Wine Law

While the answer may seem obvious, wine must be legally defined before it can be effectively regulated. Such a definition provides clarity when determining whether or not a product complies with a governing authority’s beverage alcohol laws. For example, imagine a “Pinot Noir”—flavored popsicle, clocking in at 4% alcohol by volume (abv). Is it a “wine” product that should be governed by the same regulations that govern a bottle of 13.5% abv California Pinot Noir?   

To answer that question, we need to turn to the legal definition of wine. The International Organization of Wine and Vine (OIV) defines wine as: “the beverage resulting exclusively from the partial or complete alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether crushed or not, or of grape must,” and stipulates a minimum actual alcohol content of 8.5%. This definition precludes the use of other fruits or concentrated grape musts in the production of wine, and it sets a basic minimum level of ripeness for fruit. US and EU definitions of “grape wine” are mostly congruent with the OIV’s parameters. The EU sets a general actual alcohol range of 8.5-15%, with exceptions for certain traditional styles at both ends. The current US definition of wine, as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR 24.10), includes products made from grapes and other fruits containing not more than 24% abv. In this sense, cider is technically wine! The US defines “grape wine” more narrowly, as the product resulting from normal alcoholic fermentation of ripe, sound grapes. 7-24% is the allowable range of alcohol for the category. In the US still wine is divided into two legal categories: “table wines” (7-14% abv) and “dessert wines” (over 14% to 24% abv). As dessert wines are taxed at a higher rate than table wines, these categories are essentially tax brackets, not declarations of style. In fact, most wines classed as “dessert wines” in the US—i.e., any still wines over 14% abv—are generally dry in style. And many of those wines are above 15%.

Thus, there is a bit of disconnect between US and EU definitions of wine: the US allows for products from 15-24% abv to be labeled as wine; the EU does not. In 2006, the EU and US entered into a bilateral agreement on wine trade, which allowed US producers to export wines of over 15% to Europe. For the first time, the EU recognized these beverages as “wine.”

In 1863 phylloxera struck France, igniting a decades-long debate at the highest levels of academia and government over a response as vignerons watched livelihoods disappear. The economic impact of phylloxera on France and Europe cannot be understated, nor was its influence confined to those years in which French scientists raced for a cure. On the eve of phylloxera’s first recorded appearance, wine accounted for approximately one-sixth of the French agricultural economy, and it was the second-most important export, behind textiles. Phylloxera’s impact was catastrophic: the invasive species reduced France’s vineyard acreage by one-third from 1875 to 1889, and production declined by 73%. Consumption, however, remained constant. Phylloxera therefore caused France to become a wine-importing country, and the country first looked to Spain and Italy to fill the gap. France dramatically increased tariffs on imported wines in the late 1880s, relying increasingly on its African colony of Algeria in the years to follow.

As grafting became the accepted and endorsed solution to the phylloxera problem, French vignerons faced new economic challenges. Many replanted with high-yielding varieties—in Chablis growers often chose to plant Tressalier rather than Chardonnay, for example—and average yields in France more than tripled from 1880 to 1920. Despite aggressive taxation, inexpensive foreign wines brought competition against the resurgent French industry, and tariff-free Algerian imports continued to rise, further driving down French wine prices. Phylloxera devastated the vineyards of France, but in the early 20th century the country was suddenly grappling with a new problem: oversupply. 

Falling prices fed reliance on hybrids. Outside of the wealthier regions of Bordeaux and Burgundy, cash-strapped vignerons continued to plant these “direct producers”—hybrids of American vine species or American and vinifera vines—which provided a cheaper solution to phylloxera than grafting. Hybrid grapes (Noah, Othello, Clinton, Baco, Couderc Noir, and others) were easier to grow, often more prolific, and required fewer applications of pesticides than vinifera varieties. But the first hybrid vines produced markedly inferior wines, and a series of laws passed from 1919 to 1935 limited their use and prohibited replanting. Six varieties, including Noah and Othello, were banned outright due to fears that the wines they produced contained toxic levels of methyl alcohol. Despite such official restrictions hybrid grapevines still accounted for almost one-third of the entire French vineyard by the 1950s and produced almost half of France’s Vin de Table.

Fraud was also commonplace at the turn of the century. The shortages of the phylloxera period opened the door to fraudulent practices, but adulteration and outright misrepresentation blossomed amidst the overproduction and heightened competition that followed. Is that bottle of Burgundy from Burgundy or Algeria? Citing Gironde Archives, the authors of Wine and Culture: Vineyards to Glass state that “five and six times the number of bottles actually produced at particular (Bordeaux) châteaux were sold on the market under the name of the property.” Place and brand names were unreliable, and in any case thin wines were often corrected with the stronger vins médecins of the Midi, Spain, or Algeria. Buyers were increasingly uncertain that they were even buying wine! Unscrupulous producers expanded production by making “wine” from water, sugar, and grape pressings; others diluted wines to stretch their sales. Raisin wines were a common product of Languedoc and at one point accounted for over 10% of the total French production. Harmful additives like plaster and sulfuric acids were used to correct or color poor wines. The great number of adulterated wines tarnished the nation’s image and diminished wine sales abroad.

France had to take action. In 1889 France had passed the Griffe Law, defining wine as the product of the fermentation of fresh grapes and outlining acceptable winemaking practices and additives—sugar for chaptalization, fining agents, etc. A 1905 law targeted fraud in the sale of agricultural products by granting the government administrative authority to prosecute those who misrepresented origin. In 1907 the government strengthened the provisions of the 1905 law and applied them to wines and spirits—by requiring declarations of harvest quantities, for instance—while formalizing the process of regional demarcation. From 1908 to 1912, France thus began to geographically delimit its most distinctive regions: Bordeaux, Banyuls and Champagne for wine production, and Cognac and Armagnac for spirits. These were essentially indications of origin without limits on technique, but an idea—terroir—began to discover its voice through the law. The Law of 6 May 1919 further defined these geographical indications—known as appellations d’origine—as intellectual properties and gave French courts jurisdiction over their use. Ultimately, transferring control to the judicial branch was a failure, as cases came to court after the damage to the integrity of the appellations d’origine had already been done. From 1889 to 1919 France had succeeded in defining the contents of wine and the boundaries of an appellation, but despite some political will the country had failed to link the definition of product and the definition of place.

Preserving authenticity solely by validating geographical origin might be satisfactory for a natural product like mineral water but not for a processed product like wine. While France debated controls on a national scale, vignerons in one locality took action. From 1923 to 1926 a syndicate of Châteauneuf-du-Pape producers led by Château Fortia’s Baron le Roy drafted a set of self-imposed, wide-ranging rules for their appellation, encompassing geographic origin and production parameters. The new Châteauneuf-du-Pape requirements limited growers to ten varieties, set a minimum alcohol content, prohibited chaptalization, and banned rosé production. Local négociants and growers displeased with the strict controls—and likely selling their wines in bulk to northern French merchants for blending—immediately brought a lawsuit. The court in Nîmes decided in le Roy’s favor, legally recognizing the new regulations as integral to the wine’s expression of origin. Following the example of Châteauneuf-du-Pape, a French senator named Joseph Capus pushed new wine legislation through parliament in 1927, stipulating the use of specific non-hybrid varieties for appellations nationwide and defining some basic means of production. For example, the 1927 law mandated both the traditional method of sparkling winemaking and the use of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and (Pinot) Meunier in Champagne. But the 1927 law kept oversight in the hands of local civil judges. Powerful economic interests—for whom stricter practices were frequently a hindrance—exerted influence over the courts, and the development of quality controls in many cases reflected aspirational goals rather than actual historical practice. What Capus and others desired was a self-regulating national system guided by a single agency—one that could establish ambitious controls to protect both the place of origin and preserve the highest possible quality. The stage was set for the AOC system.

In 1935 France established a national regulatory agency: the Comité National des Appellations d’Origine, a governmental branch charged with the creation and administration of appellations d’origine contrôlées (AOCs) for wine and spirits. In a controlled appellation of origin, wines are produced in a defined geographic area and in a manner consistent with “local, loyal, and constant” practices. Clearly defined vineyard and winery practices are required to obtain the right to an AOC. In the vineyard a grower must plant only permitted varieties (the encépagement), and he or she must observe set training and pruning techniques, a minimum density of vines, limits on irrigation, methods of harvest, maximum yields, and minimum must weight and potential alcohol for harvested grapes. Available styles of wine—red, white, sparkling, still, nouveau, fortified—are clearly defined, and an assemblage requirement sets the permitted varietal composition for the final wine blend. The winemaker faces set methods of pressing, maximum alcohol levels for enriched wines, minimum and maximum residual sugar levels, a minimum period of élevage, and other restrictions. AOC wines may not be marketed until a set date, and label text must conform to standards on font size and placement. With Châteauneuf-du-Pape acting as a prototype and the 1927 law as a springboard, the first AOCs appeared in 1936 and 1937. This was a radical shift in policy: the right to an appellation would now be awarded by a national agency prior to a product’s release rather than defended afterward in a court of law. Individual AOC regulations—each assembled in a document called a cahier des charges—served as a bulwark against fraud and attempted to guarantee a consistency of product. Did the system become the hoped-for quality guarantor as the percentage of French wine released under an AOC has grown from less than 10% in the 1940s to over 50% in the 2000s? No—but in a country of disparate winemaking traditions the AOC provided the most coherent national model linking product and place to date. As such, it became a model for other national systems in Europe and eventually for the entire EU. Its single regulatory agency, the Comité National des Appellations d’Origine, became an institut in 1947, giving the organization its modern acronym: INAO.

The AOCs of France eventually became one tier among several in the country’s hierarchy of protected wines. In 1949 the INAO introduced the Vin Délimité de Qualité Supérieure (VDQS) category. Considered a steppingstone to AOC status, VDQS appellations also limited yields, varieties, and methods of viticulture and vinification. Most were located in Loire Valley or Southwest France. By the mid-2000s, the category only comprised about 1% of all French wines, and it was phased out entirely in 2011. In 1979 France formally created a less restrictive category for table wines with geographic origin: Vin de Pays, the “country wines.” These range greatly in size; regional Vin de Pays areas cover broad expanses and multiple départements, departmental areas corresponded to single départements, and zonal areas can be similar to mid-sized AOCs, covering a single winegrowing zone. By the mid-2000s Vin de Pays appellations accounted for one-third of French production. VINIFLHOR, a government agricultural office, used to oversee Vin de Pays regulations but control of the category was transferred to the INAO in 2009, after the European reforms were finalized. At one point, there were over 150 Vin de Pays regions in France; modern consolidation in the post-CMO reform era reduced the number of these to 74 by 2014. (Click here to see them all).

While the politicians in Paris were drafting the AOC laws, they simultaneously produced a series of acts—the Statut de la Viticulture—designed to address the problem of oversupply and stabilize the flooded wine market. This body of decrees, issued from 1931-1935, prohibited new plantings throughout France’s major wine-growing départements and levied new taxes on excess production and high-yielding vineyards. Such taxes took aim at Algerian producers, who controlled vast tracts of land yielding greater quantities of grapes than those in continental France. The Statut gave the government recourse to force distillation in times of great excess and to withhold wines from the marketplace (blocage). And to keep growers happy—or at least on their land—France fixed minimum prices on wine (the prix social). These measures slowed the bleeding even as France plunged into the Great Depression, but in 1942, amid massive vineyard destruction resulting from the war, the Vichy Regime ended the policy. Nonetheless, many of the measures France adopted before the war would reappear afterward, both in France and as European Common Market policy.

With the end of World War II and the Fascist regime, Italy moved its economy forward with surprising speed, and its products—cars, fashion, cinema—became emblems of refinement. However, the country needed to improve the image of its wines abroad. In 1963 Italy passed Law 930 and debuted its Denominazione di Origine Controllata (DOC) system, modeled closely on the French AOC. But the Italians added a second, theoretically stricter tier of appellations: the Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita (DOCG). DOCs must be established for a minimum of five years before their producers could petition for DOCG status, and the first DOCGs (Brunello di Montalcino, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano, Barolo, Barbaresco) did not appear until 1980. An Italian DOC or DOCG is governed by a document called the disciplinare di produzione, which regulates many of the same things as the French cahier des charges: geographic origin, accepted grape varieties and styles of wine, maximum yields, minimum planting density, minimum alcohol levels, and so on. However, while equivocating in some respects—often, required vine training is that “generally used” in an area, or accepted exposures must be “suitable”—the Italians add requirements in others. In many DOCGs, the range of elevation for vineyards is strictly defined. Minimum levels of dry extract are set. Maximum yields are defined in tons per hectare of fruit and in hectoliters per hectare of wine. For serious red DOCG wines, minimum aging requirements far surpass the basic 4-8 month periods usually required by French AOCs. Three, four, or five years of aging—in wood and bottle—may be required to attain DOCG status for some wines. There are riserva versions for many DOCs and DOCGs, requiring additional minimum aging, heightened levels of minimum alcohol, reduced maximum yields, or some combination of all three—the term does not have a standard definition; rather, it is defined by each appellation’s disciplinare di produzione. Finally, a typical taste profile, aroma and color are stated. An amaro (“bitterness”) finish and granato (“garnet”) color are often required. In order to receive DOCG status a wine must show “typical” qualities in front of a tasting panel, which is usually composed of fellow winemakers and administered by the local consorzio. If accepted, the wine is wrapped with a neck band, colored pink for red wines and yellow-green for whites, and released for sale under the DOCG. 

The Italian DOC/DOCG system has been roundly mocked for its inability to guarantee much of anything, especially quality. There are three main areas of complaint: overly generous geographic delimitation, overly broad ranges of accepted styles, and an overly large number of appellations, period. Many of the original DOCs and DOCGs of Italy have expanded their borders far beyond the original growing zones; Chianti and Soave are obvious examples. In response, some appellations have created classico zones, whose borders are restricted (in theory, if not always in practice) to the region’s historic heartland of production. Secondly, Italian appellations are frequently criticized for permitting too many styles of wine, and rightly so. For instance, a DOC may allow the production of basic rosso, bianco, and rosato wines; ten or fifteen varietal wines; spumante, frizzante, and tranquillo styles; normale and riserva; and a few passito and late harvest renditions—all under the same DOC banner! Finally, the numbers: at the end of 2014 there are a combined 406 DOCs and DOCGs. Many of them are of arguable worth; some only serve a small handful of producers. Can quality really be controlled with so many different appellations permitting so many styles of wine?  

While outsiders today see sheer numbers, bloated borders, and commercial irrelevance as the most significant failings of the DOC system, many Italian producers from the late 1960s on found the system too inflexible and strict. Some of Italy’s greatest wines in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s were released as simple table wines—the so-called “Super-Tuscans.” And after the first wave of DOCGs arrived, others emerged—some less than worthy of the designation. The Italian government attempted to restore integrity to a failing system with the passage of Law 164 (Goria’s Law) in 1992. This overhauled existing regulations and added a new tier to the Italian quality hierarchy: Indicazione Geografica Tipica (IGT). Much like the French Vin de Pays, the IGT offered winemakers greater freedoms than DOCs or DOCGs, and the areas encompassed by IGTs were often much larger than those defined by appellations. The first IGTs appeared in 1994; some, like Bolgheri (now a DOC) limited production to specific provinces while others (Toscano, Puglia, etc.) covered an entire region. From the 1990s forward the traditional Italian quality hierarchy thus includes four tiers rather than three: Vino (formerly Vino da Tavola), IGT, DOC, and DOCG.

Germany, whose wine markets were also replete with fraud, took a different approach than France or Italy. Five major laws concerning the production and labeling of wine were passed, in 1892, 1909, 1930, 1969, and 1971. In Germany’s northern climate, the most worrying concern—and greatest potential entry point for adulteration—was in achieving natural ripeness. Artificially sweetening wine, whether through the addition of Süssreserve or some less desirable substance, therefore became a serious point of contention. Chaptalization itself, known as Anreicherung here, was the mark of a lower-quality wine in the early 20th century; before the passage of the 1971 law German wines could be divided into two categories: Naturweine (“natural” wines) and Verbesserte (“improved,” or chaptalized wines). In fact, the VDP was originally founded in 1910 as an association dedicated to the production of Naturwein, and the term appeared on labels before it was prohibited in 1971.  

With the introduction of the 1970 European wine reforms (see section below), Germany needed to update its own wine laws, demarcate clearer vineyard and regional boundaries, and define consistent label terminology. The result was the now-reviled—but much simplified—1971 Wine Law, or Deutscher Weingesetz. The law defined four levels of geographic origin for use on labels: Einzellagen (vineyards), Grosslagen (collective sites), Bereiche (districts), and Anbaugebiete (winegrowing regions). Germany reduced the number of pre-existing, named Einzellagen by 90%—from almost 30,000 to 2,600! It introduced the Grosslagen category, collective sites composed of many individual vineyards, yet it left no distinction on the label between Einzellagen and Grosslagen. Piesporter Goldtröpfchen and Piesporter Michelsberg could suddenly appear synonymous in quality to the consumer, at least from the label alone. The Bereiche were larger still, and the Anbaugebiete were whole winegrowing regions, such as Rheingau or Rheinhessen. With the passage of the 1971 Wine Law, Germany had 11 Anbaugebiete; two more (Sachsen and Saale-Unstrut) would be added with the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990.

The 1971 Wine Law also created the modern quality pyramid for Germany, modeling it on European standards established the previous year. At the bottom, there was Tafelwein, the German table wine. Above it were two tiers of “quality” wines, Qualitätswein bestimmter Anbaugebiet (quality wine from a single winegrowing region) and Qualitätswein mit Prädikat (quality wine with a designation of ripeness), known simply as Qualitätswein and Prädikatswein today. Prädikatswein is defined as a subset of Qualitätswein and is labeled by traditional Prädikat: Kabinett, Spätlese, Auslese, Beerenauslese, Trockenbeerenauslese, and Eiswein. (Eiswein was added as a separate category in 1982.) Other old label terms in common usage, like Edelbeerenauslese, Naturwein or Feine, were eliminated with the 1971 law. In recognition of Germany’s longstanding promotion of natural ripeness as a signal of quality, the authorities outlawed chaptalization for Prädikatswein. With its new law, Germany effectively diminished site as a precursor for quality. To break into the top tier of Prädikatswein, it didn’t matter where you grew the grapes—only that you got them ripe.  

Two additional tiers followed. Landwein, a “country wine” tier similar to IGT or Vin de Pays, was added in 1982, and Qualitätswein garantierten Ursprungs (QgU) was added in 1994. The latter, a little-used category for “quality wines of guaranteed origin” was discontinued with 2007 legislation. Germany therefore has four categories today: Deutscher Wine (formerly Tafelwein), Landwein, Qualitätswein, and Prädikatswein. Unlike most European systems, Germany's quality ladder is an inverse pyramid in terms of quantity: 96% of German production in 2013 was at the Qualitätswein level, with 20% at the Prädikatswein tier. Landwein (now IGP) and Deutscher Wein are rarely if ever exported.

In 1957 the European Economic Community (EEC) was established by six European states, including the continent’s two largest producers of wine, France and Italy. The EEC was created to integrate the economies of its member states and—in the aftermath of two world wars—to reduce the potential for future conflicts in Europe. Economic integration included the development of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The EEC took its first steps to Common Market Organization (CMO) for wine in 1962, by directing its wine-producing members (France, Italy, West Germany, and Luxembourg) to establish viticultural land registries and annual logs of production and stocks. In 1970, the EEC introduced its first comprehensive, if watered-down through compromise, CMO for wine. The CMO removed barriers to trade amongst member states, created protectionist tariffs on wine imported from non-member states, set minimum prices for wine, and established a distillation scheme for excess production. It regulated enological practices and divided production into two classes—Quality Wines Produced in a Specific Region (QWPSR) and Table Wine—with different rules and regulations for each. QWPSR wines included the AOC and DOC wines of France and Italy, and were subject to stricter quality controls than table wines. Ultimately, however, the CMO did not address the underlying oversupply that plagued the wine industries in France and Italy. If anything, its interventionist pricing controls and subsidies for distillation made the problem worse.

To combat this structural oversupply the EEC reformed its wine CAP in 1976 with the addition of a complete ban on planting rights and a grubbing-up scheme. The basic principle behind planting rights was that a grower could not plant—or even replant—a vineyard without acquiring a legal right to do so. In reality, planting rights affected producers of table wine more than producers of QWPSR, and the system functioned like cap and trade: one could buy and sell planting rights from private individuals, and from 1999 onward member state governments held a reserve of planting rights for sale. Either way growers faced an expensive proposition, particularly if the goal was to produce cheap, low-quality wines. Alongside the ban on planting rights, the grubbing-up scheme also reduced supply by giving growers subsidies to abandon or replace vineyards with other cash crops. On the other hand, mandatory “emergency” distillation subsidies for surplus table wines continued, actively encouraging overproduction. Despite efforts aimed at reduction Europe’s surplus problem continued as the 20th century wore on, exacerbated by the greater societal trends of declining consumption and an aging public.

In 1993 the European Economic Community evolved into a broader political union, the European Union (EU). By this time other prominent winemaking countries had joined France, Italy and Germany in the community, including Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. Austria acceded to the EU Treaty in 1995 and many former Eastern Bloc countries entered the EU in the 2000s. All new member countries had to bring their national systems in line with the CMO on wine. The Portuguese replaced their existing Região Demarcada system of appellations with the Denominação de Origem Controlada (DOC) system following entry, and Spain retooled its existing Denominación de Origen (DO) system in 1996, bringing it in line with EU standards. By the 21st century, all systems in EU member nations were therefore broadly divided into two categories: QWPSR and Table Wine. Each country’s highest tier of appellation (France’s AOC, Italy’s DOC and DOCG, etc.) belonged to the QWPSR category, while lower tiers (France’s Vin de Pays and Vin de Table, Italy’s IGT and Vino da Tavola, etc.) were classified as Table Wines with or without geographical indication. Looking forward, QWPSR wines are today considered PDO, Table Wines with Geographical Indications are PGI, and Table Wines without Geographical Indications are just… wine.         

In 2014 the EU comprised 28 countries, and its members accounted for 45% of the world’s vineyards, 65% of world production, 57% of total consumption, and 70% of global wine exports. Europe has always been the world’s leading producer of wines, but its sheer volume of production has for decades been an economic liability. Consumption rates have been steadily falling, a decline advanced by anti-alcohol awareness campaigns, health concerns, increasingly severe drunk-driving penalties and lowered blood-alcohol limits, and general interest by younger generations in drinking anything other than their parents’ booze of choice—i.e., wine. Today the average Frenchman drinks about 46 liters of wine annually, down from a mid-20th century high of 117 liters per person! In Italy annual per-person consumption slipped from 120 liters in the 1970s to 40 liters in 2013—the lowest figure since the country’s unification in 1861. At the turn of the century the EU was spending almost 400 million euros per annum distilling surplus wine, and by the 21st century the wine-producing member nations were facing more serious competition from the New World than ever before. Wine imports into the EU increased by almost 10% in the years 1997-2007, while overall exports out of Europe increased at a lower rate. On the bargain shelf at foreign supermarkets, European wines from unknown appellations (or variety- and vintage-less table wines) stayed on the shelf while consumers snapped up the simpler varietal labels of Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Chile and elsewhere. The CMO system for wine was ready for dramatic reforms.

As sommeliers amid the noise of AOP, PDO, DOP, etc., it is worth remembering that the impetus for change was not to inflict remorseless pain on our kind. Instead, EU bureaucrats wanted to resolve the underlying economic problems that have plagued the larger European wine industry for nearly a century. The CMO reforms finalized in 2008 brought an end to some of the interventionist policies enacted in the 1970s and sought to restore Europe’s ability to compete in the global wine market. To do this, the EU needed to finally end its ongoing, structural oversupply, the “wine lake.” The main CMO reforms include:

• Liberalization of Planting Rights: After 2015, the ban on planting rights will be lifted, giving market forces greater control over supply. However, this will not lead to complete freedom: further legislation introduced in 2013 (EU Regulation 1308/2013) creates a Scheme of Authorizations, limiting planting and replanting from 2016-2030. In this period, member states may annually authorize acreage equal to only 1% of their total planted areas for new vineyards.

• Grubbing-Up Scheme: The EU originally sought a further reduction in the European vineyard by 400,000 ha but settled on a goal of removing 175,000 ha. To accomplish this, the EU authorized a Single Payment Scheme to compensate growers for pulling out vines and planting other crops. The grubbing-up scheme achieved its target goal in three years and concluded with the close of 2011; however, while production has fallen it is as of yet clear if the program—with its massive cost—was a success.

• End of Distillation Subsidies: In 2012, the EU ended all subsidies for distillation of surplus wines.

• National Envelopes: The EU grants annual funding to each member nation for the promotion of wine in third-party countries and for modernization and research at home. Some of this money trickles down to individual producers, for winery facility investments, or even to offset the costs of green harvesting. Today, European promotional campaigns are arriving on US shores in greater numbers as a direct result of national envelope funding.

• Liberalization of Winemaking Practices: With the CMO reforms, the EU Council agreed to investigate all practices permitted in the OIV’s International Code of Oenological Practices and fast-track approval for any additions that appear there in its own list of accepted practices. In general, the EU added more flexibility to its rules concerning production, leveling the playing field between its producers and those of the New World. For instance, European producers of Wines without Geographical Indication may now use oak chips, and rectified concentrated grape must—dehydrated must used in lieu of sugar for enrichment—may now be used in a crystalline form.

• Lower Limits on Chaptalization: Although the EU sought an outright ban on the “outdated” practice of chaptalization, a compromise yielded reduced maximums for added sugar (sucrose) and alcohol increases. The addition of sucrose to enrich wines was totally banned in Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, and some départements of Southern France. However, other forms of must enrichment (like the addition of concentrated grape must) may still be legal. Current limits on chaptalization are:
  • Climate zone A: maximum 3% adjustment (e.g. Germany, Czech Republic, UK)
  • Climate zone B: maximum 2% adjustment (e.g. Alsace, Champagne, Loire, Austria)
  • Climate zone C: maximum 1.5% adjustment (e.g. Bordeaux, Burgundy)

   

• New Labeling Requirements: Some label terms, like sweetness designations, were standardized throughout EU member nations. Varietal and vintage labeling is now approved for all wines. More importantly, the EU replaced its former quality categories—QWPSR and Table Wine—with a new system, dividing all wines into Wines with or without Geographical Designation. (See below.)

 

 

BACK TO TOP