Minnesota wineries upset that California grapes taste better

I'm trolling with that headline, but only just a bit. Minnesota wineries are suing because they are forced to label their wines accurately when they don't include a majority of Minnesota grapes. Heck, I could start a winery on Antartica and produce "Antarctican wine" if only I could ship the grapes in from somewhere else. It's like the dehydrated grape bricks of Prohibition, produced in California and shipped all over. I bet there was plenty of "New York City wine" produced, if the standard is where fermentation takes place!

The whole point of making it easy and cheap (relatively speaking) to set up a "farm winery" is to encourage the production of grapes in the state. It's true that brewers and distillers are allowed to ship their raw ingredients in, but they also don't do geographic labeling. You might have, say, Brooklyn Brewing, but everyone understands that they are not growing, harvesting, and malting barley in Red Hook. Whereas if you have a winery in New Mexico, with the words "New Mexico" right on the label, everyone similarly understands that the grapes are in fact grown in the place listed. Oops, well, maybe that's not a good example anymore. Anyway, the idea that accurate labeling of an agricultural product is somehow a restriction of "freedom", as the Minnesoetans claim, is not so nice.

its a little confusing. they apparently can't call their wine minnesota wine unless 50% of the grapes are from minnesota. but federal law requires 75% to use a state AVA on the label. so how are 'allowed' to call their wine such with only 50%. there must be something else going on here.

its a little confusing. they apparently can't call their wine minnesota wine unless 50% of the grapes are from minnesota. but federal law requires 75% to use a state AVA on the label. so how are 'allowed' to call their wine such with only 50%. there must be something else going on here.

If you only sell your wines in Minnesota, as I suspect most only do, the Fed restrictions are not applicable.
Tom

I'm trolling with that headline, but only just a bit. Minnesota wineries are suing because they are forced to label their wines accurately when they don't include a majority of Minnesota grapes. Heck, I could start a winery on Antartica and produce "Antarctican wine" if only I could ship the grapes in from somewhere else. It's like the dehydrated grape bricks of Prohibition, produced in California and shipped all over. I bet there was plenty of "New York City wine" produced, if the standard is where fermentation takes place!

The whole point of making it easy and cheap (relatively speaking) to set up a "farm winery" is to encourage the production of grapes in the state. It's true that brewers and distillers are allowed to ship their raw ingredients in, but they also don't do geographic labeling. You might have, say, Brooklyn Brewing, but everyone understands that they are not growing, harvesting, and malting barley in Red Hook. Whereas if you have a winery in New Mexico, with the words "New Mexico" right on the label, everyone similarly understands that the grapes are in fact grown in the place listed. Oops, well, maybe that's not a good example anymore. Anyway, the idea that accurate labeling of an agricultural product is somehow a restriction of "freedom", as the Minnesoetans claim, is not so nice.

OK, Walter.....can you name the two most popular wine bricks during Prohibition?? No fair using Google.
I, of course, can...followed wine bricks from the very start!! I did/I did!!
Tom

Technically, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but political designations like counties and states are not AVAs, and so don't have the same rules. Furthermore if you only distribute in-state, the federal rules don't apply at all. That's why you occasionally see bottles labeled, "Not for distribution outside the state of ..." So it wouldn't surprise me that we are just talking about a Minnesota law intended to promote farm wineries in the state.

For the record, I would definitely try a Minnesota wine if I were visiting. I enjoy Ohio wines from time to time, for example. The prices tend to be high, and they use lots of sugar, but it's a genuine Ohio product. And I certainly don't mind if winemakers in faraway states want to make wine from California grapes. Just don't try to tell me it's an Ohio wine if it's California soil.

And I certainly don't mind if winemakers in faraway states want to make wine from California grapes. Just don't try to tell me it's an Ohio wine if it's California soil.

Although this is changing as there is more Solano County wine being made, for a long period this was a big market for some of our Suisun Valley grape growers.

Technically, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but political designations like counties and states are not AVAs, and so don't have the same rules.

Why not? Rutherford- Napa Valley-Napa- North Coast-California- USA

Salute

Labelling wines as being from Minnesota when the grapes are grown elsewhere is unfair to those wineries, who against the odds, grow their grapes in state

Technically, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but political designations like counties and states are not AVAs, and so don't have the same rules.

Why not? Rutherford- Napa Valley-Napa- North Coast-California- USA

Salute

That's a tricky distinction, but the Rutherford AVA doesn't necessarily correspond to the city limits of the town of Rutherford. The AVA is based on the location, but the boundary is defined by the application and its vitcultural distinctiveness. Similarly Napa Valley and the North Coast. Whereas purely political boundaries are not AVAs.

Tom, I wish I knew the names. I heard they tended to be zinfandel, because the thick skins were sturdy, but I don't know.

Technically, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but political designations like counties and states are not AVAs, and so don't have the same rules.

Why not? Rutherford- Napa Valley-Napa- North Coast-California- USA

Salute

That's a tricky distinction, but the Rutherford AVA doesn't necessarily correspond to the city limits of the town of Rutherford. The AVA is based on the location, but the boundary is defined by the application and its vitcultural distinctiveness.

Not to be too pedantic but there are no "City Limits" to Rutherford (or Oakville for that matter):

Rutherford is a census-designated place in Napa County, California, United States. The population was 164 at the 2010 census. Rutherford is located in the Rutherford AVA which is located in the larger Napa Valley AVA

Carry on. (Your other commentary is 100% correct!)

All that an AVA is a geographical designation of origin; it could be very small or large.

Salute

As far as the Minnesota winery suing, I just don’t get it. If the winery is operating under a Minnesota Farm Winery License it must abide by the rules and regulations. (Usually if the State’s Agricultural Department declares a “natural disaster” or “Act of God” in regard the state’s grape harvest they would allow so much fruit to be outsourced). So if the winery wants to outsource grapes from outside the state why not apply for a Commercial Winery license.

Salute

Walt wrote: Furthermore if you only distribute in-state, the federal rules don't apply at all. That's why you occasionally see bottles labeled, "Not for distribution outside the state of ..."

I’m not so sure about that. Brooklyn Oenology Winery got a lot of flak for using a California County appellation on wine produced in Brooklyn from grapes outsourced from the stated California County.

Walt wrote: And I certainly don't mind if winemakers in faraway states want to make wine from California grapes. Just don't try to tell me it's an Ohio wine if it's California soil.

According to TTB rules and regulations an Ohio commercial licensed winery which produces wine from outsourced grapes from California cannot label the wine with the “California” state appellation of origin, it should be labelled with an “American” country appellation of origin
Fed regulations for using Country, State, or County appellation (1) a minimum of 75% of the wine must be produced from grapes grown in the stated appellation of origin (2) The wine must be finished (except for cellar treatment, blending, and bottling in which the class and type of wine is not altered) in the stated appellation of origin, EXCEPT for state appellation designated wines the wines must be finished (except for cellar treatment, blending, and bottling in which the class and type of wine is not altered) in the stated state or an adjacent state (3) All rules and regulations of the stated appellation must be conformed to.
The Feds have a minimum of 75% to label a wine with a state appellation of origin, California has a 100% to label a wine “California”.

So does a licensed commercial winery in Ohio, outsourcing grape from Napa California produce a “Napa” county wine? Or just an “American” wine? There is a proposal to lessen the restrictions using an appellation of origin. On one side you have the California wine industry and other very highly regarded wine regions who want to tighten things up. On the other side licensed Commercial wineries who outsource their fruit who want to correctly “inform” their customers about the grapes origins (instead of just using the “American” country appellation of origin).

Salute

Here in New England we have a saying: "If a cat crawls into the oven and has kittens, that doesn't make them muffins."

IMO, consumers expect that if a wine is labeled "Minnesota wine", it means that the grapes were grown in Minnesota. To label a wine half of whose grapes came from another state as "Minnesota wine" is dishonest, misleading, and unethical, even if, as that Clinton administration official put it, it's not an indictable offense.

-Paul W.

A better analogy is if you take muffin dough prepared with “state grown” raw material in California, no matter where the oven is you will always get muffins. (Heck, if Mom does it they will probably be really good muffins).

Salute