Regarding Additions in Burgundy

You might start to yawn before you even start to read this. Because we're talking about the meaning of sugar and acid in Burgundy otherwise known as the meaning of  Is.

 A few weeks back there was that balance in pinot noir presentation in San Francisco. I wasn't there, but I watched the lively streaming of it. Towards the end,  while addressing what one can or cannot do to a pinot, Peay Vineyards winemaker Vanessa Wong stated that Burgundians are allowed to both acidify and chaptalize in the same vintage. 

What followed was a Twitfest on both sides of the pond to unearth to truth; because I was not the only who for years cited that in Burgundy one can do one or the other but NEVER in the same vintage.  

Now, the reason for adding of sugar is prolong fermentation and boost alcohol level. Adding of acid could be needed if you require a more stable wine, which would indicate the winemaker might have chaptalize quite heavily.

 Thor Ivorson was the first to remind me of a Burgundy case in 1998 concerning André Porcheret, then the winemaker for the Hospices de Beaune. It seems as if he added both to at least  one of his 1997s.

His argument, subsequently validated in court, was that the law does not prevent you adding sugar to one product (the must) and acidity to another (the wine). Turns out after he left, he gave this interview which indicates he added acid, sugar and tannins as a matter of course. (By the way, his is the style of winemaking Marcel Lapierre rebelled against; pick under-ripe and then add sugar, sulfur and then acid if needed. Also, you will get the rationale for both sugar and acid.) 

The court upheld that must and wine are two different products, so Porcheret was within his legal rights. Whether or not you want to drink those wines is another issue, whether or not this is in the spirit of the law, is another issue. But legal. In which case, if you're sitting for the MS exam, and this comes up, how do you handle it?

 Vanessa's statement had made me realize I needed to better investigate what I always saw as truth on limiting additions in Burgundy. I was sure when I got into my inquiry I would find an overturning of that court ruling or better language making the practice more difficult. Turns out the rules are more complicated.

Ah, it does come down to a Clintonian what Is is.

Still, the EU had reformed the laws, had they changed the wording?  I received this from Denis de Froidmont, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural development

I confirm that acidification and enrichment of the same products are mutually exclusive processes according to the European Union legislation. (see annex XVa, point C.7.of Regulation 1234/2007)

But, I emailed him, just to clarify, does that mean they are two different products? While I waited I further fired away questions.

I asked Eric Texier, who lives in southern Burgundy his answer was. 

"But it was definitely accepted that must is a product and wine another one. So officially it is allowed to do one of the operations BEFORE fermentation and the other AFTER. Nice, no?"

I asked Jasper Morris. He cited the Porcheret case and said yes, it is legal. And then just to make sure I wasn't missing something I asked Ms. Jancis Robinson who replied archly. 

"Yes indeed! I am told that some less reputable producers add sugar to one cuve and acid to another and then blend them." 

When I later pressed her about any changes in the EU since then, and are the chapt and acid peeps protected by the law, the ever the pragmatist Ms. Robinson (when is the UK going to make her a Dame? Really, what are they waiting for?) said "I believe so – or at least not-one has been prosecuted for what I described."

Finally, today, the official word from Denis, once again, came in the e-mail. "Yes, indeed. Must is a different product than wine." 

So there you have it; the great myth that one cannot add both sugar and acid in the same vintage for the same destined wines in France, or in the EU for that matter is a myth. 

Thanks to Ms. Wong for instigating the investigation and if anyone has any other take on it, or can lead me to a specific overturning of that Porcheret case, I'd love to hear it. 

Comments

[Tomfiorina]

People also sell grenache wine as pinot noir in France, but that doesn't make it legal. Those adulterating their wine risk going to prison here, regardless of how they interpret the rules.

[Alicefeiring]

But, Tom, this does appear to be legal. A perfectly legal loophole. As with the Gallo incident (and others) one is fraud the other just points to a different attitude to terroir and winemaking, what is the spirit of the law and what is the law.

[RemyCharest]

One caveat: for a producer to do it legally, even within the confines of the loophole, there must be an authorization by the INAO to do both operations in the same year. In Burgundy, I was told by the BIVB that this has not occurred in a very long time.

[Bkwineblog.blogspot.com]

Alice, you're quoting a court case that is outdated and has been superseded by new regulations. And you seem to be interpreting regulations like someone who wants to wring and twist them into things they were not designed to do. And, as far as I can tell, putting together quotes that are independent into something that looks as if it has a link. I still have not seen any indication of that what you are saying is reality.

Tom correctly says that the fact that people do it does not make it legal. (And I doubt that people do this anyway.)

Remy says that there is a "loop hole" (but not the one you refer to in the text) but that it is virtually never used.

It would be interesting to see anything concrete that substantiates what you say - that one and the same wine can, legally, be both chaptalised and acidified.

[Alicefeiring]

Per, I've cited three authorities: the EU, Jancis and Jasper. In the regulations it doesn't use the word wine, it uses the word produits.

I'd love to be wrong here, I actually have no investment in acid and sugar being 'legal.' I'm just intrigued that nothing has been done to overturn the past legislation. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is not valid unless it is overturned.

The best you've given me is a friend who has heard from a professor. Remy has brought up the loop hole, which is the same as saying it is frowned upon, but not illegal.

I'm not saying this is done with great regularity but I do believe it is done and have no reason to believe it is not.

[Alicefeiring]

Also, this is what I received from Remy from France, which doesn't seem definitive at all, but more of the same.

7. L'acidification et l'enrichissement, sauf dérogation à décider cas par cas, ainsi que l'acidification et la désacidification d'un même produit, s'excluent mutuellement. »

Ce qui peut paraître ambigu c’est qu’une même année on puisse acidifier et chaptaliser, en fait le règlement indique que ces deux pratiques s’excluent mutuellement sur un même produit. Et c’est là toute la subtilité ! Il est possible, sous réserve que l’INAO ait donné son accord, une même année d’avoir l’autorisation de chaptaliser et d’acidifier mais cela ne doit pas être fait sur une même cuve, le même lot ! par contre il est possible, dans ces cas là, par exemple de chaptaliser en moût et d’acidifier en vin car d’un point de vue réglementaire ce sont 2 produits différents !

Toutefois, en ce qui concerne la Bourgogne les demandes d’acidification sont très très rares puisqu’il s’agit d’un vignoble septentrional et comme l’indique le règlement cela n’est possible que lors d’années exceptionnelles !
J’espère que ces informations vous aideront, la législation sur le vin n’est pas simple mais tous les œnologues la connaissent…..

Restant à votre disposition pour tout complément d’information.

[Dressner]

This is no great scoop. The Porcheret incident was well documented. Porcheret was not only the winemaker for the Hospices but also for Bize-Leroy, that is not a minor figure in Burgundy.

Anyhow, so what? Would his wines have been any better with or without the interventions he used?

Is legislative restrain a way to force making good wine?

The only think that is important about the AOC regulations, to me, is that it tells me where the wine actually comes from. All the rest is accessory information and the market will and should decide what is good and what is worth buying.

Bloggers and journalists making sensationalist findings, 14 years after the fact, are really serving little purpose other that stirring the pot for no reason.

[Alicefeiring]

Joe, always a pleasure to hear from you. I had not realized he worked for Ms. Bize-Leroy.

By the way sensational is in the eyes of the beholder. This was not meant to be, in fact it was prefaced by a yawn. No? More of a piece of trivia as so many of us who care about wine are used to collecting. This issue is important only to those who want to be accurate in reportage, and bloggers and journalists, and dare I say people, should care about these things. For example. When you give a lecture and someone shouts out from the peanut gallery about acid and sugar in Burgundy, and they do, they do, one needs to be prepared.

[Dressner]

Alice: You didn't realize Porcheret worked for Bize-Leroy because you did no research for this article. The question of acidification and chaptalization was resolved 14 years ago. A journalist should make an effort, even a small one.

Joe

[Alicefeiring]

M. Porcheret left Leory after the 1993 harvest.

This had absolutely no relevance (except as trivia) to my posting.

By the way (and yes, your fine journalism degree from NYU pre-dated the blog era) my blog and most true blogs (such as your own) are not compiled of 'articles.' For articles might I guide you to the button that says, 'articles.'

This is my blog for me; not for you. I am writing this for free. If I pick up readers or critics along the way, that is wonderful.

Regardless, always a pleasure.

[Dressner]

Alice:

You are a professional journalist. You have a book out.

The fact that this is a blog for you, something I have well researched, does not give you the liberty to do sloppy research and spread rumors rather than facts.

You have been doing it too long. Too many people use the lack of editorial supervision on the web to write whatever comes to mind. You know better.

Joe