|
putting you in touch with the SA wine industry community
|
|
PREVIOUS WINELAND ARTICLES | WINELAND HOME
Unravelling components, substances, additives ...
That very first wine - probably the result of a forgotten jar filled with bunches of ripe grapes - was most likely awful, but it was totally natural: nothing added, nothing removed, no refinements. Since then, wine might have become a whole lot more drinkable, but it's an extremely rare jar or bottle that arrives as unadorned as that maiden vintage. Yet "natural" is a word those I asked for a definition of wine, found difficult to ignore. Ironically, stripped to its bare essentials, wine is composed of anywhere between 80 - 90% water (highly illegal if added!); the balance comprising around 10 - 15% alcohol and 5% extract.
Extract might be the smallest, but, as Gary Baumgarten, chemistry expert and Graham Beck GM, puts it, "Dry extract drives the wine's quality." A world-beater red, for instance, will have in the region of 35 - 38 grams per litre of this matter; wine's very soul combines all the non-volatile solids such as sugars, acids, minerals, glycerol and phenols; the latter a mix of colour pigments, tannins and flavours. The amount of extract is determined in the vineyard according to the site, its suitability for the variety planted, yield, right down to berry weight. "Six years ago our Shiraz berries weighed 1,6 grams each," Baumgarten remembers. "Now, by holding the irrigation between pea-size and verasion, much smaller cells and therefore more extract are created. Today, a Shiraz berry weighs in at 0.8 g." These factors can all be modified according to the desired end result. So, the more you get right in the vineyard, the fewer adjustments are necessary in the cellar. James Halliday and Hugh Johnson caution, however, that even "the perfect grape cannot produce perfect wine unaided." In Art & Science of Wine, they insist: " ... additives of various kinds simply have to be used, however transient their presence. In almost all instances they do no more than bolster substances naturally present in fermenting grapes of wine." Wine is big business these days - the forecast for global sales in 2004 is US$181 billion - so leaving grapes to their own devices in the cellar is a dangerous option (as Abrie Bruwer's failures as well as successes at Springfield bear testimony!); adding and removing substances and the processes used to carry out both are regulated facts of life. While Codex, an arm of the World Trade Organisation, oversees regulations governing additives in all foods, the OIV is responsible for approving permitted substances in wine. The 45 member countries of this inter-governmental, Paris-based body each decide on which they will adopt; the resolutions are not binding, but member countries do follow them due to the European Union's acceptance. It's an important market for everyone.
Charl Theron, involved with regulating additives throughout the winemaking process and member of the Wine & Spirit Board for many years, outlines the procedures South Africa follows. "Any cellar may apply to the Board or Department of Agriculture to have a substance legalised. Comments are then sought from the industry and, depending on our knowledge of the substance or process in which it is used, a working group would be set up to discuss such comments and carry out tests." After final approval by the Board, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, the substance is added to the relevant Table of the Liquor Act. Any limitations of what liquor products it may be added to and the manner and conditions of addition are also noted. Theron says that today more processes than straight additives are requested. Among both recently legalised are reverse osmosis to remove volatile acidity; micro-oxygenation, the addition to soften tannins in red wines, and the significant sanction for the use of concentrated must, with certain conditions, to increase alcohol up to a limit of 2%.
In essence, additions to the list reflect advances over time in winemaking practices and technology. The procedures that lead to their inclusion should ensure they are safe, are not `wine foreign', that processing aids don't leave undesirable residue and that the method of removal doesn't alter the substance of the wine. Just as important as an additive's purpose, is what it's made of. Baumgarten recalls synthetic tartaric acid being used by some producers back in the 1970s because it was cheaper than the natural material. "Trouble was, the synthetic stuff wouldn't melt - it was soon outlawed," he recalls.
Theron also makes the point that additives are approved in a generic form only. In the case of tannin, for instance, the only qualification is that it should not be 'wine foreign'. "The onus is on the buyer to ensure that additives used comply with the regulations," he says. Because there are no references to brands or other specifications, suppliers are not obliged to submit each product for verification. This is something Baumgarten is unhappy about. "There should be a state-run laboratory where every batch of additives is tested before being released," he maintains. "Winetech has approached the government to set up such a laboratory, but it doesn't seem to be a priority." South Africa today compares well with New World countries such as Australia and the USA. Since our return to world markets, the industry has become more broad-minded and pro-active. There are few differences as far as permitted substances and processing aids are concerned, perhaps hardly surprising, given the extent to which winemakers travel and work around the world, our similar climates, the markets we focus on and the lack of prescription which pertains in the New World compared with traditional, mainly European wine producing countries. Where we do differ is in the government departments under which the wine portfolio falls: in South Africa, the Department of Agriculture; Health in Australia; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau in the US - another illustrative link to our pasts, though the Americans have recently diverted Firearms to another department, which makes Alcohol and Tobacco sound a little less sinister! Each country has systems in place to monitor wine throughout the winemaking process. US laws require wineries to keep records of all winemaking activities and to run analyses at bottling. The TTB runs random tests on samples drawn either from the winery or retail stores. Wines destined for export will be analysed according to the importing country's requirements.
Similar random tests are carried out in Australia, but all exports are analysed and sensory-tasted by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. Neither of these systems is as detailed as our Wine & Spirit Board, which administers the Wine of Origin scheme, where wines submitted for certification are analysed and tasted before receiving their certification stickers. Here, traces of undesirable residues from vineyard sprays, in effect, another additive, would also be detected. With most farmers following the IPW system, and aware of strict global import requirements, these are now rare. Despite such rigorous testing, an analysis will only show up the substances being tested for. Factors such as cost and standards add to the impractical aspect of broadening the spectrum. "The cost of one analysis for pyrazines, which can be carried out only by Johan Marais at Nietvoorbij (the national agricultural research organisation), is R800," Baumgarten explains. "Trained specialists and fantastic standards are required for this and many other tests." If additives are an unavoidable part of winemaking, so, it seems, are the chancers wishing to cut costs and corners. Despite all the controls and regulations, as recent incidents have revealed, it is all too easy for wine to be less than natural. Of course, wine adulteration and fraud are not limited to the modern wine industry, even if some of today's no-no's were de rigeur in years gone by. For instance, the Romans introduced lead into their wines as they enjoyed the sweet taste and succulent texture it imparted. Wine itself can also be an illegal additive: Bordeaux was regularly beefed up with Syrah from the Rhône - a practice known as hermitagé, while hearty Algerian or Southern French wine has been known to travel north and transmogrify into hearty Burgundy. Even earlier this year, large quantities of wine, ostensibly Pinot Grigio from Northern Italy's Friuli region turned out to be nothing of the sort but some other wine altogether from the warmer climes of Sicily. Let's not imagine either that all illegal additives are driven solely by the producer; the link so far missing in this chain is the consumer. In The Story of Wine, Hugh Johnson, having noted the natural factors and competence of the winemaker as influential factors on the final wine, adds "Almost as important as any of these is the expectation of the market: what the drinker demands is ultimately what the producer will produce." Even more true today, when price is as crucial as flavour, than 1989, when these words were written. The question of whether wine drinkers, whatever their level of interest, really care about how "natural" their wine is will be considered in part two, as will organic and biodynamic wine - do they bear comparison with standard winemaking and are they the way ahead? Is wine the worst offender when it comes to additives in packaged goods? Finally, the $64 000 question we've all been trying to answer since the pyrazine scandal first poked its nose into our consciousness: where does one draw the line on additives in so-called 'natural' wine? Some eminent wine people give their views. |
|
Visit our sister sites:
 2009/10 Directory Now Available! Facts, figures, contact details and much more...
|
| UP |
COPYRIGHT (C) 2000 WineLand |