Comments on: Bonny Doon’s labels bare all – Randall Grahm, part I

By: Doing a pigeage on Pinot - photo caption | Dr Vino's wine blog

Doing a pigeage on Pinot - photo caption | Dr Vino's wine blog — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:40:56 +0000

[...] we ingredient labeling on American wines, would they have to add naked woman if they do the traditional pigeage? Permalink | Comments (0) [...]

By: Lots on labels – but not on American wines | Dr Vino's wine blog

Lots on labels – but not on American wines | Dr Vino's wine blog — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:57:25 +0000

[...] But American wineries are not required to print lot numbers on bottles. They should. And they should have a standard of 100 percent accuracy. Maybe some progressive wineries will start to do this as Bonny Doon has with ingredient labeling. [...]

By: Randall Grahm - the way back is the way forward - part II | Dr Vino's wine blog

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:49:07 +0000

[...] Bonny Doon’s labels bare all – Randall Grahm, part I Bonny Doon Vineyard Permalink | SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Randall Grahm – the way back is the way forward – part II”, url: “http://www.drvino.com/2009/03/26/randall-grahm-the-way-back-is-the-way-forward-part-ii/” }); | American wine This entry was posted on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 2:48 pm and is filed under American wine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Mar 26 2009 [...]

By: Catavino Internet Marketing - Links from around the web for the week of March 19, 2009

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:05:14 +0000

[...] Bonny Doon’s labels bare all – Randall Grahm, part I – March 12, 2009 [...]

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:55:48 +0000

It’s an interesting debate, but I agree with Mark, the concern for me is that the general public doesn’t understand what the listed ingredients are actually used for. Listing yeast hulls and bentonite is all well and good, but with no explanation, that leaves the consumer standing in the aisles of the wine store a little confused. As a sommelier, I constantly hear the headache / sulfite complaint from customers, especially with red wine. While I try to politely exlpain that sulfites are not the agent causing headaches from red wine consumption and that white wine generally needs more SO2 than red wine for protection from oxidation, microbes, etc., it’s close to impossible to convince people. There is a big misconception, at least in my LA experiences, about the purpose of additives. If we are transparent, then we need to provide more information about the additives.

In just reading what I can from the photographed label, I can see “yeast nutrients” (maybe there’s more to it that I can’t see), that means nothing to the average consumer. It sounds really nice and natural. But to me if I read that in store, I’d think it was a euphemism for DAP or FermAid K or something. (That wouldn’t stop me from buying a wine I liked btw) I guess what I’m saying it “yeast nutrient” sufficient? Is it still misleading? How specific do we need to be? I think these are issues that need to be explored further.

By: Robert Camuto

Robert Camuto — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:28:58 +0000

Tyler:
Wine is one of the only food products that doesn’t list ingredients (other than the meaningless “contains sulfites”)
Most people have no idea what goes into wine and assume its just grapes and perhaps yeast– leaving out in some cases the bacteria, acids, sugar, added wines from sunnier climates in bad years, wood chips, artificial and natural flavors, fining agents, and other pimping products… I agree its not appetizing to see on a bottle, but more transparency is welcome.
Randall has always been edgy and this move is an interesting challenge to the industry.

By: What’s in That Wine?! - Tavola Rosso

What’s in That Wine?! - Tavola Rosso — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:22:16 +0000

[...] Dr Vino brings up an interesting trend in wine making where the wine maker (or marketing department) is actually listing out all of the ingredients on the back label. [...]

By: Jared Brandt

Jared Brandt — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:32:55 +0000

I think what Randall is doing is great. I actually saw one of his wines with copper sulfate listed as an ingredient.

The problem is that most wineries claim to be natural and forget to mention all of the things they add to the wine.

By: Gene W.

Gene W. — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:08:35 +0000

Sounds like Randall is trying to follow the lead of the late (and great) Walter Taylor of New York’s Bull Hill Winery. Walt was talking about Honesty in Labeling on wine at least 40 years ago………..How quickly we forget!

By: Zeke

Zeke — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:56:59 +0000

For my own wine purchasing I like Randall’s labeling idea, but I already know what all of that stuff is used for. If his intention is to market his wines as natural I think that he is missing the boat. The general public already see wine as a natural agricultural product. Listing his additives emphasises the perception (opposite of his intention)that his wine is a processed food. Even though he adds relatively little to his wine, all that an average consumer will see is that he is adding things that are “not grapes.”

By: Dylan

Dylan — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:29:52 +0000

I agree with Randy that it is sound marketing, but that doesn’t default Randall’s reasoning for doing this. He has his heart in the right place, and I appreciate his sentiments on keeping the wine honest.

By: Karen G

Karen G — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:57:55 +0000

Transparency = accountability. I hope more winemakers follow suit and that there will be more resources for wine consumers to reference ingredients and wone making processes.

Cheers to Bonny Doon for encouraging this socially responsible practice!

By: Anthony Nicalo

Anthony Nicalo — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:34:50 +0000

I applaud Randall Grahm. The real issue is that most wine marketing disconnects wine from agriculture and the process. For the majority of the wine industry this will be seen as more of a threat than a marketing tool.

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:23:57 +0000

Hey Brian –

Indeed, Randall told me that the would put copper on the label if they used it. But he said that they don’t now that they are Biodynamic (I didn’t know BioD spoke to copper in the winery since it does allow copper as a fungal treatment in the vineyard). Bonny Doom used copper in the winery in previous, screwcapped, pre-BioD vintages he said.

Mark – Thanks for your observations as a retailer. It is confusing and no doubt needs more space than a back label allows to explain everything.

By: Randy Watson

Randy Watson — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:44:24 +0000

I am going to classify this as more of a marketing technique than anything else.
What’s next, nutrition labels?