Rivendell Winery Home

Wine for the Bottom Line

Mark Arvanigian

The Fresno Bee - January 29, 2002

A scary thought crossed my mind this week, one that certainly demonstrates the potential for wholesale destructive changes in the American wine industry. At its worst, it will be a widespread problem involving much of our culinary culture.

Here's the scenario. American wine continues along its current path of consolidation (mirroring trends found in the rest of the economy), and is increasingly the product of large corporate manufacturers (let's use the proper term). The industry has been in a state of slow consolidation for quite a while now, as venerable brands have been purchased by large American and foreign beverage companies. Does the word "Beringer" ring any bells?

This ostensibly benign trend becomes less so as the scenario plays out. As wine becomes just another product in a large portfolio of interests, accountants and lawyers begin to ask questions about production. Does the wine have to be made in such a costly, intensive way? Why does the company have to own such expensive vineyard land? Can't production "advances" be found to produce a similar product with less expense? Would such savings not allow us to hold the line on (or even increase) the unit price, while increasing our margin? In other words, can't we improve the company's bottom line here?

And you know, it would be difficult to blame the middle managers in any large organization for asking whether chemical flavor "enhancers," such as those used in fast and processed foods, might not be useful substitutes for expensive vineyard sites. It would indeed be remiss of the corporate executive to pass up the opportunity, as he might otherwise be seen as incompetent for missing the opportunity to improve productivity. He will therefore have failed to live up to his fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation's shareholders, who in our system have a right to maximum profits. In a competitive corporate world --grown more so during this recession -- such is the current atmosphere.

So, eventually, after much hand-wringing within the (now completely irrelevant) "wine division," the new profitability measures are approved. The consumer will no longer be offered a white wine that is made from Chardonnay, and sourced from good Sonoma County vineyards. Instead, they will receive something made primarily from the inexpensive and prolific French Colombard, or even Thompson Seedless, grape varieties. The wine will be made to taste and feel just like Chardonnay, though, by adding a combination of chemicals that mimic the flavors of pears, tropical fruit, and vanilla (this final addition meaning that no costly oak will be required, further contributing to the bottom line) and another that changes the texture of the "wine," making it richer and more unctuous on the palate.

This new wine will carry a proprietary name, in accordance with current legal requirements. This will continue only until such time as the PAC created to look after the interests of these multinationals can successfully lobby state and federal authorities (perhaps through the wonderful loophole that is soft money, contributed to the state and national parties) to have them changed. At that point, laws governing wine content and labeling can be quietly changed to allow the term "Chardonnay" to appear on, let us say, any beverage containing any quantity of that particular grape. Government will justify this by saying that, in this fast-moving technological world, lawmakers must respond to consumer demands by unshackling winemakers, as they seek to give consumers what they want: recognizable "brands." And with the stroke of the President's pen, "Chardonnay" and "Cabernet" (which will now be made mostly of Ruby Red grapes) become the new "Chablis" and "Burgundy." Voila!

Think it can't happen? I wonder.

© Copyright 2002, The Fresno Bee

HOME | WINES | EVENTS | DIRECTIONS | CWS WINE CLUB | VINTAGE NEW YORK | EMAIL