NoBullGrape

Governor goes to bat for Napa and place names

So the Governor of California is in China and -- apparently -- is demanding that the Chinese stop misusing the name "Napa" on wine produced in China.  You go Terminator!

The contrast between the importance placed on protecting place names from the Governor of the largest wine producing state (and the clear position that the Napa Vintners are taking in this piece) and the stance taken by the US government in the recently initialed Wine Accords is quite stark.  Read more from Tuesday's San Francisco Examiner. 

        

Governor working to keep Napa wine designation pure By Albert C. Pacciorini Staff Writer Working to keep wines labeled “Napa” made only with grapes from Napa is on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s list of things to do as he begins a six-day mission in China. The focus of Schwarzenegger’s trip is to promote California products and encourage Chinese officials to crack down on the piracy of copyrighted music, movies and software. He’s also promised to ask about three Chinese companies that may be selling “pirated” wine. California law requires wines with “Napa” on the label be made with Napa grapes. It isn’t just Napa fighting to protect its reputation. The Champagne region of France, Sherry in Spain, Porto in Portugal and the states of Oregon and Washington all have a similar problem. All are working together for a “commitment to the importance of place and place names to wine growing,” said Linda Reiff, executive director of the Napa Valley Vintners trade group. Reiff spoke Monday morning at the beginning of a four-day annual meeting of the Great Wine Capitals Global Network trade group at the Metreon in San Francisco. Tuesday and Wednesday the meeting will move to St. Helena. The network includes Melbourne, Australia; Bordeaux, France; Porto, Portugal; Cape Town, South Africa; Bilbao-Rioja, Spain; Florence, Italy; and Mendoza, Argentina; and works to promote international winery tourism. Reiff gave an outline of the Napa Valley wine industry, followed by representatives of the other international regions, who discussed their locations. At a time with so much friction over differences, wine can provide a chance for people to come together, said event emcee Barry Martin. Napa got its own legal agricultural area in 1981, Reiff said. Today there are 14 subappellations. The Napa vintners, just like their colleagues in Champagne or Sherry, are working hard to protect the use of their regional names, which each feels imparts a level of quality and significance, from wineries in other locals. The trade name Napa is being used illegally in 10 countries, she said, urging those in the industry to join many regions that have signed a joint declaration promoting the importance of place to wine.

Center for Wine Origins in Chicago

We’ve all been talking about the recently launched Center for Wine Origins.  So instead of talking, I went to see what they are all about.

While at the Chicago Wine & Food festival last weekend, I attended a seminar sponsored by the Center. Led by a speaker from the Society for Wine Educators (Lisa Airey), the seminar was all about the terroir of the Champagne region and the Duoro Valley (the group uses Champagne and Port as examples when talking about protecting wine origins). She really knew about these places and brought them to life.  For example, I knew Champagne was chalky and cold, but the Lisa Airey brought soil composition, microclimates, history (Napoleon, WWI, etc.) together in a way that was really informative and – frankly – cool.  She brought the uniqueness of Port and Champagne places to life. 

Of course, the discussion was helpful, but everyone came for the wine… I found the tasting greatly improved by my better understanding of the distinct place where the wine came from.  Sort of like tasting a Napa Cabernet Sauvignon after you have visited Napa.

We tasted two Champagnes that I had never had– Pommery Brut Royal and Nicolas Feuillatte Rosé. I guess I had just passed over them at the stores as they are both relatively available.  In any case, found the Pommery to be somewhat yeasty and quite dry, which called to mind the chalky soil that Airey mentioned. With its higher pinot noir content, the rosé was slightly fruitier and a truly different wine than the first, yet the notes on location, grape type, etc. came in handy when tasting the two.  While different, both blends from multiple places, vintages, etc., it was clear that they were both from this special winegrowing region.

The Center followed the Champagne with two Ports. The first was a Quinta de Ventozelo 10 Year Tawny, which I’ve never had – I don’t think it’s sold in the U.S. The wood aging gave it a really nice full, round flavor and a beautiful color. We finished up with a Vista Alegre 1997 Vintage, which the staff had nicely decanted prior to the seminar. It was a little on the young side, but the contrast between it and the tawny was incredibly sharp – a testament to how greatly differences in the aging process are reflected in the bottle.

I went down to the Center’s booth in the festival’s main tent afterwards and tasted the 1997 Vintage one more time – it really outshone some of the other more standard Ports being tasted at the festival.

At the end of the day, I think I learned two things about the Center:
1. They are passionate about location.  While Champagne and Port are clearly their primary focus, complaints by others that this is some sort of scheme by the Europeans to attack the US, etc. are unfounded.  The Center goes out of its way to talk about location being important for all wines – one of the main themes of this blog.
2. They are the real deal.  Instead of just another association pitching a theory, they had smart, engaged spokespeople at the seminar and the booth who were willing to spend time talking about wines, etc…. not just handing out glossy materials (or dressing in red spandex with little to say like those trying to get us excited about Wines of Rhone….).  In addition, I found them very focused on the consumer -- not trying to  just be a voice for the other Ports and Champagnes that were displayed at the event.

Overall, found the Chicago Wine & Food event interesting.  A bit of a pourathon, I still found lots of smart, interesting people who care about wine and are excited about telling potential consumers about their wines.  All in all, a good sign for the future of the US wine market. 

Names, location talked about everywhere!

Tom over at  Fermentations makes some very good points about the previously mentioned Center for Wine Origins.  By the way, they seem to have launched a very nice web site since we last spoke about them.

I highly recommend reading Tom's piece.

In addition, Daniel Sogg of the Wine Spectator does a great job outlining how the California Supreme Court (protecting the name Napa against the Fred Franzia's of the world who want to use the words on bottles that do not include grapes from Napa) are in direct opposition to the position of the US Government (read Wine Institute) in the Wine Accords.

In the end, all 3 -- Sogg, Fermentations and the Center for Wine Origins -- come to a similar conclusion.  Place names matter and semi-generics should cease being used.  As Fermentations makes clear, these names do not inherently guarantee quality, but -- whether it is a truth-in-labeling issue or time for everyone to stand on their own two feet -- they certainly should only be used by these particular regions. 

Wine regions agreeing

I mentioned the Napa Declaration earlier, but I am reminded by it again as there has been a wide range of  coverage about the event and its repurcussions.  The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a front page article about it, GrapeRadio has the audio from the press conference as well as supporting interviews up, and Wine Spectator wrote about it.  As a reminder, the Napa Declaration is an historic coming together of both US (Napa, Washington and Oregon) and European (Champagne, Port and Sherry) wine regions to pronounce their shared belief in the importance of place, the effect it has on the wines that are produced from the grapes and how important it is to educate consumers about the sanctity of all wine growing areas.  I can't say enough positive things about the importance of location.  Winemakers can wax poetically about the effects of microclimates, etc. (and I believe them), yet I see this as a truth-in-labeling issue.  If we found out our "Florida Orange Juice" really came from Louisiana or Oklahoma, we would cease buying the product immeditely and it would be a scandal.  The same should go for wine.  Napa comes from Napa.  When I buy a Napa wine I expect to get a wine made with Napa grapes in it.   I shouldn't have to look on the label to see if it comes from Napa California or Napa China.  And anyone who hides behind the claim that there are other words on the label that  differentiate the products  is just trying to use a loophole to mislead the consumer.
From an article by Cyrill Penn in the San Francisco Chronicle the EU and US governments can't agree on how to handle these names and how to end this practice.  This is a shame.  But I don't think it should take a government mandate to put consumers first, it should be the winemakers -- like those that signed the Napa Declaration -- who take the lead and end this practice once and for all.   
The Napa Declaration seems to be a watershed event where wineregions from different places came together to agree on something very simple. In a world where the wine press likes to pit region vs. region and Old World vs. New World, I think we should herald this kind of cooperation and urge others to use this as the kind of thing that needs to happen more often so that consumers can focus on the wine, not the ugly policy differences.