In a rare public appearance earlier this month, Ernest Gallo, owner of the world’s largest winery, accused some governments of damaging the world’s wine industry by portraying alcoholic beverages “as toxins and dependence-inducing drugs” and by “making no distinction between cabernet and cocaine.”
Speaking to more than 300 officials from nearly three dozen of the world’s wine-producing nations at the 73rd general assembly of the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, (International Office of the Vine and Wine, OIV), Gallo lamented the inclusion of wine in governmental actions against all alcoholic beverages, despite medical evidence of wine’s health benefits from the World Health Organization and other groups.
But neo-Prohibitionism was not the only concern of the OIV members. They also considered changes in wine labeling, tariffs on wine imports, environmental threats such as phylloxera, and marketing techniques.
The OIV is a Paris-based organization founded in 1924 in part to react to America’s enactment of Prohibition. Call it poetic justice. This is the OIV’s first convention on American soil, and it coincided with the 60th anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition.
The OIV members convene annually to work out agreements on three general topics: viticulture (grapegrowing), enology (winemaking) and economic concerns. Several specific items were on the discussion menu.
In the viticultural arena, this year’s delegates considered such technical aspects as the certification and quarantine of plant material and how to limit residues in the treatment of raisin grapes. They also worked on agreements on the limits for additives to wines. And members debated agreements concerning excise taxes, health issues and, especially important from the United States’ point of view, labeling laws.
In calling for the OIV to adopt a position on neo-Prohibitionism, Gallo asked that the organization add a fourth subject-research and education-to its traditional trilogy of topics. Under that heading the OIV could communicate the “nearly irrefutable” evidence of the health benefits of consuming wine in moderation, he said.
During another discussion, delegates considered the issue of appellation-labeling, or the naming of wines after places where the grapes are grown, a practice traditionally used in Europe to describe wines such as Chianti, Champagne, Port, Chablis and others.
In the last century, most of the European nations agreed to respect one another’s appellations; hence, the French agreed not to call any of their red wines chianti, while the Italians promised not to call their bubblies champagne, and so on.
America, Argentina, Chile, Australia and many other countries of the New World never signed these agreements, however, and have been using what is known as generic labeling-that is, terms such as chablis, champagne and burgundy ever since, to the chagrin of the Europeans. In response, Europeans have kept wine tariffs on our exports high.
Here a big “however” comes into play. Before 1975, American winemakers did not export much to Europe, less than 1.5 million gallons annually. This was not only because Europeans did not think Americans made anything worth drinking, but also because the sight of an American wine labeled “chablis” on the French market was anathema to them. That was to change.
In 1976, Steven Spurrier, an English wine merchant living in Paris, staged a blind winetasting at which American wines were judged-by French experts-to be as good as or better than French Burgundies and Bordeaux. (A reprise of that tasting will be held at the Midwest International Wine Exposition in Chicago in October; call 708-678-0071 for details.)
It caused many Europeans to re-evaluate their opinions of our wines and made American wine producers, who were hungry for exports in a flat domestic market, to reconsider their stand on wine labeling.
In 1992, America exported 37 million gallons of wine. This is better than a new strain of phylloxera, but it is only a trickle of what could be realized, especially when one considers that almost 60 percent of these exports go to three countries without much of a wine industry for us to insult or threaten: Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan.
No decisions were made at the OIV meeting, but it seems likely that European governments will give a little on import duties for American wine imports. And American wine producers who want to sell more to Europe will be forced to rework some of their wine-label lingo. Could this be the end of New York State Champagne?
How important this issue is to Americans in the wine industry was brought home at a press conference staged by the Bank of America, a longtime lender to growers and winemakers. According to BOA, there are several major concerns before our winemakers.
First, as Gallo mentioned, per-capita wine consumption is down in every major wine-producing country on the globe. Aside from increased governmental tax and legislative action to address what, right or wrong, is considered the negative health issue, reasons for wine consumption being down include today’s greater variety of beverages to choose from and changing demographics.
Second, winegrowers, primarily in California but also, sooner or later, in Oregon and Washington, are faced with several vine-health problems. Phylloxera, the vine-louse that kills unprotected vines, has proved invulnerable to most chemical or biological countermeasures and has shown an ability to mutate, especially in California’s “Motherlode,” Napa and Sonoma counties. Add to this pest-porridge a variety of parasitic worms, which act as vectors for a wide range of debilitating viruses, and you have a serious economic problem.
Last, the way that wines now are being marketed in this country, not to mention the export market, gives larger wineries the advantage. As more wines are being sold through large discount stores or chains yielding small profit margins, only the largest and strongest producers stand a chance. If smaller wineries cannot sell their goods on the domestic market easily, and if high foreign tariffs and label quibbles prevent them from exporting much, the same thing that happened to the American beer industry a generation ago-with a few strong companies absorbing the smaller ones-could well be the fate of the wine industry after 2000. And the current total of more than 1,400 U.S. wineries could shrink to that of Prohibition days with not a single old-time temperance law being enacted.
