New TTB Organic Wine Labeling Policies

Quick post. The TTB has released a short information sheet covering their new policy on labeling organic wines. Basically, you can't just say "Made with Organic Ingredients" anymore, unless all the ingredients are in fact organic. So you'll have to say, for example, made with "Organic Merlot and Non-Organic Cabernet grapes" or "55% organic grapes and 45% non-organic grapes". Which is all fine and dandy and prevents consumer confusion in the often poorly regulated organic market.

But the sheet doesn't say how they are treating the wine adjuncts and additives. Is Isinglass organic? Bentonite? (Is it organic dirt?) What would an organic yeast look like? Oak barrels?

But it's back to the Bar Prep for me. Civ Pro, Crim Pro, and Trusts and Estates practice exam tonight. Good times.

Lake Chelan AVA Established / Paso Robles Westside AVA Expansion Revoked

Quick break from finals to post this.

Beginning May 29, 2009, the TTB will recognize another American Viticultural Area in Washington State. The new Lake Chelan AVA will cover 24,000 acres around Lake Chelan, and be nested within the current Columbia River AVA. Don't know much about its wine potential personally...the only time I've ever been to Lake Chelan was when we needed an abandoned desert area in which to film a Mad Max style car chase for a school movie project. No word on whether Thunderdome Chardonnay will be available anytime soon...

Secondly, the TTB has withdrawn its notice of proposed rulemaking for the creation of the Paso Robles Westside AVA in California. Without getting into it too much there appears to have been significant disagreements among Paso Robles' vineyards about both the name and geographic significance of the proposed AVA. The notice does give an excellent view into the sorts of commenting and considerations that go into establishing a new AVA.

Walla Walla Wineries Wimpering Woefully Wounded

Ok enough tongue twisters. AP article on the recession's effect on Washington's wine country.

Now off to my Professional Responsibility final...

News Updates

So yes I'm still alive, but with graduation approaching, final papers due, Bar applications, moving arrangements, etc. I've been pretty busy. Updates will probably be spotty for a couple months at least, certainly until after the Bar.

Ok so here's some legal and personal updates:

First up: I have registered to take the Washington State Bar Exam! We'll most likely be moving somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma after graduation. I cannot understate how excited we both are to be moving back to the Pacific Northwest.

Wine News

• EU suspends sales of US wine using controverted terms.

This is somewhat old news but if you haven't heard the EU has finally gotten fed up with the continued American use of semi-generic terms such as 'Clos', 'Chablis' and 'Vintage'. Last September the EU sent a letter notifying the US that it would not extend the grace period granted for such terms in the 2005 Agreement between the US and the EU regarding the trade in wine. EC Regulation 113/2009 came into effect March 10th, restricting future sales of all US wines using the controverted names to the existing stock on hand. Almost certainly US trade reps are meeting with the EU to work this out as we speak. Er, I speak. Or type.

• No wine in NY grocery stores.

A bill proposed to allow sale of wine in New York grocery stores is dead in the water. Originally it was part of a budget fund-raising move, the new license fees would have brought in millions of dollars. However, the bill was shot down by the liquor company lobby and a coalition of police, concerned parents, etc. It's another interesting example of the conflict between the ideals of the prohibition-era laws that set up the NY alcohol trade, and the entrenched power thus vested in the liquor stores. Does restricting wine (which in 1933 America was generally high-strength rotgut, compared to the "refined" table wines of today) sales to liquor stores still serve a temperance goal? Or does it just line the pockets of a protected business? Or both? A good question for any state to ponder, as I believe only 35 states or so allow wine sales in grocery stores.

Beer News

• Redhook/Widmer take a hit

Portland's Widmer Brewing turns 25 this year, but also took a serious hit from the recession. The Portland Business Journal reports that the company created by the Redhook/Widmer merger, Craft Brewer's Aliance, lost $30 million last year. The spike in raw materials costs that hit all brewers and the economic downturn seem to be the culprits. On the bright side, they still maintain their distribution agreement with AB/In-Bev (which also owns 1/3 of the CBA) and we've begun to see their Kona brand here in Miami. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it's refreshing and delicious.

• It's now legal to homebrew in Utah, Washington getting there.

Utah Senate Bill 187 and House Bill 51 passed, making it legal to homebrew in Utah and revamping the state's alcohol laws.

Washington State Senate Bill 5060 passed the House (90-3) and now goes back to the Senate for concurrence. The bill faced minor amendments involving wording in the House Labor and Commerce Committee. It would still allow removal of up to 20 gallons of homebrewed wine or beer, not for sale, and for private use including at events and competitions.

Beer Wars

Also a 400+ simultaneous theatre showing of the documentary Beer Wars is happening this Thursday, April 16th. I've got my tickets. Expect a review (and about a thousand others on the beer-bloggernets)

Snipes Mountain AVA

Been meaning to get to this since last week. The TTB has established a new American Viticultural Area (AVA) in the Snipes Mountain region of the Yakima Valley, Washington State, effective February 20th, 2009. The new AVA exists within the current Yakima Valley AVA, which in turn is within the greater Columbia Valley AVA. As you might expect, this nested AVA is quite small, at 4,145 acres it's the second smallest in the state according to Wine Press NW. But it is huge compared to the Cole Ranch AVA in Mendocino County, California, which is only 62 acres. Also, note that the new AVA incorporates Bridgman Cellars, makers of a particularly favorite Viognier of mine. (Image from WinesNW)

AVAs exist so that winemakers from exceptional regions can denote that their wines are produced with a minimum of 85% grapes from that region. The requirements for establishing an AVA include local or national recognition of the name and boundaries, historical evidence of viticulural use within the area, and data on the special climate, elevation, soil , etc. of the region. For an interesting look at the process and requirements check out the Final Ruling on the Snipes Mountain AVA.

It's interesting to note that the Notice and Comment phase of the application brought in six comments, one of which brought up a potential problem involving a nearby wine region going by the name of "Snipes Canyon". The TTB responded to this:

"TTB believes ‘‘Snipes Mountain’’ is readily distinguishable from ‘‘Snipes Canyon.’’ Further, TTB is not aware of any conflict with existing brand labels that would occur if the viticultural area is established as proposed."

Though it seems the TTB isn't worried about this, perhaps the wineries should be.

The AVAs in the Napa Valley region led to a host of litigation regarding the protection and use of the AVA in trademarks and COLAs. (See Bronco v. Jolly, 95 P.3d 422 (Cal. 2004); Bronco v. Jolly, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005))

In Bronco, the Napa Valley Vintner's Association challenged Bronco's use of several Napa AVAs in its brand names "Napa Ridge", "Rutherford Vintners", and "Napa Creek Winery". These brands had been grandfathered in under 27 CFR §4.39(i)(2), but ran afoul of a California law prohibiting the use of an AVA name when the grapes originated elsewhere, in this case Lodi. 27 CFR §4.39(i) governs the prohibited uses of AVAs, and reads (emphasis provided):

(i) Geographic brand names.
(1) Except as provided in subparagraph 2, a brand name of viticultural significance may not be used unless the wine meets the appellation of origin requirements for the geographic area named.
(2) For brand names used in existing certificates of label approval issued prior to July 7, 1986:
(i) The wine shall meet the appellation of origin requirements for the geographic area named; or
(ii) The wine shall be labeled with an appellation of origin in accordance with § 4.34(b) as to location and size of type of either:
(A) A county or a viticultural area, if the brand name bears the name of a geographic area smaller than a state, or;
(B) A state, county or a viticultural area, if the brand name bears a state name; or
(iii) The wine shall be labeled with some other statement which the appropriate ATF officer finds to be sufficient to dispel the impression that the geographic area suggested by the brand name is indicative of the origin of the wine.
(3) A name has viticultural significance when it is the name of a state or county (or the foreign equivalents), when approved as a viticultural area in part 9 of this chapter, or by a foreign government, or when found to have viticultural significance by the appropriate ATF officer.

After a million dollars of litigation going up and down the California court system Bronco lost the use of its brands.

Of course Bronco was a case where there was a specific California law prohibiting that sort of labeling and Bronco was making an enormous volume of wine with brands purchased specifically for their misleading names referencing a world famous AVA.

A quick search didn't turn up anyone using the actual brand "Snipes Canyon", though Brian Carter Cellars has a named Snipes Canyon vineyard. And of course any Snipes Canyon wines would still be entitled to use both the Yakima and Columbia Valley AVAs. So while it doesn't look like there will be a problem immediately, this is exactly the sort of situation that makes winery trademark lawyers nervous, so it's unlikely anyone will risk using the trademark.

Final note: there is a Snipes Mountain Brewery. Which raises the question of geographic labeling of beer all over again.

Alcohol News

So it's Finals and Christmas time and I will likely be short on posts for the next few weeks. I'll be up in Seattle over Christmas for a sorely needed break from all this sunshine!

In the mean time, here are some interesting news articles:

1) Direct Shipping in Michigan: think again.

Article in the Detroit Free Press. Two months ago a federal judge ruled that the state had to allow direct shipping to consumers in what sounds like a Granholm decision (I haven't had a chance to read the opinion yet). In response, state lawmakers have introduced a bill to ban all direct shipping, instate and out. Michigan is a monopoly state, with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission acting as the wholesaler in their three-tier system. It's interesting to see what monopoly states do in situations like this, because the state itself has an economic interest in preserving the status quo. For example. comparing it to Washington could be interesting, as Washington's beer and wine industries are thriving while Michigan's are near non-existent. Is Michigan protecting fledgling domestic wineries? Or just making sure they get the markup and taxes paid on all alcohol entering the state? I'll try to look more into this when I get some time after finals.

2) Superjuice

Apparently things are getting bad in Manitoba, where members of the local reservation are abusing a new type of alcohol called "Superjuice". It sounds like they're just drinking some kind of mash swill made with distiller's or "Turbo" yeast. The best part is the idea that the yeast keeps acting in people's stomachs, which sounds ridiculous to me. A consult with my resident science adviser (my wife) has let to the same conclusion. Tough as that yeast is, and I've tried some horrific rocket-fuel barleywines made with it, it's not going to keep going in your gut.

3) Radio Bordeaux Dating

No it's not a new Studio Canal show. Article on the BBC about using gamma rays and ion beams to authenticate very old bottles of wine. Should result in some interesting fraud suits in the future. Now if they can only find a way to tell if the bottle's become corked...

4) Prices are falling. So is the sky.

In the current economic climate it appears that people are less interested in paying $1,000 for a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild. Champagne is down as well. Apparently now's the time to buy... (cough cough). The same is happening with Vodka in Russia. Sales are down 70% and people are turning to poisonous moonshine. Yikes. Times are bad when you can't afford $1 a liter vodka...

5) AB Merger News

Two weeks ago the Justice Department approved the Anheuser-Busch / InBev merger on the condition that they divest themselves of the Labatt brand and facilities. No word on a buyer. (Heineken?) Tuesday the companies completed their stock sale. The new share price of Anheuser-Busch InBev immediately went up 16%, the highest increase in company history.

6) Sam Caglione, of Dogfish Head, in the New Yorker

Great article on Sam Caglione, owner/brewer at Delaware's Dogfish Head Brewery in the New Yorker. I've now got a half-crazed plan to try and brew a steinbier/sahti based on his in the article. There will be extensive posting about it, if I can get ahold of some river rocks...

Monday Morning Roundup

1) Playboy Wine

First up, Playboy has entered the wine game. Looks like they're paired with the wine.com guys and offering a wine a month. Soon everyone will have their own label wine... The first four are Cab Sav, from reputable vineyards as well. They range from $90 to $380, and apparently you will be able to buy all 12 for $1500 in September.

What's interesting about this is how hard they must have worked to get their labels approved. You can just see the label approval agent, "Playboy wine? Where'd I put my 'DENIED' stamp?" Pretty much every liquor board and the TTB have restrictions on lewd labeling, either by statute or practice. Obviously none of these labels are particularly scandalous, looks like they used 1960's centerfolds.

Just like Friday the 13th Part 1: pretty tame by today's standards...

2) News from England

Interesting articles on the BBC. First is about the relative plight of teetotalling college students at British universities. Interesting considering the U.K.'s growing problem with underage drinking and youth alcoholism. Second is that the UK has rejected calls to lower the drink-drive limit from 80 mg/100 ml to 50mg. That limit would have been about half a pint of beer.

3) Wine Spectator: Mobile

Wine Spectator has announced a new service specifically designed for use in PDAs, allowing you to look up wines and check ratings on the go. You know, so you can be that guy.

4) French fear worst wine sales since 9/11

Wine seems to be taking a hit, at least imports, but what about beer? I've been wondering: is beer recession-proof? Maybe I'll write more about it later, but for now here' s an article from the Washington Post.

5) How can it be the original source Pilsner if it's from Russia?

Article from the Prague Monitor about Pilsner Urquell being brewed in Poland and Russia. The author, Evan Rail, takes issue with a beer that literally translates as Pilsner Original Source being brewed in Russia and Poland. It gets to the heart of a problem faced by traditional beers: are they a style, or are they a place? Guinness, for example, is associated with Dublin. It's brewed there as well. But it's also brewed in regional breweries all over the world. So it's more of a brand. But take Newcastle Brown Ale. It had to relinquish it's PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) status in the E.U. after moving its brewery across the river Tyne, just outside the boundaries of the city of Newcastle. So you've got place.

Where does Pilsner Urquell stand? I lean toward brand, because it's associated the world over with being the "original" pilsner. It's the original source alright. But then, I'm not Czech, and the Czechs are very attached to their national pivo. After all, they staked out the first PDO for hops, Zatecky Chmel (Saaz hops) and several of their beers (Budweis) carry PDO status. So maybe pride has something to do with it too.

Of course, to be have the type/class designation of Pilsner in the U.S. it has to be be brewed in either the U.S. or the Czech Republic. Everything else 'must include the word “type” or “French” or other adjective or statement, e.g., “Brewed in France,” indicating the true place of production'. I don't think the Russian and Polish Pilsner Urquells are destined for the United States, but it would be interesting if they had to be labelled Pilsner Urquell - Brewed in Russia.