|
Government and consorzio clash over Brunello
June 9, 2008
Kerin O'Keefe
The Italian government and the Brunello consorzio are at loggerheads as to who will take charge of the ongoing crisis over alleged adulteration of the wine.
US government officials meet the Italian Minister of Agriculture in Rome today to discuss trade issues and to hammer out a solution to the crisis.
The delegation from the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTB) will then meet tomorrow (Tuesday) with the Brunello Consorzio and its president Francesco Marone Cinzano.
They will discuss details of the threatened US embargo which has been put back to 23 June to give producers more time to organise testing as well as the measures the Consorzio must take to guarantee Brunello.
'I'm confident that we'll be able to resolve the issue in a positive manner for all parties,' Marone Cinzano said.
But it appears that the government and the Consorzio are vying with each other over who will be the 'saviour' of Brunello.
While Antonio Bonfiglio, the undersecretary for agriculture, gave his full support to a Consorzio-led testing panel, the Minister of Agriculture Luca Zaia 'publicly denied having anything at all to do with our quality control panel,' Marone Cinzano said.
It now appears that Zaia may be forming his own committee to guarantee Brunello quality.
Cinzano said, 'We Brunello producers want to introduce new standards that would truly guarantee our product for consumers, but unfortunately our initiatives are being frowned upon by many in Italy, even by some of the other DOCGs, who don't want to change the current system'.
He added, 'But because a general assembly of the Consorzio is a sovereign body, we will push ahead with our quality control panel, with or without the support of the Ministry of Agriculture, though hopefully with.'
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
I'm all in favour of honesty in wine labelling, but I'm stunned that this issue has been raised by the US.
If I buy a bottle of 2005 Napa Cabernet, how much of the wine needs to be just that - 2005 Napa Cabernet? As I understand it, upto 20% can be from another vintage, upto 20% can be from another region, and upto 20% can be from another grape variety - and we're not talking about the same 20% in each case. This leaves open the possibility that less than half of the contents actually match the desription. When this is added to the large-scale misappropriation of European names in the domestic US market (Chablis, Burgundy, Champagne etc), one wonders where the idea for this crackdown has come from?
My real concern doesn't concern a trade war - I'm more worried that European regions will protect themselves by widening the legal definitions of their wines. After all, this has only happened because of the tightness of the Brunello regulations. Some mixed plantings are common, particularly in old vineyards, and where the regulations call for mono-varietal wines (Brunello, Barolo, Burgundy, Hermitage etc), I could see the authorities covering themselves by allowing a lower legal figure, and thus opening the door for less accidental blending.
Martin Bove
Mr. Bove - a point of clarification:
By federal law, a 2005 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon must be: 1) at least 75% Cabernet Sauvignon; 2) produced from at least 85% Napa Valley fruit; 3) at least 95% of the fruit must have been harvested in 2005. I don't have a problem with this, as a judicious blend of Cabernet Sauvignon with, say, Merlot and Cabernet Franc can produce a fine wine using the classic Bordeaux model. I also believe that cool weather varietals, such as Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, and Riesling should always be 100% of the varietal, as blending with other grapes does not improve the wine, and is almost always a sign of wine made on the cheap. I also abhor generic labels (Burgundy, Champagne, Chablis) as used in the United States. Thankfully, there is less and less consumer interest in these wines, and it is now illegal, thanks to international agreement, to produce new generic-labeled wines, even though existing producers may continue to do so.
Brunello di Montalcino is one of the world's greatest wines, and it makes no sense for its producers to shoot themselves in their collective foot. Perhaps one day the world will find out exactly what happened to create this scandal in Montalcino and beyond, but something tells me it's not really about the quality of the wine or the commitment of Brunello producers.
Steven Kolpan, NY, USA
While I agree that some controls need to take place for following the rules about Brunello, I would like to offer a correction for Mr. Bove's assertions about Napa Cabernet. Under current law, the permitted thresholds for blending (without additional labeling) allowed are up to 5% from another vintage; up to 15% from other regions; up to 25% other grapes. And the 25% maximum applies, so if one buys a bottle of 2005 Napa Cabernet, at least 75% of the grapes used to make the wine were 2005 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon.
On the subject of, "Why should the United States be the ones raising the fraud flag": Even though producers in our country have been "cheating" about place names in the past, we did agree (with much delay, I believe) to follow the rules by agreeing to a treaty with the EU that no new products with these misappropriated names would be created in the future (from time ot treaty). Do I think we should force removal of all the American Burgundy and California Chablis from the shelves? I would say absolutely. But then we would see these items labeled as "Chablee," just to follow the new rules. Unfortunately, the rule that was created allowed all such product to be grandfathered, but no new brands of "California Chablis" to be created.
I think the fact that the allegation was made is what needs to be investigated; the behavior and/or motives of the accuser do not diminish the truth about the alleged violation. If producers of Brunello di Montalcino make a rule that there wine shall be 100% Sangiovese, then that is the standard they live and die with. If our producers of Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon are only willing to hold themselves to the standards I outlined above, then that is the sword they will either live or die by. Either way, when the one responsible for following the rules is the one that set the rules, they are outlining the standards by which they should be judged.
Kevin Beck, Tulsa, OK USA
We are losing people and money in Iraq, we are paying over $125 per barrel of oil, our people are going homeless and jobless, and our government sees fit to spend good money to make sure a winemaker in a small town in Italy doesn't add a point or two of Cabernet to his Brunello? I'm all for sound wine law, but this is absurd.
Patrick W Fegan, Director Chicago Wine School, USA
I stand corrected over the precise percentages of non-Napa, non-Cabernet, and non-2005 fruit, allowed in a Napa Cabernet 2005 (I didn't check the figures) - but the point still stands - the wine can still contain a large percentage (25%) of fruit that doesn't conform to the description on the label. My fear is that in order to satisfy the US authorities, European wine producing regions will create similarly loose regulations - something that will do nothing for US consumers - rather than try to enforce the current ones.
Regarding Mr Koplan's assertion that Cabernet is somehow more acceptable to blend than other variatals, this is somewhet subjective, and any knowledge of the history of Burgundy - particularly in poor vintages - would suggest that maybe producers had other ideas?
To Mr Beck, It wasn't my intention to widen the debate to Californian Chablis (or Chablee), but if I were a producer of the real thing, I might not be over impressed by the compromise that has been agreed - it still leaves some huge brands on the market, happily exploiting their name. I think that Mr Becks point about regions being held to the standards they set themselves is a fair one, but that raises three questions. 1) Does the consumer actually know what standards are being claimed? - my recollection of Napa regulations was somewhat sketchy, despite having sold rather a lot over the years. 2) Is it in the consumers interests if others follow Napa's lead? 3) Does keeping to the regulations avoid defrauding the consumer, if the label bears little relation to the actual contents of the bottle?
The Appelation and labelling requirements of various wine regions are complex, and not widely understood, even within the trade, so the consumer relies on the information on the label. Brunello has a devoted and knowledgable following, so I would expect a large proportion of consumers to know that it should be a monovarietal, but I would also expect many to be aware that this is by no means always the case. I wonder how many European consumers of Napa Cabernet are so well informed?
Martin Bove, Spain
|
|
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of whats 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. |
Search for similar news stories
Back to index
|
