Cafes & Wineries

I look up to journalists. I really do. They actually get paid for doing what I play at here every day, and most of them are way better at it than I am. But every once in a while someone publishes a story that makes me wonder how we all manage to avoid riding journalists out of town on a rail.

Witness the headlines that are rapidly rocketing their way across the internet: Heavy Metals Found in Wine, Metals in wine may be health danger, and Euro wines carrying potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals.

If this is really true, then most of the people I know are going to start dropping dead any day now. If it is not true, then this is some of the most irresponsible, flagrantly fear-mongering journalism I have seen in a long time.

I have every reason to believe it is the latter.

First, an overview of the story: scientists at Kingston University in London have done some analysis (here’s their paper for those inclined to read it) that seems to suggest that wines are much higher in various heavy metals than suspected, and that those levels, according to these researchers, exceed safety thresholds to the point of being a health concern.

But there is more to the story than this. This story originated at the pinnacle of respectable journalism that is WebMD (their top topics this week include penis enlargement). Stamped with the approval of a reviewing doctor, this story is meant to reek of credibility. It certainly reeks, but of something else entirely.

Readers don’t find out until the second page of the story that the data these scientists are analyzing isn’t their own and it wasn’t collected with the purpose of making evaluations about the health implications of trace elements in wine.

The amounts of metals found in these wines are described as being in some cases 300 times those found in fish, but the reporter neglects to mention the fact that the metals in the wine (vanadium, copper, manganese, zinc, nickel, chromium, and lead) are different than those in fish (mainly mercury), and therefore probably have wildly different levels of danger (last time I checked it takes a lot more copper to screw you up than it does mercury).

Throughout the piece the reporter uses the word “contaminate” to describe the presence of the metals in the wine, yet most of those metals are found in nearly everything we eat that comes from a plant and several are found in pretty much every multi-vitamin on the face of the planet.

One of the other highly suspect components of this research, which is not addressed at all by the reporter has to do with the fact that somehow only wines from Italy, Brazil and Argentina have safe levels of metal, meaning they have between 30 and 300 times less of these metals in them than the other wines.

Now I’m not a winemaker or a wine scientist, but other than some basic filtration (which I’m not even sure is capable of removing metals such as these), I’m not aware of any winemaking step or process that specifically removes heavy metals from wine. And as far as I know, grape vines grow in the many of the same types of soil and climate all over the world. So how is it exactly that some country’s wines are so “contaminated″ while others aren’t? The fact that this contamination is consistent by country, too, seems utterly preposterous — as if there’s some consistent problem in the entire frigging country?

Take a quick read of the actual research paper, and it’s easy to see that the researchers themselves only tested a single red wine (and Australian Shiraz) and that there is no mention of all these countries’ wines that appear in the WebMD article. None.

I’ll stop my outrage there. Most likely, this is a flawed research study that is being wrongly interpreted by a stupid journalist, and now wine drinkers all over the world are going to be worried that along with their resveratrol, they’re getting a Parkinson’s inducing dose of heavy metals.

If I had to choose between entrusting my life and health to a glass of good red wine or a hack journalist, I know which one I would choose.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Amidst the tumbling financial markets, rapacious campaigning, and international crises of one form or another, we all need to slow down and have a glass of wine. Moreover, we all need to stop taking life quite so seriously.

I normally don’t look to French winegrowers for a source of amusement — they are a famously unfunny lot — but apparently desperate times have brought out some humor in some wine producers in the Languedoc.

Faced with low demand for their cooperative produced wines in the face of their region’s reputation for producing plonk, a group of winemakers have decided that they might as well meet the consumer’s expectation.

So they′ve produced a wine labeled “Vin de Merde.” And for anyone who didn’t learn any French swear words when they got the chance in Fifth Grade, that means “Shit Wine.” Or as the ever so proper BBC commentator puts it: “Crap wine.” The rest of the text on the label says: “The worst signifies the best.”

Here’s a little piece from the BBC on the brilliant new label, which just happens to be selling faster than they can get it into shops.

Original post by beatrice.russo

Perhaps 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.

Here’s a clip from the segment. Here’s another one.

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.

Duh.

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.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

In the circles of wine lovers I travel in, many folks make a common observation about the evolving landscape of wine criticism. Namely that the era of Robert M. Parker, Jr. is coming to a close, and a new world of wine critics are emerging. I′m not sure I′d personally describe what I see happening in the wine world in quite those terms, but it’s clear that Parker has been doing some succession planning in the past couple of years with many of the new additions to his staff. It’s also clear that there are many new voices in the world of wine criticism, and some of them are beginning to carry serious weight.

One in particular seems to be rapidly gaining in power and influence, to the point that he is making markets for wine — when he writes about a wine, it flies off the shelves and skyrockets in price.

His name is Shizuku Kanzaki, and he is a cartoon character.

Specifically, he is the sommelier hero of the Japanese comic book series Kami no Shizuku, or “Droplets of the Gods.” Long time readers will remember that I have written about him before. But apparently he’s gone from novelty to downright phenomenon. And when I say that he is gaining in power and influence, a single number may suffice to demonstrate that fact:

Number of subscribers to Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate: 50,000
Estimated number of individual readers of Kami no Shizuku: 500,000

Influence on wine prices and inventories aside, the most impressive impact of this imaginary wine critic seems to me to be the fact that sommelier classes for women are “fully booked” in Japan.

How cool is that? Beats the heck out of the “Sideways Effect.”

Read the latest story.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

France, you get a free pass today. The European Common Market Organization is my newest punching bag when it comes to idiotic wine regulations.

I can hardly believe it, but new wine industry reforms proposed by this body apparently will result in the elimination of Italy’s DOC and IGT designations for wine.

WHAT!?!?

If that doesn’t make your blood boil, then you’re not paying attention.

These reforms, which would go into effect in 2009 if adopted seem to suggest the equivalent action to taking all of the individual Bordeaux appellations and replacing them with just two: “Left Bank” and “Right Bank.” For instance, according to Decanter Magazine, one of the proposed new designations would merge all of the surrounding areas (currently designated Barbera and Dolcetto) with Barolo — making no distinction between those “village” wines and what is certainly one of Italy’s most historical and prestigious wine regions. In all Italy’s 316 DOCs, 38 DOCGs and 118 IGT appellations would be collapsed to a mere 182 designations.

Now, I’m not in favor of the mass proliferation of wine appellations. I think beyond a certain point there are diminishing returns to the slicing and dicing of terroir into ever finer designations and regulations.

But how could anyone in their right mind think that reducing the number of Italian wine appellations by 75% could possibly be a good thing?

Would one of my European readers explain to me how on earth this travesty of legislation even got out of committee?

Read the full story. And then if you′re an EU passport holder, please, write your parliamentarian, or whatever it is you do when you′re pissed off at the government.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Anyone who has an e-mail account and has checked it at least once in the last 10 years has probably received an e-mail that begins:

DEAR SIR,

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $47,500,000.00 (FORTY SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS.

Known as the Nigerian Scam, or more properly an Advanced Fee scam, this sort of fraud has been incredibly successful, despite what may seem to some as its completely over-the-top implausibility. Apparently a lot of compassionate (and in particular elderly) Internet users have lost a lot of money to the scammers, many of whom are actually from Nigeria.

In jest, inspired by an e-mail from my friend Jack, I created little post about a year ago entitled The Nigerian Wine Scam as a joke. Maybe not a very well executed one, but some people got a chuckle out of it.

But now, reality has again trumped my own vain efforts at humor.

There really is a Nigerian Wine Scam. Not of the e-mail variety, of course, but of the much more dangerous bottled variety.

Nigeria is home to some excellent sounding wines, with names like “Bacchus Tonic Wines,” “Eva Wines,” and “Blue Cocktail Wines.” Unfortunately while these are legitimate brands of alcoholic beverages, someone in Abuja, Nigeria has been re-using the bottles, corks, and labels of these brands to produce fakes that are not only not as tasty, they are downright dangerous.

Reportedly concocted of “caramel, vanilla flavour, red and blue colouring substance, alum grains, gum Arabic, among others” according to The Punch, a Nigerian Online Newspaper, these “wines” also contained sachet water — water from small, often hand tied, plastic sachets that have become popular sources for drinking water in Africa in recent years.

These sachets are widely regarded by the scientific and medical communities as being extremely unreliable in their manufacture (not to mention completely unregulated), and tests have shown that sachets can contain everything from extremely high levels of toxic heavy metals to all manner of water borne pathogens and microbiological contaminents (can you say faecal coliforms?).

To wit: the dangers to anyone who might opt for a glass or two of Bacchus Tonic apparently include entero-gastritis, diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, cholera, and organ damage. Not to mention a pretty disgusting taste in your mouth.

So next time you get an e-mail offering you the chance to receive a one time shipment of Grand Cru Nigerian wine, just hit delete.

Read the full story.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

At one point in the glorified history of Western civilization, people were beaten or berated if they failed to show up for religious services. You didn′t simply put money in the collection box, it was taken from you. But we’re in the 21st century, and the church must rely less on force and more on marketing if it wants to hold onto its market share in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

In a move that may have been inspired by scripture itself (”Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful, and not to make men drunk. Wine drunk with moderation is the joy of soul and the heart. Ecclesiastes 31:35-36″) The Church of England recently suggested that there might be a very easy way to get people to visit one of its cathedrals more often: install a wine bar.

Of course, this wasn’t some stuffy bishop suggesting that a glass of Chardonnay under the light of stained glass windows might be good for the soul. Rather, this was the “director of hospitality and welcome,” whose job, it seems, is to “rejuvenate a the brand” of the Church, which has seen a gradually dwindling stream of visitors to its Cathedral in Birmingham.

I’m all for this sort of approach. The world would be a better place if we all sat down and had a glass of wine with each other more often, and I can think of a lot worse places to do it than some of England’s beautiful cathedrals.

In fact, this could be a whole new frontier for converting England’s beer drinkers into faithful followers of the grape. France, with its dismally dropping population of younger wine drinkers would be wise to consider such a move as well. Even the Catholic church could find an angle in here, and the the process they could significantly increase the quality of that communion wine.

Presumably there will be some limit to the amount of drinking one can do in such an establishment, however. Dancing on the pews does not seem like it would go over very well.
Read the full story.

Original post by beatrice.russo

My colleague Jim Gordon who currently edits Wines & Vines magazine just pointed me to an article on their web site that made my jaw hit the table.

Reporting from the recent meeting of the American Society for Wine Economists, writer Peter Mitham describes a presentation by researcher Robin Goldstein, who seems to have performed a sting operation on the Wine Spectator Restaurant Awards and exposed them as a total farce, as part of his ongoing investigations on the perceptions of value and quality in wine.

In summary:

1. Researcher invents fake restaurant in Italy.
2. Researcher builds web site for fake restaurant.
3. Researcher constructs wine list of the lowest scoring Italian wines from Wine Spectator in the last decade.
4. Researcher enters Wine Spectator Restaurant Awards.
5. Fake restaurant wins Wine Spectator Award of Excellence.

I haven’t laughed so hard at a piece of wine news in years. It’s truly unbelievable.

Read the article at Wines &amp Vines, and then go read the the researcher’s own blog post on the subject, which includes text from the Spectator’s reviews of the wines on his list. It’s hysterical.

If this is true, it completely destroys any shred of credibility that these awards might have.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

The birth of a wine region is a fascinating thing to watch, and I’m sure an even more fascinating process to be a part of. Much of the wine that we drink comes from regions that have been established anywhere from decades to centuries ago, but the quest for great wine and great places to grow it (not to mention the changing whims of the global climate) means that there are always new frontiers when it comes to wine growing.

All new wine regions begin the same — with a pioneering spirit and a hell of a lot of determination. Someone decides that a certain place is the right spot to grow wine grapes, and they stake a lot of sweat and money on whatever knowledge they’ve got backing up that decision, whether it be a hunch, or a GIS enabled geologic survey.

Eventually, the initial prospector may be joined by others, especially if he or she manages to survive and produce a product that doesn’t suck.

For a time, these early farmers and winemakers operate out of sheer passion and determination. They need no more organization than their own collegiality or happenstance might offer. It is enough that they are growing and making wine in the place they dream of doing so.

But with enough success, and enough producers, questions of legitimacy and marketability inevitably arise. That is to say, eventually, it seems to make sense to make the wine region “official” and to use its name as a way of distinguishing the wine grown in that region, from wine grown elsewhere. At the very least, it makes sense to agree on a name for this place that everyone can use. At the most, it may make sense to establish rules and regulations that determine the quality and nature of the wine made in the region.

But when exactly does it make sense to do this? In the case of new regions emerging within or alongside existing ones, there are legislative answers to this question already.

But when the region is entirely new, this question gets very interesting. The winemakers of Guadalupe Valley and the Mexican government are currently wrestling with the issues surrounding this question at this very moment.

The Government of the State of Baja has suggested that the fledgling wine region adopt regional appellations and a set of regulations along the lines of the Denomination of Origin laws in Spain, Italy, or France.

It’s easy to see how the region could benefit from such laws. They add credibility to any wines that carry the designation on the label, and the wines can be marketed to the world under specific regional names, with guarantees of quality. In short, such regulations could help increase prices and demand for Guadalupe Valley wines.

On the other hand, say many of the vintners, no one has any idea what the boundaries of the region should be, what the wine regulations ought to require or forbid, or how to measure the quality of this new region’s wines.

And frankly, they have a point. We wine lovers are so used to the codified traditions of our global wine regions. We know that Brunello is required to be 100% Sangiovese, and that Burgundy must be 100% Pinot Noir, but at some point people had to decide that this was so. Of course, those decision makers had many decades (or more) of winemaking traditions to back up their regulations.

Who is going to decide what the permitted grape varieties are in the Guadalupe Valley? And more importantly how on earth could someone decide that so early in the region’s evolution as a wine locality? And what is the definition of quality in a region where only in the last couple of years have global critics even suggested that there might be high quality grapes being grown there? These are tough questions, and scary ones to contemplate a bureaucrat or some other ministry official forcing on a burgeoning wine region.

For now it may be best to simply make the geographic region more official, and wait for the perspective of some history to guide more definite judgments about what will make for great Mexican wine.

Read the full story.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola

Who knows where this stuff comes from? Or why the first place I find out about it is some newspaper in the UK. But apparently times are tough for some grape growers in Washington state, so instead of putting the hard work in to grow wine grapes, they′re turning to Marijuana instead. Or perhaps more accurately, they′re selling out to friendly people who show up willing to pay cash for their vineyards.

Apparently several former vineyards have been converted to Ganja fields in the last year or two. But one has to wonder at the wisdom of such an approach given that due to their need for sun, most vineyards are quite exposed and easy to spot from the air. As in, easy to spot from a DEA helicopter.

Or maybe these folks are getting really savvy and they’re just shooting for a sensimilla cover crop in between the rows. The stuff grows pretty quickly, maybe they’re getting a full, um, harvest by the time the rows need to be cleared in the spring.

I’m reminded of a great song by Little Feat… “Just give me: weed, white sand, and wine, and I’ll be willin’”

Read the full story.

Original post by Alfonso Cevola