AnuvaBlog

This whole rosé fiasco has got me thinking about the many other labels/words today that have been banned from import to the EU from the US. I find myself somewhat on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, consumers, whether European or American, should take responsibility for knowing their vendors. If their vendor is dedicated to artesenal practices or mass production, use of pesticide or organic, and that true champagne only comes from the region of Champagne.

At the same time, producers should not be so tied to specific labels only for the sake of marketing. This is where the crossover from yesterday’s post on rosé comes in. Of the latest 15 terms and phrases to be banned from wine labels imported to the EU from the US some should never have been used by American winemakers and wineries (like “chateau” and “clos” which are clearly only used for marketing), some fall into a middle gray area (like “classic” and “fine”–which certainly have meaning in English as well as French), and some, like “tawny” have no sense in being banned whatsoever. Tawny is a color or visual descriptor of anything. Not just wine. In fact, you will notice, that the link I provided has no mention whatsoever of wine or port.

Purposefully misleading consumers and people in general for material gain should be considered criminal, but at the same time, the line that defines purposefully misleading and good marketing is a fine one. After all commercials like the Gatorade one that says that it has “zero PERCENT fat” after saying that it has “zero PERCENT calories” is totally redundant and somewhat misleading. Strictly speaking, one cannot have zero percent calories. Calories are a measure of the energy within a given system: in this case, the drink. But calories can also measure the energy just as well in gasoline as wine, as oil, water and a hamburger. So to day that a drink has “zero percent calories” makes no sense at all. Zero percent of what? There has to be something to have a percentage of it.

That’s why saying that having “zero percent fat” does make sense as it represents part of a whole, measured in either weight or energy (calories).

Wow, tangent.

So take care consumers, to understand your products and purchases, or you will get taken advantage of, and at the same time, marketers, let’s do away with ridiculously misleading sillyness like the complete misuse of scentifically defined terms to make your product sound “engineered” for the body or human being.

Do you know what is scientifically engineered for the human body? Fruits, vegetables, whole grains and things that used to walk, swim or crawl before they ended up on your plate. Shop the perimeter people! (cuz that’s usually where the wine is anyway).

It floors me the extent to which rule enforcers do not know the rules that they are supposed to be enforcing. A recent article in the Seattle Times talks about how visitors to wine country wanted to bring back wines with them to enjoy in their home, a very common thing to desire.

I will not bore you with a summary of the article itself, but I will offer the following commentary: the fact that both the agent for the TSA and the superior figure/manager for the TSA were totally unaware of the regulations that they were supposed to be enforcing not only causes real monetary losses for the consumer but the wine industry and the airlines themselves. If people hear horror stories about not being able to bring wine back from a visit to wine coutry 2 things happen:

1. Less people will be likely to go to wine country because they will assume that they cannot bring with them the souvenir and product that they are going to explore. This results in less people traveling which means that they airlines lose money.

2. Less people going to wine country represents an indirect loss of business for the wine industry in addition to the fact that people will assume they can only take 6 bottles with them (in reality there is no limit for wine (or spirited beverages under 24% alcohol content) but there is a weight limit that is determined by the AIRLINE not the TSA. This can be gotten around by simply paying more) and will thus only buy 6, and not 12 or 24. Another loss for the industry.

We must get away from our post-prohibition ways of protecting distributors and preventing free trade. It does nothing but hurt the consumer and the producer. I would also argue that it hurts the distributor as they lose the brand awareness generated through online sales and direct shipping. Free the Grapes!