• What in your wine? The wine industry, for the most part, has ignored the federal government’s decision to allow voluntary nutrition facts labels on its product. Eric Asimov at the New York Times, though not discussing the labels directly, writes about wine ingredients and offers the following: “…wine can very much be a manufactured product, processed to achieve a preconceived notion of how it should feel, smell and taste, and then rolled off the assembly line, year after year, as consistent and denatured as a potato chip or fast-food burger.” The nutrition labels are an opportunity for producers to connect to younger – and especially female – wine drinkers, and it looks like they’re going to pass it up for no good reason other than they think the idea is stupid.
• No money down under: The news just keeps getting worse for the Australian wine business. Only one in four grape growers in the country’s best wine regions say their business is profitable, while a third of them want to stop growing grapes. And, to make matters worse, grape prices have dropped by half but only about 10 per cent of growers are being paid on time. The numbers come from an Australian government survey, and goes a long way to explain the ongoing crisis in the Aussie wine business.
• How many wines was that? The best way to learn about wine is to taste wine, and Sean Sullivan at the Washington Wine Report knows that first hand. No wonder he won a Wine Blog Award. Sullivan recently tasted 600 Washington wines over the course of several weeks – an impressive performance, even by the Wine Curmudgeon’s standards. The post is worth reading, even if you aren’t particularly interested in Washington wine, because it’s some of the best reporting I’ve seen from a wine writer in a long while. Sullivan eschews the usual sort of wine writing foolishness to give readers something they can use – hard facts, critical insight, and solid advice. In particular, his discussion of alcohol levels is very good.



Recent Comments