
Aodhan O'Farrell, Ireland
One of the values of this topic is in explaining the difference between a headache and a hangover. It is possible to drink a couple of glasses of some cheap commercial wine and have a splitting headache the next day. This is due to additives, chemicals and preservatives in the wine. Yet it would be possible to drink bottles of some other well made all natural wines and not have a headache. That doesn't mean you might not have a hangover. However, it is important to distinguish between a headache and a hangover from wine.
I was talking about this at Keswick Hall in Virginia last night, presenting Chateau Musar at a dinner. Chateau Musar is so pure that it is near impossible to get a headache from it. The reason for this is that there are no additives to that wine. It even uses the natural yeast floating in the air. The vineyards are Certified organic. The only thing added, only in very recent vintages, is a tiny amount of sulphites but even this is in such small amounts that, if they wanted to go to the effort of having it certified, the wine is below the threshold set by the US government to require the labeling statement “contains sulfites”. Chateau Musar's philosophy lends well to this way of winemaking, they want every bottle, not just every vintage, to taste different. By contrast, the big commercial wineries cannot rely on nature for steady shareholder income without controlling it with the use of additives, resulting in predictable formulaic wines. Often headache inducing.
Bartholomew Broadbent, Broadbent Selections, San Francisco, CA, USA
I think that the major problem whith wine producing is more an “in the field” problem than a "processing" problema. Too mucho pesticides and herbicides are still being used on and around the grapes. It is time to look for and find alternatives way of protecting the grapes from their environment without destroying it.
This is a real challenge. Tannins, eggs.. and other stuff are definitely NOT the problem.
Gilles Tallent
There is a good reason why wines do not have an ingredient label. It is because wine is closely defined in the food and drug regulations of the central governments of each country. Internationally, the standard is set in the Codex Alimentarius of the United Nations. Advice for the regulations of the wine portion of this document is derived mainly from the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, an organization mainly of wine producing countries. The regulations of each country draw precedent for their regulations from the Codex.
In most national food and drug regulations, the section dealing with wine starts off with a statement such as "Wine is the product of the fermented juice of sound, disease free grapes, and may contain: . . . "
The regulations then proceed to list any acceptable winemaking practices and additives. Most additives are either fining agents which adsorb sediments, precipitate and are removed, or are naturally occurring substances which may be added to match the character of the wine more closely to market demand. For example, if grapes must be harvested before the tannins have softened, the wines may be aged in barrel to extract oak tannin, or commercially prepared oak tannin or grape tannin may be added to bring the wine's palate into better balance.
Wine production regulations are complex and comprehensive. It is absolutely forbidden to employ any treatment or additive which is not in the regulations. For this reason the consumer can be assured that wine has been produced to the highest standards. Other foods do not have the long history of consistent production methods and are not as tightly defined, thus they require an ingredient label. In the United States some wineries are now using a voluntary ingredient label as a marketing ploy to demonstrate how few of the allowed practices they employ.
If a winemaker were in any way to depart from the national regulations of his country, he would be required to have an ingredient label.
Gary Strachan BSA, SM, PAg, Canada
I agree with the “cola” comparison. I'm sure wine collectors (aka wine snobs) are upset because they now look foolish for bragging about their expensive wines that are more “table wine drink” than “table wine.” Why are we continually paying more for a product that is gradually becoming a purely man-made product? Doesn't anyone realize that this program uncovers the fallacy of continually increasing wine prices? What are we really paying more for?
It is finally public knowledge that wine from elite wineries (the ones that make “expensive” wines) are chemically the same as bargain wines regardless of what grapes were used or where they came from. If elite wines have to be chemically altered to taste better and score higher, then what really makes their wine better? Why bother buying expensive “cola” wine from the likes of Latour or Penfolds when you can get the same from an unknown winery. If one argues that grapes from elite wineries are from a better pedigree and terroir, then I'd like to know what their “better” grape juice would taste like without the additives. I'd like to see how the wine manufacturing process at 1st growth Bordeaux wineries has changed over the years. Were the 1899, 1929 or 1945 Lafites made any differently than a 2000 Lafite? If so, how?
I wonder if wine makers have bottles of additives labeled according to the desired effect: big, full bodied, lead pencil, petrol, freshly cut grass, blackberry, peach, star fruit, cedar, etc.
Dan, Westfield, NJ, USA
It was a very interesting programme but no-one will be put off lower priced 'contaminated' wines. Price drives the industry and if a consumer is faced by an industrial product that 'may' contain several of the above mentioned unnatural products and another more artisan wine that is produced totally naturally with a love and respect for tradition and the land but costs 3 times the price, they will go for the manipulated alco-pop wine! Most consumers, (the supermarket wine buyer) care little about what they drink or how it was produced, a flashy label and a price promotion is all they want!
Disgruntled but still believing Italian wine merchant!
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
Sorry, but this discussion is ridiculous !
