Label Integrity Program

There is good and bad news for those who wish to see more honesty in the claims made by wineries on the labels of their product. A national system to audit claims made on wine labels has been instituted from the start of the 1990 calendar year. Called the Label Integrity Program, or LIP, it vouches through a thorough system of mandatory record-taking and strategic auditing that whatever a winery states on a wine label is the truth. But is it the whole truth?

The Australian wine industry basks under labelling regulations that give an extraordinary degree of freedom and licence to wine companies. These laws have not changed. The LIP only gives teeth to the existing legislation.

There are three major claims made on wine labels. The first relates to the year of vintage, the second to grape variety, the third to region of origin. To be named as being made from a single variety, a wine must contain a minimum volume of 80 of that variety. Exactly the same volume is required to be labelled from a certain area, but 95 of the wine must derive from a single vintage if it is to be labelled as being from that vintage. These proportions are exactly as they have legally been for years – the point is that now they will be policed.

The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation AWBC, the wine industry’s federal statutory body, is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the records they audit comply with the Model Food Standards Regulations as determined by the National Health and Medical Research Council NHMRC.

The previous lack of wine label policing opened the door for certain operators to take advantage of the system, resulting in several cases, some reported and others not, of grossly misleading wine labelling.

Most frequently these cases related to companies labelling a wine with incorrect grape variety or region of origin, by substituting fashionable varieties and regions for less fashionable
alternatives. One remembers the phenomenon in the not-too-distant past of there being grossly more Australian chardonnay appearing in the bottles of Australian wine than was growing in the vineyards at the corresponding time. This should not be able to happen again.

It is still a matter of concern to many involved in the wine industry where the production of premium varieties from certain less-fashionable, irrigated and large-producing regions actually ends up, although it’s not that hard to guess. The regions’ names hardly ever appear on a bottle of wine, and the producers often feel downtrodden in the trade and market for that fact. Only they know where their wine is sold, along with their buyers, who have until now occasionally labelled the product as coming from their own, different wine region, and possibly even from a different grape variety.

The discrepancy between the actual and ‘commercial’ production of some ‘name’ wine regions is well documented.

It remains a mystery, however, why the Federal Government, through the NHMRC, is prepared to endorse a labelling system that may still be openly 20 incorrect. I cannot think of a single reason why a wine labelled as ‘Yarra Valley Cabernet Sauvignon 1986′ may quite legally contain 20 McLaren Vale Shiraz, yet have the blessing of the statutory authorities and the government at the same time. Time and experience have shown that some growers may not be able to resist the temptation to include a large, but legally fair, proportion of another wine in their own wine.

There are three clear motives for the winemaker to do this. The company may want to increase the volume of premium wine for sale, give more body to an otherwise thin and lacklustre wine with the addition of a fuller, more robust wine from another region, or else the maker might feel the addition of another wine from another region may add to the overall complexity of flavour and quality of his own wine.

The point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of blending wines or grapes from different regions. Garry Crittenden’s Schinus Molle label and Dominique Landragin’s new range are examples of wines which unashamedly proclaim their multi-regional origins. If anything, the contrary is the case and inter-regional blending should be encouraged further. The issue
at stake is one of integrity and honesty to the consumer, who at the end of the day is the one who pays. The consumer is entitled to know whether or not a claim made on the label as to the origin of the wine he has spent $5 or $25 per bottle on is correct or not. It is highly questionable whether or not eighty percent of the truth is correct enough.

The AWBC, which represents the wine industry, is not responsible for determining the percentage levels for label compliance. Any future changes to the percentage levels must first be initiated by the wine industry, which would recommend the various State health bodies to then recommend to the NHMRC that the Model Food Standards Regulation P4, which relates to wine and wine products, be altered. Therefore my question should be directed to the wine industry in general and also to the NHMRC – is eighty per cent enough?

The LIP system requires mandatory record-keeping on behalf of the wineries for all wines they wish to label according to the three claims mentioned. Wineries will be required to collect records at four different phases of the winemaking operation, namely i at the winery weighbridge, ii during production and cellar operations blending, etc., iii at inter-company sales or purchases and iv when the finished product leaves the winery. The LIP system will not interfere with regional or state-wide schemes of wine authentication or appellation, which it neither excludes nor replaces.

The AWBC will initiate audits on wineries if statistics held by the Australian Bureau of Statistics relating to the plantings of grapevines suggest the possibility of a labelling discrepancy, if wines purchased at random by the AWBC show a marked lack of regional or varietal character, or as a response to complaints received. The AWBC has a regular system of purchasing wines at random off the retail shelves for taste-testing. They will also take steps to distinguish between legitimate and possibly vindictive complaints.

There are however two clear positive aspects of the LIP scheme that will come into play immediately. The first is that the use of grape concentrates must be clearly recorded and that winemakers who add undiluted concentrates to their wines will run a very serious risk of exposure. The second is that wines are unlikely to be ‘double-diluted’ with consecutive additions of wines made from other grape varieties or from other regions. It is certain that this
has been a common incident in the wine trade, for a producer who intends to add 20 of another wine to a wine purchased from another winery will now know for certain whether or not such a dilution has already taken place, eliminating the chance of a second occurrence. This is of strong positive value to the consumer.

But even with this system in place, it is not the case to say that the industry is forcing itself to tell the whole truth on its labels, for the grower or winemaker can still quite legally and openly omit to supply variety, region or vintage year if desired. LIP’s only purpose is to verify information given, and not to force the maker into revealing all. If no claim is made, no query can be made. How many other foodstuffs or beverages give the producer the same licence?

Many consumers are still unaware that a wine company is still only legally bound to place the address of production on the wine’s label, which in many cases is its headquarters or location of bottling. It rarely corresponds to the actual place where the grapes were grown, so despite LIP and its intentions, it is still likely that a large proportion of bottled Australian wine will only carry an address on their labels totally unrelated to where the wine actually came from. Please login to post comment