Is a content minimum of 75% a high enough standard to allow a winery to label a wine as a single Variety?

The name of a single grape variety may be used as a designation of the wine on the label if, according to TTB regulations if, “75 percent of the wine is derived from grapes of that variety, the entire 75 percent of which was grown in the labeled appellation of origin area.”

What say you to the appropriate percentage? Why? What should the rule be? I favor 100%, but I recognize that is impractical because you can always get some field blends for simple reasons like a renegade vine or someone screwed up with sorting grafts or some other reason. If you want to know why I ask, see this thread (Helping small and medium producers - Oct 1 Comment Deadline - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers) and my post on writing a comment letter to TTB. Does 75% make it easier for the little guy to complete? Does it allow for anti-competitive blending of cheaper grapes with the good stuff by the behemoths? Argue among yourselves, please. Isn’t that what we are good at?

I really think it depends on the grape variety. In my view, Pinot Noir should be 100% Pinot. I’m ok with the 75% rule in general, although all wineries should be required to state the varietal breakdown somewhere on the label.

1 Like

I always wonder why folks think Pinot should be 100% but others varieties do not need to be? Why?

Cheers.

2 Likes

I believe that the percentage is set by federal regulation, and the regulation varies by varietal. The 75% rule applies to some varietals, but not others.

In Oregon, if the label claims or implies “Oregon,” an Oregon county, or an AVA wholly within Oregon, 100% of the grapes must be from Oregon and 95% from that appellation of origin. Exceptions to this rule apply to wines declaring cross-border AVAs, such as the Walla Walla Valley and Columbia Gorge, for which AVA labeling may follow laws of either state. Washington State follows the TTB’s guidelines of 85%. However, 100% of the grapes must come from the two states.

Varietal Declaration

Oregon also has stricter regulations than other U.S. regions when it comes to labeling the varieties used in a wine. Federal regulation states that at least 75% of grapes used to make a wine must be of the declared variety in an identified appellation of origin. In Oregon, 90% or more of the wine must be from the named variety, including Oregon’s most widely produced wines: Pinot noir, Pinot gris, Chardonnay, Pinot blanc and 50 other varieties known to grow in Oregon.

However, there are 18 grape varieties exempted from Oregon’s 90% minimum requirement for varietal labeling and allowed to be blended with up to 25% other varieties. These include: Cabernet franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Carmenere, Petite Sirah, Grenache, Malbec, Marsanne, Merlot, Mourvedre, Petit Verdot, Roussanne, Sangiovese, Sauvignon blanc, Semillion, Syrah, Tannat, Tempranillo and Zinfandel. These varieties have a long history of being used for blending in their respective European regions, and the exemption allows vinification following in their historical tradition.

–Oregon Wine Board

2 Likes

I stand corrected. It is state law that varies.
Thank you, Todd.

1 Like

I purchase appellation bottles because I want as much of the appellation itself to be represented in the glass, so I would push for as close to 100% as is possible. However, I realize that isn’t practical or feasible for many reasons, especially for smaller producers. Rather than try to enforce percentages, I would hope for more regulation in transparency and then use my dollars to ‘vote’ for producers whom are 100% transparent with is in the bottle. I would more than likely purchase labels that are as close to 100%, given all else being equal.

More restrictive varietal labelling laws wouldn’t disallow “vinification following in their historical tradition,” but they might disallow continued misleading labelling of those wines.

2 Likes

Truth is best. The more accurate the information on the label the better. I think 75% is pretty weak. 100% is almost certainly too burdensome.

1 Like

The problem with pushing for 100% - the Wine Institute will never go for it, and they are a huge lobbying agent for the wine industry in the US. The reason they won’t - the large member wineries want the ‘flexibility’ that the current laws allow. I’m not saying it’s right - it’s just a reality.

Cheers.

2 Likes

In Oregon to label by variety, you must have 100%. That’s a recent change, but from 90% previously, rather than 75%.

Blends are permitted with the varieties all labeled and percentages shown. But you may not call it by one of the grapes in the blend. E.g. Our field blend from Whistling Ridge states the vineyard, but not a grape variety other than as part of a list of the grapes included.

Yes, agreed.

Todd’s post is slightly outdated in that variety must now be 100%, to be labeled as such. That said, I do not know if there is still an exception for Bordeaux and Rhone varietals.

The 5% margin for appellation was primarily to deal with needing to top barrels. It left room for a winery with a topping barrel from x AVA to top all of their barrels, rather than just barrels from x AVA. Please remember that this rule was formed at a time when most Oregon Pinot Noirs cost $10-40, rather than today’s costs.

Careful what you wish for. I’m all for transparency and disclosure, but keep in mind the narrow-mindedness of the market. The market wants simple. Just the few varietal wines it knows. Blends (with a few exceptions) are relegated the “other” section and are notoriously difficult to sell. I guarantee you wineries will compromise the quality of their wines over switching the labels from varietal to proprietary. They’ll utilize more tech solutions to try to achieve what blending could. So, I’d rather push for more disclosure. (And don’t punish the honesty. We saw people get hysterical when Ridge started disclosing the details of their winemaking. Honesty about low-intervention measures clashing with naive preconceptions, so seeming extreme rather than less than most.)

3 Likes

Wes makes a very good point. Beserkers arguing for what Berserkers want means little to nothing for the overall marketplace.

Yes, but Berserkers arguing is informing the analysis we are going to put to this and, besides, Berserkers arguing is what we do best.

The issue of Oregon laws versus federal laws is an interesting issue of federal preemption that I have to think about. If Oregon passes a law that says, “In order for a bottle to say “Willamette Valley Pinot Noir” it must be 100% pinot noir from Willamette Valley” but federal law allows 5% Algerian Syrah ( [stirthepothal.gif] ) to be added and still label it Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, I have doubts that the winery in Oregon would be prohibited from producing and selling the Algerian enhanced pinot noir in California, but perhaps they would be prohibited from selling or pouring it in Oregon.

However, I did not start reading the TTB regulations until last night and the download was hundreds of pages so I am still working on it to see if there is a real conflict between the state rules and the federal rules. However, I have learned one very important thing. Retsina, the wine we all love to hate, is specifically mentioned in the TTB regulations and defined as, “(i) Class 9; retsina wine. “Retsina wine” is grape table wine fermented or flavored with resin.”

How is this enforced? Is there testing, checking of records, or some other method of verification? If a winery buys grapes from a vineyard sold to them as X and it turns out they are Y, is the winery or the vineyard liable?

And while minor is the percent by weight of grapes, volume of juice, or some other measure. If one bleeds off juice does that change the percentage?

I don’t see an issue here. I have worked in a small winery and know owners of others. This has never come up as an issue in any of our discussions.

Well, they’re snobs. What do you expect? [snort.gif]

To quote all the Hedonists on this board: “Who cares? Drink what you like!” grouphug

We finally arrive at the ultimate truth! :wink:

1 Like