Wine And Sulfites
You Can’t Tell A Wine’s Sulfites, Even With Labels
WINE-TALK
By FRANK J. PRIAL
c. 1988 N.Y. Times News Service<QC>
A new federal requirement that all bottles of table wine display the notice “Contains Sulfites” is causing confusion among consumers. The notice, it seems, is not to be found on the bottles of many well-known wines that contain the widely used preservatives.
The requirement, set down by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, went into effect in January 1987 with a phase-in period of one year. (Actually, all American wine bottled after July 9, 1987, had to have the sulfite information on the assumption that it would reach consumers after the Jan. 8, 1988, deadline.) It was intended to protect consumers who may suffer allergic reactions to sulfites.
The measure applies to all alcoholic beverages; wine usually contains more sulfites than any distilled spirits or beer.
The problem for consumers is that American wine producers have displayed the notice on all wine shipped since last July. At the same time, wines produced and bottled before the labeling requirement went into effect are just now coming onto the market. So bottles without the sulfite information on their labels are to be found side by side in stores with bottles displaying the information.
“The consumer is going to conclude that one bottle contains sulfites and the other does not, when in fact they both contain sulfites,” said Michael Zeller, a lawyer for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group in Washington.
The nature of wine marketing virtually guarantees that consumers will be confused by the new label notice. While 80 percent of all wine is consumed within 12 to 18 months after it is produced, a great many American wine lovers prefer older vintage wines. For example, several vintages of Bordeaux made and bottled before the new rule was imposed have not yet been widely released in this country. They include the 1984, ’85 and ’86 vintages.
There are also considerable quantities of earlier Bordeaux vintages still for sale, going back at least to 1979. This is true of virtually every premium wine region, including California, where quantities of fine wines from the early 1980’s are still in distribution channels.
Thus it is inevitable that consumers will eventually find, for example, two bottles of Robert Mondavi cabernet sauvignon on the shelf in a wine shop, one with the notice “Contains Sulfites” and one without it. One bottle will be from the 1987 vintage or later; the other will predate the government ruling.
The issue will be even more confusing for nonvintage wines. In such instances, the sulfite notice will be the only difference in the two labels. Wine drinkers who understand vintage dating may know the difference, but other consumers may not.
Sulfites, which are sulfur compounds, are added to most wines as preservatives. They kill microbes that cause spoilage if allowed to grow unchecked. Some people, notably asthmatics, can suffer allergic reactions to sulfites, even in quantities below those allowed under Federal law. Used in moderation, sulfites impart no taste or smell of their own and can actually enhance the taste of wine. Used excessively, they can produce a noticeably unpleasant taste and smell.
Since 1933, the Food and Drug Administration has said that up to 350 parts per million of sulfites are allowable. Most wine-making manuals and texts say that from 60 to 150 parts per million is adequate for almost every wine-making need. But some scientists contend that wine makers frequently exceed these limits to guard against spoilage.
The labeling regulations apply to all wines containing more than 10 parts per million of sulfites. (In 1944, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms proposed limiting the amount of free sulfur to 125 parts per million in red wine and 175 parts per million in white wine. No action was taken on the proposal.)
Sulfur dioxide, the sulfiting agent most widely used in wine making, is sprayed on newly picked grapes to keep them from spoiling on their way to the winery; it is added to the must, or newly pressed grape juice, to prevent spoilage; it is burned in wine barrels to clean them and kill unwanted bacteria, and it is added to finished wine to improve the flavor and help it age. It is also used outside the wine-making business as a preservative in fruit concentrates, syrups, juices, shrimp, pizza dough, cake toppings, dried fruits, frozen and dehydrated potatoes, cheeses and many packaged fruits.
At one time, sulfites were widely used to preserve the taste and looks of food displayed in salad bars. In 1986 the Food and Drug Administration banned this method of preserving the color and texture of fresh vegetables and fruits, but health officials say it continues illegally.
The Wine Institute, the promotional arm of the California wine industry, contends that the statement, “Contains Sulfites,” is purely informational and not a warning notice. The institute has long maintained that the dangers posed by sulfites are extremely small.
At least one death from severe allergic reaction to sulfites in wine has been recorded in the last few years, and the victim in that case apparently drank the wine knowing that it could cause severe illness. Daniel Tsevat, 33 years old, of Dallas, died of acute asthma in July 1985. The wine he had been drinking at the time of his death, a German white wine, was found to contain 92 parts sulfite per million, well within the allowable limit. Officials from the Dallas County Medical Examiners Office determined that Tsevat had been advised to avoid sulfites.
“It seems to me that if your doctor tells you that you’re sensitive to sulfites that you should stay away from all wine,” said Bill Drake, the deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. “Even if it’s only 10 parts per million.”
Before the sulfites label became mandatory, some opponents argued that it represented a capitulation to pressure groups, and warned that it would serve only to alarm consumers who are not allergic to sulfites.
But consumer advocates insist that the half-million people in this country who are sensitive to sulfites need to be protected from the life-threatening hazards the substances pose.
John DeLuca, president of the Wine Institute, said there has been no indication that the sulfite notice has affected sales. Officially, the institute supports sulfite informational labeling as a help for hyperallergic and steroid-sensitive asthmatics, DeLuca said.
Enologists note that not all allergic reactions to wine are caused by sulfites. Other culprits may include the histamines released during wine fermentation and such protein substances as gelatin, egg white, isinglass and casein, all of which are fining agents that combine with free-floating matter in the wine barrels and draw it to the bottom where it can be removed.
Some people get headaches after drinking wine, occasionally because of sulfites, but more often as a reaction to other chemicals, such as esters, which are produced in fermention.
Mail from readers of this newspaper indicates that some consumers are concerned and confused by the new labels. The facts are these: all wine in commercial distribution channels contains sulfites. Wine has always contained sulfites in one form or another and will for the foreseeable future. The number of people sensitive to sulfites is comparatively small, but anyone who thinks that he or she may suffer from such an allergy should consult a physician and should avoid all wine.
Wine makers have recently found ways to limit substantially the amount of sulfur used in wine making. Scientists say it is theoretically possible to make wine with no sulfur at all. But, they add, a process that proves workable in a small laboratory model would be prohibitively expensive on a commercial scale.