Article: Environmental Argument for the Use of Cork Closures

Whole article here ----->Cork Debate Pits Wine vs. Environment

AP article appearing on SFGate.com:

It's the main event in the battle over how to close a bottle of wine: Cork vs. screw cap. To some, it's a matter of style. To others, it's an issue of quality. And now, it's a question of what is best for the environment.

Cork was the standard closure for ages. But winemakers began moving to alternatives in the past decade because of problems with cork that were ruining wines. Screw caps became a popular option and are now seen topping many fine wines, such as some bottles from Napa's PlumpJack winery that sell for $100 or more.

But some winemakers and environmental groups are urging wineries to return to basics — saying cork is the best choice for the environment.

This argument has been repeated ad nauseam in the media over the past 1-2 years. IIRC, it may have originated with the Cork Council, or whatever their industrial association is. The argument is far from persuasive for three reasons:

1. Sealing wine bottles is not the only use for cork bark. It accounts for about 60% of the use of cork. Since the demand for cork has risen dramatically over the past 30 years as the production of cork-finished wine has increased, a decrease in the use of cork stoppers would simply reduce the stress on the cork forests rather than abandoning them.

2. It is far from inevitable that a decline in the use of cork for wine closures would lead to the loss of the oak forests in Portugal. Very often, other industries find uses for resources vacated for others. Alternatively, organizations like the Nature Conservancy exist to help secure lands like that that are put up for sale for environmental reasons.

3. Much is made of the sustainability of the cork harvest and the ability to recycle cork. But that's far from the full picture of environmental health. Do the Portuguese cork forests have the same biodiversity as virgin forest? Does the harvesting of cork displace species or disrupt the life cycle of any of the many organisms that depend on those oak trees? Until those questions are fully explored, one should take the cork industry's claims of environmental friendliness with a major grain of salt.

Just my $0.02,
Mark Lipton

Just yet another repeat of the cork producers propaganda.

Mark has it nailed.

[David M. Bueker]

What happens is that different media outlets pick up the same syndicated story at different times. So it always seems new.

But as always, same $%$%^, different day.

Another factor ton consider is the "carbon footprint". I understand the biggest part of the carbon footprint (by a large margin) of wine is the production of glass, a big energy-hog. Since one has to produce an extra percentage (whether one claims 2, 5, or 8%) to counter bottles tainted by TCA, one can make the argument that a taint-free closure is better for the enviroment.

I support saving the cork forests, I just don't think the only way to do that is to spoil my wine

I support saving the cork forests, I just don't think the only way to do that is to spoil my wine

Where are your priorities, Dale? That's almost as bad as saying that you eat that awful product of hideous animal cruelty, fwaw grah. Myself, I'm on to Woody Harrelson's famous raw food diet (having just read Bourdain's hilarious "Woody Harrelson, Culinary Muse") and twice-daily colon purges...

Self Abnegation Rocks!
Mark Lipton