DEFENDING CALIFORNIA’S HONORS

BY RALLYING THE LIKE-MINDED, A PILLAR OF THE WINE COMMUNITY HOPES TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF CALIFORNIA VINTAGES.

Like many longtime wine lovers, Anthony J. Terlato, chairman and chief executive of Terlato Wine Group and Paterno Wines International, can recall a time when California wine evoked only chuckles from serious wine enthusiasts. Following the repeal of prohibition and well into the 1960s, most California wine was jug wine, often sweet, with the most successful sold under appropriated French appellation names like Burgundy and Chablis. According to Terlato, in the 1950s wines contained as little as 50 percent of the grape variety listed on the label, if one was listed at all. In fact, many wines of the era listed no grape varietals, origin, or vintage — information that defines California wine today.
   Through the efforts of a few pioneering vintners and ever more stringent regulations governing varietal composition and vintage dating, plus the institution of American Viticultural Areas (AVAs), California quickly began to compete with the Old World wine deities, even besting them at the 1976 blind tasting in Paris.
   Terlato was recently moved to act when he heard about what he perceived as a potential crack in America’s wine commandments: the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently sought public comment on Notice No. 49, a petition from a California wine industry association seeking to change the vintage wine requirements from 95 percent in-vintage wine to 85 percent for wine labeled with a state, multistate, county or multicounty appellation of origin. This would reduce requirements for appellations like Napa County, Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County.
   “The vintage is one of the surest elements of winemaking integrity and consumer comfort. We can’t effectively put an asterisk after it that says ‘mostly’ I use 100 percent in my four wineries,” says Terlato, in reference to Chimney Rock Winery, Rutherford Hill Winery, Alderbrook Winery and Sanford Winery. “What worries me is that once you make a change like this to a high standard, they could next change the varietal composition, so instead of 75 percent it’s 65 percent. They could change the AVA. When you think about it: Why?”
   The proposal supporters specifically point out that other nations are more lax in theft vintage requirements, noting that Australia, New Zealand, and the member states of the European Union require 85 percent same-year content for vintage-dated wine. In Chile and South Africa the requirement is only 75 percent. In theory, the 95 percent rule in the United States applies equally to foreign imports, but there are obvious challenges in enforcing the regulation.
   More freedom to blend wines across vintage would no doubt give certain producers a greater ability to compete with lower priced imports, especially the new breed of so-called lifestyle wines.
   Paul Einbund, sommelier at restaurant Bacar in San Francisco, agrees that large producers would be the beneficiaries of the rule change. “This would better suit a table wine where you never want vintage variation, In these wine styles you want a house style that never changes, but in premium wine we want to see vintage variation from year to year so this does not serve the connoisseur or artisan,” says Einbund. “In California especially, we want the vintage to speak for itself” While Einbund is not convinced the change is an “altogether horrible” idea, he does say that the unscrupulous producer, looking to stretch a great vintage into more bottles, is the scenario he deems most likely.
   Of course, any producer is free to blend across vintages at will, simply by eliminating the vintage date. “What they are showing is how important it is to have a vintage date on the bottle. So why denigrate it? Why not produce a nonvintage wine?” poses Terlato. Rather than lower the standard, Terlato suggests that California should continue to be a leader and make the standard 100 percent same-year wine for vintage dating, something that unknowing consumers may already assume.
   “Why are we lowering our standards to compete with other nations? Countries like Australia and New Zealand have a great esteem for what we’ve been doing in California. The fact that we have a higher standard than a number of them is laudable,” says Terlato.
   Kris Margerum, head sommelier at Auberge du Soleil, a cellar proud Napa Valley country inn, says he can see both sides of the argument for Notice No. 49, including the benefits for large wineries that desire a more consistent product and a competitive edge. He believes, however, that most California producers on his Wine Spectator-awarded 1,500 selection list would never take advantage of more lenient vintage composition. He points out that, like Terlato, they generally use 100 percent same-vintage wine. “I have to say that, personally, I would be even more draconian about the requirements and make it 100 percent,” says Margerum. “That approach offers the maximum expression of vintage and place.”
   He says that most consumers in the U.S. focus their inquisitiveness on varietal composition and agrees that most would simply assume a wine is comprised 100 percent from the vintage and AVA listed on the label. “I do think bringing about this change, bringing this to light, people could perceive that we are broadly cutting back standards, that these new rules would apply to single-vineyard and AVA wines even though they would not,” says Margerum.
   Terlato feels so strongly about the “slippery slope” a change like this might create, that he opined to the TTB during the public comment period, which ended August 30, 2005. He also encouraged like-minded vintners and over 80 members of the media to do the same.
   According to Art Resnick, spokesman for the TTB, all proposed rule changes are posted prominently on the government Web site at www.ttb.gov. Here, interested parties can submit their arguments for or against a proposal, including such important issues as new AVAs, nutritional labeling for alcohol, and advertising regulations. Visitors to the site can also read submitted comments, including Terlato’s, as part of the online public record. The agency receives hundreds of form letters and e-mails from special interests, which are tallied and listed together, so original letters are most effective.
   “We read and analyze every single comment we get,” says Resnick. “As a regulatory agency it’s up to us to consider substantive comments. It’s not a popularity contest. We consider economic factors, science, and then attempt to draft a regulation that strikes a balance between many competing interests.”
   There is still no indication of when or how Notice No. 49 will be decided. Following the comment review, the TTB may make a final ruling, withdraw the proposed change altogether, or request additional research and information.
   Terlato is hoping that, by rallying like-minded wine lovers, he has ensured the integrity of California wine. “The fact is that today we can do a tasting with some of our wines from California and they can compete with the finest wines in the world,” he says. He fears the decision could change global perceptions of California wine and have ramifications far into the future, with wines that might be uncorked 10 years from now: is that 2006 California Cabernet really from 2006, or just 85 percent of it?
   And Einbund fears that such a change could affect the ability of wine directors to make educated decisions about their cellars. “As sommeliers, we use all the facts available to us. With 1994 Cabs, for instance, I taste them every so often. From that I can extrapolate what a given wine will taste like. Changing the rules makes it more blurred, more unpredictable. This would remove some of the information we now have.”

- by JEFFERY LINDENMUTH
©2005 by Food Arts.