Mediterranean Cork Oak Forests at Stake in Wine Closure Battle

"Zero TCA complaints in four years regarding "technical" (twin-end) corks, and fewer than 1 complaint in 1 million with natural corks."

Robin, I may be missing something on Amorim's website or news releases or press releases. Do you know where Amorim makes these claims? Much of their public stuff is much more nuanced -- see for example

http://www.corkfacts.com/contpges/faqsmain.htm#top

The most specific claim I've seen is made by the company itself: "Random sensory testing of Amorim corks in 1997 revealed that from a sample of 24,000 corks fewer than half a percentage point (0.48%) were defective. Amorim's goal is to reduce this number to zero."

A December 2005 release announced:

Rosa makes Twin Top? even better

The performance of Amorim's Twin Top® technical cork has been enhanced by the application of the ROSA steam distillation treatment, Amorim's proprietary TCA-extraction process introduced in late 2003.

Gas chromatography analyses of commercial shipments by independent laboratories over the past 12 months have confirmed a significant improvement in the already strong performance of Twin Top®.

***

"ROSA Evolution, the next generation of Amorim’s breakthrough steam distillation technology is now in the final stages of development. It promises to be even more effective than the original ROSA treatment in extracting TCA from cork. ROSA currently reduces releasable TCA by around 80 per cent.

It is also more efficient, which will help keep treatment and end-product costs down.

When combined with other measures to screen out contaminated raw material and avoid contamination during processing, Amorim is confident ROSA Evolution will reduce TCA in Amorim’s corks to below detectable levels."

http://www.corkfacts.com/publications/2 ... 9pge03.htm

Am I missing an official Amorim claim somewhere?

(I don't doubt the accuracy of your reporting, Robin; what you've written here is totally consistent with what you wrote on your return from your visit there. Unless I'm not doing a very good job of research, though, your report seems much more positive than Amorim is willing to commit to itself officially.)

(As a general comment, Amorim could do itself a great deal of good if it would tell a consistent story on all of its public literature. Much of its literature reflects the old "it's not the cork's fault" and the "natural" environmental claims. And, even its claims of spending $6 million a year on research are poorly written -- it appears that this number covers research and quality control in areas other than wine closures.)

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

Hmm. So they say it's BS. Meanwhile they have sections of their "corkfacts" website where they spout this argument.

Trustworthy bunch indeed!

Can you show me a link, Dale? All I can find is this page, which seems to be a pretty typical soft corporate PR piece about how "we take care of our forests," but I don't see the extinction/loss-of-habitat argument here. If you can show me where it is, I'll send Carlos an E-mail and ask for a 'splanation.

To go back to the original topic - rather than get sidelined on TCA .....

Mediterranean Cork Oak Forests at Stake in Wine Closure Battle

LONDON, UK, May 15, 2006 (ENS) – Every year over 15 billion cork stoppers are produced and sold to the wine industry, but the increasing popularity of plastic and screw top closures could spell the end for the cork oak forests of the western Mediterranean, an environmental group warns.

Issued on the eve of the International Wines and Spirits Fair that opens Tuesday in London, a new report by the global conservation organization WWF predicts that three-quarters of the western Mediterranean’s cork oak forests could be lost within 10 years.

The survival of these unique forests depends upon the market for cork wine closures, but the WWF report, "Cork Screwed?" says the trend away from cork stoppers could lead, in the worst case scenario, to synthetic and screw tops holding 95 percent of the wine closure market by 2015.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-15-01.asp

I wonder, how did these trees survive before corks for wine bottles came along?

And if they stop making corks for wine bottles (which is unlikely to happen for a long, long time yet anyway), why will the trees die?

WWF should recognise that cork trees were not originally created for wine bottle closures, although 120,000 acres of new cork forest has been planted in recent years to fulfill the need. They should recognise that other products, such as those being manufactured by SHAANXI SHUANG HERRS CORK I/E in China (to grab a name at random from Google), include cork sheets, cork rolls, cork flooring title, cork wallpaper, cork blocks, cork underlayment, cork mat, cork coaster, cork memo board and cork pin board.

According to the industry statistics of the Cork Quality Council (http://www.corkqc.com) corks for wine bottles account for 15% of cork production by weight (250 million corks per ton) - but a whopping two thirds of cork revenues. Now that's a telling figure and food for thought.

And what is the equivalent of 5% of the wine closures in 2015, to say what to 100% percent of wine closures 65 years prior to that, in 1950. I guess the figure would not be too different. But they hadn't planted all those new cork trees back then.

I was referring to that page, with its link to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has been the main mouthpiece..I mean front..I mean advocate for the idea of "save the birds, don't switch from cork" campaign.

Shockingly enough, APCOR (which I believe Amiorim is a member?) is one of the RSPB's largest financial supporters

Hmm!
Let's say there's a new generation
Let's also say that they want to put right the wrongs of past generations
Let us wonder if they're happy to reimburse wineries and wine drinkers for the faults they now admit exist (that they're predecessors denied). Waht if they guaranteed to reimburse each winery for the trade price of every TCA affected bottle returned to the winery. Wineries and punters have taken the hit for years. I personally have no affinity towards the cork industry and sincerely hope that screwcaps (or a subsequent improved design) are proven to be better than cork for all wines. In such a situation I would shed no tears for an industry that's treated us all with contempt.

I just wonder if it's all too late for them anyway. If they'd have done something about cork taint, rather than denying it was more than an extremely rare incident (or bad winemaking!), then maybe there wouldn't be Stelvin or Diam or any of the other new options. Now they're here, they offer potential to eradicate the other major failing of cork: premature oxidation due to cork failure. Even if the cork manufacturers eliminated cork taint, they may still have a faulty product, inferior to the new competition.

If there's one lesson that's come out of this, it's an understanding that by accepting hospitality or entertainment from any producer, it runs the risk of perceptions of impartiality being questioned. There's probably very few (if any) wine writers who've not encountered the same problems, be it a winery invitation, or one from a retailer. Even the receipt of sample bottles for review causes some to question integrity. Whilst we must take care not to attack someone who's integrity would not be compromised by such acts, wine writers also need to recognise the risks of misperception.

regards

Ian

p.s. If there's one thing that reminds me of my belief in Robin's integrity, it's that this topic hasn't been deleted. I doubt if it's been easy for him, but he's handled it with a level head. I know of another forum moderator (sic) who might have treated the situation slightly more aggressively!

[Robin Garr]

Shockingly enough, APCOR (which I believe Amiorim is a member?) is one of the RSPB's largest financial supporters

I believe Amorim CEO Antonio Amorim is the current chairperson of APCOR, which of course is the industry trade association, Dale.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see the Portuguese cork industry aligning with NGOs that foster environmental protection in the cork forests, for good reasons and perhaps for not-so-good reasons. Give them credit, though, for pulling away from the sensationalistic (and easily disproven) wails of anguish ... and for being willing to say so. I would have been surprised to seem them making overt statements about that on the Amorim Website in contradiction with their own stated position on it. But supporting an organization whose interests are aligned? I'm no more surprised about that than I would be to see a Democratic candidate embrace the Sierra Club.

To go back to the original topic - rather than get sidelined on TCA .....

I wonder, how did these trees survive before corks for wine bottles came along?

And if they stop making corks for wine bottles (which is unlikely to happen for a long, long time yet anyway), why will the trees die?

Not that I feel that protecting cork for the sake of cork forests is a valid argument, but I will say that things aren't the same outside of NZ, Sue. Cork trees survived prior to stoppers the same way all other trees did; we didn't cut them down faster than they could grow (or, at least, there were so many that it didn't seem that way). When something like a tree loses the revenue attached to it, it doesn't matter how majestic or habitat-providing it is, it suddenly becomes a disposable impediment in making money - be it property value, lumber, whatever.

One case is the Giant Sequoia which is the world's biggest and oldest surviving organism. You'd think these would be protected right? Especially if they had National protection?

http://www.wilderness.org/WhereWeWork/C ... ogging.cfm

Maybe they can make a Maple Syrup-type product from the cork trees?

Best,
Joe


p.s. and in case anyone forgot, I am pro screw cap in 95% of the wine out there.

Giant Sequoia? I'm doing my part to preserve them!

I have a Giant Sequoia in my front yard. It's small for a GS, but pretty damned large nonetheless. It's also a little bit of an oddity because it's down in Sonoma where you mostly find Coastal Redwoods.

A former next door neighbor came over one day and complained about my Sequoia dropping needles on the corner of his roof (the tree is on the side of my yard). I suggested he sweep them off his roof, the same way I did. He asked if I would give permisssion to trim some branches directly over his roof. I said yes, but he could not in any way harm the tree, so he had to be careful. He agreed with that.

Then, as he was walking away, he turned, looked at me, and said, "Hey, have you ever thought of just cutting that old think down?"

"Mo," I said. With definite finality in my voice.

Sheesh, some people.

He sold. My new neighbor complained (gently) that the roots of the sequoia had apparently broken up one corner of his concrete walkway. I explained that I considered that a pre-existing condition when he bought the house amd cpi;d easily be worked around, that the tree was considerably older than he and I combined, and that if he entertained any ideas about damaging that tree, then it was quite likely we weren't going to continue being good neighbors.

He must've listened, because since then he's always talked to me before he's done any work anywhere near that tree, and hasn't complained about it since. He even commented that he really likes the shade.

To go back to the original topic - rather than get sidelined on TCA .....

I wonder, how did these trees survive before corks for wine bottles came along?

Not that I feel that protecting cork for the sake of cork forests is a valid argument, but I will say that things aren't the same outside of NZ, Sue. Cork trees survived prior to stoppers the same way all other trees did; we didn't cut them down faster than they could grow (or, at least, there were so many that it didn't seem that way). When something like a tree loses the revenue attached to it, it doesn't matter how majestic or habitat-providing it is, it suddenly becomes a disposable impediment in making money - be it property value, lumber, whatever.

Joe, you obviously didn't read in the sarcasm of my statement.

That's great Hoke! It's a good story and something to be proud of.

I've got nothing impressive in my yard, though I do have an interesting front door. See, my front door traps moisture which has created a veritable land snail Mecca. I also had a Praying Mantis return to the door again and again last Summer (maybe due to the sharp green hue which was the same color? Or maybe she just liked escargot?). There's also a "swimming pool" in the backyard that the landlord owns. It hasn't been used in years and has turned into a billabong which in turn gives mosquitoes a wonderful place to lay their eggs. Sometimes I walk by and give the pool a tap to watch the diving beetles submerge in unison. Despite the lack of awe in these things, I do my best to nurture it.

Best,
Joe

Joe, you obviously didn't read in the sarcasm of my statement.

That's the other thing different outside of NZ - we cut down trees and sarcasm with equal abandon.

One case is the Giant Sequoia which is the world's biggest and oldest surviving organism. You'd think these would be protected right? Especially if they had National protection?

I believe that the giant sequoia is the largest living organism but the bristlecone pines of the California White Mountains are the oldest. Something like 5000 years. There are a couple of ancient groves just west of Death Valley. They are protected, however the oldest trees are not located for the public because of the concern about vandals. Makes you wonder about some people.

Robin,

with all respect: Amorim is the largest cork producer in the world (not only the largest producer of fine corks). Taint rates are criminal and nowhere near falling.

I as a consumer (or wine-writer) have no mean at all to tell whether a given cork is manufactured by Amorim or somebody else.

A normal consumer seldom asks for refund. Even more seldom are return rates when you go higher up: retail/restaurant, wholesale, importer, producer, cork retailer, cork importer, Amorim.

A near zero return rate at Amorim says just about nothing about the real problems out there: 17% at our Champagne tasting (in 2003); 39% with Bordeaux 1995 (in 2005); 21% with Bordeaux 1996 (in 2006). Batch size with 100 to 120 wines at each tasting was large enough to be conclusive.

Just to be precise: "Taint" by my definition is not "discernible TCA" but "any off bottle immediately confirmed by a better back-up bottle of the same provenance".

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see the Portuguese cork industry aligning with NGOs that foster environmental protection in the cork forests, for good reasons and perhaps for not-so-good reasons. Give them credit, though, for pulling away from the sensationalistic (and easily disproven) wails of anguish ... and for being willing to say so. I would have been surprised to seem them making overt statements about that on the Amorim Website in contradiction with their own stated position on it.

Standard corporate spin, isn't it? Different messages for different folks. Savvy wine writers get the full-blown scientific talk on how new technologies are ridding the industry of a long-standing, equally-long denied scourge, and they should support cork seals for, er, what was the reason again? Meanwhile, punters out in $5-a-bottle land are told that by choosing wines with corks they are saving the lives of small cuddly animals. Nothing surprising there.

I think cork makes wonderful floor tiles. I really do.

cheers,
Graeme

[Robin Garr]

There's just no way I can participate in this discussion without creating the impression that I'm a shill for Amorim, which I'm not. I would suggest, though, that each of us consider our own attitudes and beliefs about cork and alternative closures, and then consider the extent to which they sway us from clear, logical analysis.

[David M. Bueker]

I would suggest, though, that each of us consider our own attitudes and beliefs about cork and alternative closures, and then consider the extent to which they sway us from clear, logical analysis.

Where's the fun in that?

Seriously, I don't care if you are a shill for hte cork industry or not. I have had too many corked bottles to trust cork. I don't know who Johannes Leitz buys his corks from. I don't know who Helmut Donnhoff buys his corks from. If I see a screwcap or even a glass closure I know there's no taint.

Finally technology has arrived in time to eliminate TCA to maybe one in 1,000,000. I think that this is a very good start for the future of the coark industry. Many problems have come up due to alternative closures some resulting in multi million dollar settlements. The distain for the cork has everyone foaming at the mouth and turning a blind eye to the failure of some new closures. Again all of the anti cork people turn away and say well, let’s give it one more chance. I turn the same question around if you are willing to partake in the grand closure experiment so be it. Just remember we won’t know what will work for over 30 years until the wines are put to the age-old test.

John, this summary of the situation is wildly inaccurate. Your first sentence is based on a claim from the major cork producer, but does not yet appear to be borne out by the experience of consumers (and how are we to tell whose corks are Amorims?). The phrase 'alternative closures' is so broad as to be useless, and appears to cover known faulty seals, oxidising plastic cork substitutes, crown seals, glass seals, and screwcaps. I've seen no-one defend Altec, or plastic corks, or request any latitude with their continued use. Crown seals have been used for years with no unknown problems, and wines under screwcap appear to require marginally different handling prior to bottling than wines under cork. Quite why preparation for cork sealing is seen as 'natural' and screwcap preparation otherwise is due to nothing more than the weight of the status quo. The change from propellor driven aircraft to jet engines no doubt required some re-training for the pilot, but no-one suggested that propellor flight was 'natural' and jet engines somehow manipulated.

What we can all do is one thing stop posting and let this dog of a post die. Sour Grapes on this topic. I commend Robin for his patience and his open mindedness to let this post run its course.

So unless we want to go on talking about this for the next 30 years let’s stop posting and give Robin a break.

I thought it a quite civil discussion. If it had been talked about for the last 30 years we wouldn't still be sitting here recounting tales of wines ruined by packaging - it might have been fixed in 1981...

cheers,
Graeme

[David M. Bueker]

I thought it a quite civil discussion. If it had been talked about for the last 30 years we wouldn't still be sitting here recounting tales of wines ruined by packaging - it might have been fixed in 1981...

cheers,
Graeme

Exactly. This is our form of civil disobedience. Hey, we could have a sit-in.

Anybody want to storm the Dean's office?

"Four corked in Ohio...Four corked in Ohio..."

[Robin Garr]

If I see a screwcap or even a glass closure I know there's no taint.

Me too. Let the record reflect that when I see a screwcap it makes me happy. When I see a cork, I'm a little nervous until it comes out of the bottle. (Lost one of Lewis Pascoe's more promising Israeli wines - a Syrah - to profound taint the other day. We should ask him whether he uses the Big A brand or not.)

[Robin Garr]

Exactly. This is our form of civil disobedience.

No need to disobey. I'm not calling for a halt to this thread. I think it's great! I'm just saying that I'm in a funny position because of having had a recent cork-industry briefing that made some sense to me and gave me some information I hadn't had before. But I'm NOT in the business of making the cork industry's arguments for them and don't really want to back myself into that position, that's all. But when I see arguments like, "WWF is spouting Iberian Lynx extinction on the eve of a great wine conference, so Big Cork must somehow be involved in that," I'm slightly tempted to say, "Hey, that's a non-sequitur," since I'm under the impression that Big Cork gave up that argument in the '90s. Even if WWF did not.

Hey, we could have a sit-in.

Anybody want to storm the Dean's office?

Cool!

Anybody want to storm the Dean's office?

Who? Who??

Howard Dean? Dean Cain? John Dean? John Cain? Who?

Aw, heck, doesn't matter, I guess... Count me in!

But when I see arguments like, "WWF is spouting Iberian Lynx extinction on the eve of a great wine conference, so Big Cork must somehow be involved in that," I'm slightly tempted to say, "Hey, that's a non-sequitur," since I'm under the impression that Big Cork gave up that argument in the '90s. Even if WWF did not.

I'd count APCOR as "Big Cork", wouldn't you? And Amorim currently holds the chair? Look at http://www.corkmasters.com, the APCOR site. "Enviroment" is #2 of their five headers, with the pulldown menu featuring.....are you ready.....protecting the Iberian Lynx . That's pretty prominent. Is there anything, other than maybe "hey, TCA isn't the cork's fault", that is emphasized more on that webpage?