# Calories listed on a wine label??



## Tom (Jan 20, 2011)

OK I hope this will not happen!

http://www.phillyburbs.com/information/guide_post/article/312/2011/january/20/alcohol-industry-grapples-with-nutrition-labeling.html

*Comments?*


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

i hope not either, it will add a whole additional process/testing and paperwork for the winemaker and that means costs go up


----------



## Tom (Jan 20, 2011)

Al, How long this been going around? 1st I heard of it.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

I think it's a good idea. Not just 'normal' ingredients, but MOG as well!


----------



## Tom (Jan 20, 2011)

BobF said:


> I think it's a good idea. Not just 'normal' ingredients, but MOG as well!


MOG is .... mother of groom?? .. LOL


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

Tom said:


> MOG is .... mother of groom?? .. LOL


 
Material Other than Grape:

Pet saliva/hair, mice, insects, bird poo, etc. ;-)


----------



## Brian (Jan 20, 2011)

BobF said:


> Material Other than Grape:
> 
> Pet saliva/hair, mice, insects, bird poo, etc. ;-)





ha ha ha carefull Bob we don't want to go down that road again... LMAO..


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 20, 2011)

I am working on a theory, and mind you its just a theory still, much, much more work to do until I present this at a scientific conference in the future but here it goes...... 

wait for it.......

Wine has calories.

:>


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

Ah Bob! A man after my own heart  i like your sense of ironic humor!

As for the calories listing...the idea has been around for awhile...in fact the idea of an entire nutrional label has as well....the traditional one that would show protein, carbs sugars and so forth...easy enough for the big guys...hard for us small folks.....it will bring in just another level of beauracracy (sp?) 

if they can do this then guess what will be next....truth in labelling in terms of what description you write on the back...for instance say that you claim a wine has notes of berry and citrus...well what if the buyer does not detect on their palate these notes...then what do you do? get sued? take returns? people will treat it like they do tv's on super bowl sunday...buy the tv before the game and return the day after...they will say, gee look at that 100 dollar wine...i wonder what it tastes like...and then return it afterwards


----------



## Tom (Jan 20, 2011)

BUTT,
do calories change year to year on the same grape from the same vineyard?
Do they change from vineyard to vineyard?
Do they change from different grapes...

It can go on and on. Just look at the labels from europe. Where will they have room for that info...


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

speaking of the europeans Tom...they laugh at us that we bother to list that wine has sulfites on our labels


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Jan 20, 2011)

i totally agree with Al. gov't needs to butt out! i'm not happy with all the bs i'm dealing with from them already. fruits and other things naturally have sulfites, so I can understand why the french make fun of us. That said, we still have superior wine, so they can sip on that! lol

as long as there aren't poisons in it, it should only need alc/vol, date, name of winery and that's all i can think of.

we have to put exact % of wine ingredients in our wines on the label. that is bs. unless it's something that can cause an allergic reaction, what does it matter?


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

In all seriousness, I do think sugar content should be listed.


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

"In all seriousness, I do think sugar content should be listed. "

the problem is that the slippery slope always heads down hill


----------



## Lurker (Jan 20, 2011)

Ridiculous


----------



## Runningwolf (Jan 20, 2011)

AlFulchino said:


> "In all seriousness, I do think sugar content should be listed. "



Al what is your thinking on this? I am thinking maybe for diabetics? How would you list it, by percent reading from a hydrometer?


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

AlFulchino said:


> "In all seriousness, I do think sugar content should be listed. "
> 
> the problem is that the slippery slope always heads down hill


 
I generally don't buy into 'slippery slope' arguments. That's like saying "I'm not gonna' do this GOOD thing because it *might* lead to a BAD thing some day." IMO, of course.

I think this is a very clear demonstration of the power of lobbies - inconsistency in public policy.

Other than the fact that you might have to do something extra, what reasons do you have that the alcoholic beverage industry should be treated any differently than other food/beverage businesses?

You think there aren't small bakeries?


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

"I generally don't buy into 'slippery slope' arguments. That's like saying "I'm not gonna' do this GOOD thing because it *might* lead to a BAD thing some day." IMO, of course."

well....the government is bursting at the seams w those who want to do good to us....it always costs money in the end...your money and money...its always couched in the arguments that they want to save us...save us?

additionally, you ask why the wine industry should not be treated differently.....you have the wrong question....the real question is why do we continue to allow the government to get in the way of each and every industry to the point of being less and less competitive in more and more industries

___

Dan...there are several test procedures that can be used...but why go there...if a wine says it is not dry then what is it.....sweet...case closed


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

AlFulchino said:


> "I generally don't buy into 'slippery slope' arguments. That's like saying "I'm not gonna' do this GOOD thing because it *might* lead to a BAD thing some day." IMO, of course."
> 
> well....the government is bursting at the seams w those who want to do good to us....it always costs money in the end...your money and money...its always couched in the arguments that they want to save us...save us?
> 
> ...


 
<steps onto soap box>

Al - Believe it or not, I am and always have been very conservative. Areligious, but conservative none the less.

Over the years I've seen too many cases where the public's best interests have been trumped by the $. Rather than believe that government regulation is evil in general, I've come to believe that too much regualtion is evil, while *some* regulation is necessary. Yes, I realize that 'too much' and 'some' are subjective terms.

It doen't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned anyway. *I* want to know more about what is in the wine I buy - specifically sugar. And I'm not the government. Unfortunately, commercial wine producers aren't willing to tell consumers more voluntarily, so the only recourse consumers have is to ask the government to force the issue.

So, here's my advice to the commercial wine industry:

Voluntarily tell consumers what they want to know about your product. If you yield to what your customers want, then they might not feel compelled to drag the government into it.

If you do this voluntarily, then you can make it as easy or as hard on yourself as you want. You'll also be taking the presuure off of the politicians, AND, most important of all, you'll be giving your *customers* what they want.

The way things stand now, it's your customers that you're fighting against. Politicians are lazy by nature - they don't just dream up things to have battles over. Politicians are involved because their constituents have asked them to get involved. These constituents (your customers) have gone to the politicians because the producers (you) aren't listening.

And I for one believe I have a right to know what the heck I'm drinking!

<steps off of soap box>


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 20, 2011)

i am happy to hear where you are coming from in general....

sellers will do what the customer wants in the long term regardless of government.....this is evident in all businesses when you look long term.

with or without the government there are short term corrections and problems as well...

but asking the government to offer regulation for each and every new fad or request by the public is nanny state...and nothing good comes if that....

anyways glad you and i are in general terms sympatico


----------



## JasonH (Jan 20, 2011)

These are the type of regulations that cripple small business. Ultimately, I think the consumer would get hurt more by increased costs and a smaller selection (I love the small wineries).


----------



## grapeman (Jan 20, 2011)

BobF said:


> <steps onto soap box>
> 
> Al - Believe it or not, I am and always have been very conservative. Areligious, but conservative none the less.
> 
> ...


 
Bob if you want to make sure you know what is in it, just buy the wine from wineries that do list the sugar or whatever content you desire. If enough others are like you and buy from those other places, the ones that don't will see the value in doing so. If there are only a few that want it, then it won't have an impact on decisions and it shouldn't be forced by the government. Let the marketplace dictate what is needed, not the government.

Am I biased, of course I am, being a small winery. It is getting to the point where we need laboratories for testing already and additional tests would get to the point of making the business unprofitable. Then you might know what was in the wine if you could buy it, but alas, the winery went out of business because of all the extra costs so it is no longer available. If you can't have sugar, buy dry wines.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

JasonH said:


> These are the type of regulations that cripple small business. Ultimately, I think the consumer would get hurt more by increased costs and a smaller selection (I love the small wineries).


 
All the more reason to *voluntarily* provide more info w/o things getting to the point of stifling regulation.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

grapeman said:


> Bob if you want to make sure you know what is in it, just buy the wine from wineries that do list the sugar or whatever content you desire. If enough others are like you and buy from those other places, the ones that don't will see the value in doing so. If there are only a few that want it, then it won't have an impact on decisions and it shouldn't be forced by the government. Let the marketplace dictate what is needed, not the government.
> 
> Am I biased, of course I am, being a small winery. It is getting to the point where we need laboratories for testing already and additional tests would get to the point of making the business unprofitable. Then you might know what was in the wine if you could buy it, but alas, the winery went out of business because of all the extra costs so it is no longer available. If you can't have sugar, buy dry wines.


 
It's not that I can't have sugar ... I have a hydrometer and know how to use it  One of SWMBO's favorite wines ended having an SG of 1048 - *that* is a lot of sugar! Now that she knows how much sugar is in it, she doesn't drink it every day any more.

It would be nice to know though, *BEFORE* I buy the wine.

I agree with market forces completely. Always my first choice. I'm sure the smart wineries will do the right thing. Eventually.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2011)

AlFulchino said:


> i am happy to hear where you are coming from in general....
> 
> sellers will do what the customer wants in the long term regardless of government.....this is evident in all businesses when you look long term.
> 
> ...


Funny, that. I use to get frustrated by gridlock, hoping for power balance shifts so the government could get things done.

Now I'm happy when they can't get anything done.


> anyways glad you and i are in general terms sympatico


 
I never doubted it for a second!


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Jan 21, 2011)

bob, realize there are a whole lot of regulations on wineries. knowing a specific gravity for a winemaker would be nice, but a typical consumer knows jack about it. that said, knowing how much REAL sugar is there is very different. the amounts of solids in the wine will change an sg. we measure the change in sg, which is why it's semi-reliable in testing for alcohol. 

prime example is our latest kink. not going into all the details, but we have a new health inspector in our area, who has deemed what we had done in the production building for waste water removal inappopriate, but it is ok, since the previous inspector ok'd it. now though, we have to purchase a 20k system for the tasting room to comply, which uses much less water than you would in production (plastic cups and portable bathrooms for the tasting room, don't like portable bathrooms, but we are on limited property and funds). now it's going to cost more upfront for the tasting room. the dep. of natural resources said it should be fine either way, but the health dep. has jurisdiction. the only plus to the whole ordeal is that the health department lady is easy on the eyes. lol. too bad she had a wedding ring. lol. i'm still wondering how a handwash sink and a mop sink constitute a 20k drain system???

i guess the only way to make a fortune in the wine industry is to start with a large one!


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

Midwest Vintner said:


> bob, realize there are a whole lot of regulations on wineries. knowing a specific gravity for a winemaker would be nice, but a typical consumer knows jack about it. that said, knowing how much REAL sugar is there is very different. the amounts of solids in the wine will change an sg. we measure the change in sg, which is why it's semi-reliable in testing for alcohol.
> 
> prime example is our latest kink. not going into all the details, but we have a new health inspector in our area, who has deemed what we had done in the production building for waste water removal inappopriate, but it is ok, since the previous inspector ok'd it. now though, we have to purchase a 20k system for the tasting room to comply, which uses much less water than you would in production (plastic cups and portable bathrooms for the tasting room, don't like portable bathrooms, but we are on limited property and funds). now it's going to cost more upfront for the tasting room. the dep. of natural resources said it should be fine either way, but the health dep. has jurisdiction. the only plus to the whole ordeal is that the health department lady is easy on the eyes. lol. too bad she had a wedding ring. lol. i'm still wondering how a handwash sink and a mop sink constitute a 20k drain system???
> 
> i guess the only way to make a fortune in the wine industry is to start with a large one!


 
I realize there are already a lot of regulations - waste water regs aren't unique to wineries.

I also realize that SG isn't a direct reading of sugar, and my interest in sugar isn't purely b/c I'm a winemaker. There is a HUGE difference between "Dry" and 1048.

I'm not sure if scaling up a winery helps much. In theory, a larger winery would have a larger volume of waste. I guess at some point 'economies of scale' begin to help, but how much room is there until you hit 'diminishing returns'?

I'm interested in sugar content for overall health reasons. I don't necessarily want a sugar-free (dry) wine, but I don't want to drink semi-syrup either. As we all know, it's impossible to taste exactly how much sugar there is - we can tell if a wine is balanced, but without either labeling or testing, there is no way to know.


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Jan 21, 2011)

check with the wine spectator and other outside sources for dryness. i know pomona winery in southwest IL posts sugar in percentage. IMO, you should check them out, it's a winery almost specifically making apple wines, but they are the best i've had for sure (for apple). 

waste water is not much more expensive when you are large. the biggest costs go down as you make more wine by a lot. some costs stay the same, bonds, insurance for your tasting room, etc. also, you get deals on goods when you buy in bulk. our prices we had figured, per bottle, for fruit and packaging, are cheaper than expected. that said, our initial investment has been raised significantly (~40k).


----------



## JohnT (Jan 21, 2011)

GEEEEEZE!!!! 

Our tax dollars at work.. 

As far a calories are concerned, The wine I drink has only one ingredient... Fermented grape juice! 

If you need to know the calories in a glass of wine, go the the weight watchers website.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

I was wondering how long it would take our resident Welch's snob to chime in! 



JohnT said:


> GEEEEEZE!!!!
> 
> Our tax dollars at work..
> 
> As far a calories are concerned, The wine I drink has only one ingredient... Fermented grape juice!


 
Only a true *aficionado* would drink dry wine! The slobs of the world want a little sweetness!



> If you need to know the calories in a glass of wine, go the the weight watchers website.


 
Fortunately, the same attitude doesn't pervade the majority when it comes to other foods/beverages.

I'm *still* waiting for someone to provide a *real* difference between wineries and other food/beverage producers - one that makes a clear argument against providing the same nutrition information about their products ...

... still waiting ... waiting ...


----------



## JohnT (Jan 21, 2011)

BobF said:


> I was wondering how long it would take our resident Welch's snob to chime in!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





When I purchase a wine, I purchase a work of art. Would you print "oil paint on wood" over the mona lisa? 

Honestly, if you are on a diet, you should not drink wine. 

You seem upset by this issue. My point is that there are so many other things in life to get upset about. This info has never been printed on wine labels. Why, in the year 2011, is it so darn important?


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

JohnT said:


> When I purchase a wine, I purchase a work of art. Would you print "oil paint on wood" over the mona lisa?
> 
> Honestly, if you are on a diet, you should not drink wine.
> 
> You seem upset by this issue. My point is that there are so many other things in life to get upset about. This info has never been printed on wine labels. Why, in the year 2011, is it so darn important?


 
1. I'm not on a diet. Eating and drinking responsibly keeps me from needing to be on one.

2. I'm not upset at all. It's an interesting discussion to me - I enjoy seeing rationalization in practice!

3. When I consume artwork, I use Catsup rather than Ketchup which obviates the need for nutrition information!


----------



## JohnT (Jan 21, 2011)

Can't you simply get all of that from the side of the Welches can?


----------



## AlFulchino (Jan 21, 2011)

Bob....the govt cant get much right as it is.....i can understand them collecting fees and taking care of defense and courts...but on food they are out of their league....just look at saccharrin (sp?) and butter.....all the decades of misinformation...now we can have both again...and the answer is always the same....well now we know more....yes but in the meantime in terms of dairy folks you screwed them out of butter sales for yrs.....

let some private enterprise do like what CNET and consumer reports did for so many things.....people came to trust them based on performance...and then YOU the customer can choose to buy the work of art or stay w the calorie and other info on someone elses wine......free choice....what could be a better argument that that!


----------



## Brian (Jan 21, 2011)

Bob I find your argument very thought provoking. I disagree with your thought process but I will defend your right to have your opinion. I personally think we waste to much time on such trivial things and spend way to much money (in govt and business) on such things, kinda like having to put calories on a big mac.... come on. I believe we need to put the personal responsibility back on the people not the govt. We have much bigger problems that need to be taken care of. My thought of the day is try the wine if you don't like it don't buy it anymore. Let the market decide. Now can we get back to home wine making and get off the politics... hahaha


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

JohnT said:


> Can't you simply get all of that from the side of the Welches can?


 
ROFLMAO!! - Of course you can!


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

Brian said:


> Bob I find your argument very thought provoking. I disagree with your thought process but I will defend your right to have your opinion. I personally think we waste to much time on such trivial things and spend way to much money (in govt and business) on such things, kinda like having to put calories on a big mac.... come on. I believe we need to put the personal responsibility back on the people not the govt. We have much bigger problems that need to be taken care of. My thought of the day is try the wine if you don't like it don't buy it anymore. Let the market decide. Now can we get back to home wine making and get off the politics... hahaha


 
Do you disagree with my 'process', or my conclusions? 

Thanks, Brian. Believe it or not, I agree with you (and Al re: government ineptitude). I ALWAYS prefer private industry solutions.

However, there are times when PI doesn't do the right thing. Take this current debate. If the wine industry would quit whining -)) and actually create a voluntary method of ingredient labeling, the threat of government intervention would disapear.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility. Being responsible is as much about making good decisions as anything else. Decision making requires information. Information is ALL I'm asking for. Just tell me what's in the bottle.

Don't lecture me. Don't make decisions for me. Give me information so I can make informed (responsible or otherwise) decisions for my self.

Having a winemaker tell me to go to someone else to find out what's in their bottle is ... well ... unbelievable as a serious response. If YOU made the darned wine, YOU tell me what's in the bottle!

Again, just to make sure we're clear. I would much rather see the wine industry address this lack of information themselves, without legislative intervention.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

Brian said:


> My thought of the day is try the wine if you don't like it don't buy it anymore. Let the market decide. Now can we get back to home wine making and get off the politics... hahaha


 
Try it. If I like it, keep drinking it. If I don't like it, don't drink it?

Do I have that right?

I LOVE Big Macs and McD fries. The same logic doesn't carry. Could that be b/c I *know* what is in the Big Mac?

This might be about politics, but it is also about wine.


----------



## Brian (Jan 21, 2011)

The same logic does apply. You love big macs but know they are not good for you so you don't eat them. You love sweet wine but you know its not good for you so you don't drink it.. Personal responsibility Same idea..


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2011)

Brian said:


> The same logic does apply. You love big macs but know they are not good for you so you don't eat them. You love sweet wine but you know its not good for you so you don't drink it.. Personal responsibility Same idea..


 
Not really. "Sweet" is too broad in practice


----------



## Celestyal (Jan 22, 2011)

It's kinda like the nutrition label on water, there all zeros...


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Jan 22, 2011)

bob, i get your point, but the real point we are making is that it isn't that important. gov't should not force industry to do everything. they are already doing too much. on my license, i do have to show the exact percentage of fruits in my wines. so you will know more than with some wineries. furthermore, the testing for the sized batches we make would add cost and thus make smaller wineries such as mine, harder to start and likely to fail. i have enough bs to deal with right now, i don't need more fda bs. our batches go as low as 115 gal. even a $50 fee costs and we'd have to do that to every batch! we have 7 batches right now. that would be another $350 and i bet it would cost more than that!

should i put a final sg on the label?


----------



## grapeman (Jan 22, 2011)

Again, if we adopted nutrition labels for wine we would be giving foreign countries an unfair advantage again. It is not required in other countries so to do so would increase our wine industry costs without requiring it of others also. 

I believe that this subject is not wine making related and has become way to personal and political and as such should be stopped. Before you scream censorship, there are rules in place on this forum as others that limit politics to prevent contentious discussions such as this one. If I was a moderator or administrator here, it would not have gone on this long...........................................................


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2011)

Midwest Vintner said:


> bob, i get your point, but the real point we are making is that it isn't that important. gov't should not force industry to do everything. they are already doing too much. on my license, i do have to show the exact percentage of fruits in my wines. so you will know more than with some wineries. furthermore, the testing for the sized batches we make would add cost and thus make smaller wineries such as mine, harder to start and likely to fail. i have enough bs to deal with right now, i don't need more fda bs. our batches go as low as 115 gal. even a $50 fee costs and we'd have to do that to every batch! we have 7 batches right now. that would be another $350 and i bet it would cost more than that!
> 
> should i put a final sg on the label?


 
I understand the cost associated with government regs, that's why I sincerely hope you are all able to do something voluntarily that strikes a balance everyone can live with.

You mention final SG as a practical solution for sugar. That works for me, but I'm not sure the general public would understand it.

For me, something as simple as a standardized set of terms to describe sweetness would be fine.

Dry
Semi-Dry
Semi-Sweet
Sweet

Is what we have today. In practice, there is a huge overlap and a lack of consistency across wineries. For example, "Sweet" gets used for basically anything 1010 or so and up. And they do go up!!

A new set of terms for a tighter set of *ranges* would be fine. Something the winery can measure for themselves and label accordingly.

Measure the SG, but express the sugar as grams, percentage, or some other way that is clear/understandable to the masses.

With a voluntary program, AFAIC, you don't need an outside lab to provide the numbers.

Hell, I would even be OK with a label statement that says "see www.ourwinery.com for ingredient information" - that would at least give me an opportunity to do a little research before I start guzzling 3 bottles a day of some wine or another, and it would keep label changes to a minimum for the winery. Take it a step further - have a single web site that wineries can submit their info to. THAT would make it really easy on both sides.

I think the PR, the Good Will Points, will be very high for the pioneer wineries that go this route WITHOUT being forced.

Just thinking out loud, there are lots of ways to approach this. This is just an example of what I mean when I say "make it as hard or as easy as you want" - remember, when a government zombie gets involved common sense and options will get thrown out.

Anyway ... thanks for those that participated in the discussion. I hope I didn't offend anybody along the way. I'm NOT currently lobbying anybody to reign you guys into the web of government regulation. I hope you're able to get this sorted out BEFORE it gets to that point.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2011)

grapeman said:


> Again, if we adopted nutrition labels for wine we would be giving foreign countries an unfair advantage again. It is not required in other countries so to do so would increase our wine industry costs without requiring it of others also.
> 
> I believe that this subject is not wine making related and has become way to personal and political and as such should be stopped. Before you scream censorship, there are rules in place on this forum as others that limit politics to prevent contentious discussions such as this one. If I was a moderator or administrator here, it would not have gone on this long...........................................................


 
I love it when somebody pops in, has their say on the subject at hand, THEN calls for the thread to be stopped.

I guess I'm REALLY glad you aren't a mod!

I hope to see similar comments from you on the other non-winemaking threads in the future ...

I have yet to see anything personal posted.


----------



## Wade E (Jan 22, 2011)

Bob, you say voluntarily but its really just not feasible IMO. Would you spend the extra money if some people that drink your wine wanted this info? It would cost a lot of money wouldnt it to get actual numbers. This is something that you and I just cant get without some serious equipment and people to go through these numbers to decipher them. The typical small winery would just give up cause I hope you know that starting up a company without a large fortune is almost impossible already and this would just not make it feasible for most people like Al, Grapeman and Midwest Vineyard to open their doors. Now, if the government needed this info and would take 1 bottle of each wine and do the work for each of of each year or whatever to supply these numbers for the consumer that might be feasible but guess where that money would come from!!!!!! Im kind of with most on this in the fact that you should be able to tell if the win e is sweet and determine by that if you should be drinking lots of it. I know myself that when Im eating something I can tell by the taste and what it is if its good for me or not.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2011)

Wade - Two things. First, I don't think a reasonably accurate determination of residual sugar would be *that* expensive. Second, I can NOT tell by taste if something is healthy or not.

And I think going by taste for sugar in wine is not easy. With high alcohol and high acid, for example, high sugar is not going to taste as sweet as low alcohol, low acid with the same amount of sugar.

I know of at least one winery that uses residual sugar measurements to determine the end of fermentation rather than rely on hydrometer (disolved solids) readings. I have no idea how many use this approach.

From there it's a matter of math from testing they are already doing. The wine industry *could* set their own standards.

But, like a lot of other things, what I think doesn't matter. The bigger point I've been trying to make is that it would be far better to do something on your own than to wait for the government to hand you regs.

My career is senior managent. I've dealt with similar situations in other industries. There are two options; act on your own to get ahead of gov. regulation, or wait it out and hope your lobbying efforts pay off.

If you wait and lose the lobby, it will be orders of magnitude more expensive to deal with later. And the intangible side effect of a public effort to avoid transparency is never good, only varying by degree.

And through all of this, the only argument against is that it is difficult and/or expensive, with the implied 'threat' that the consumer will foot the bill. This argument has failed many times in many other industries.

I'm not in the commercial wine business, so the commercial wine folks will have to decide for themselves - I'm just trying to help


----------



## JohnT (Jan 24, 2011)

BobF said:


> 1. I'm not on a diet. Eating and drinking responsibly keeps me from needing to be on one.
> 
> 2. I'm not upset at all. It's an interesting discussion to me - I enjoy seeing rationalization in practice!
> 
> 3. When I consume artwork, I use Catsup rather than Ketchup which obviates the need for nutrition information!



One final thought on this.... 

Julia Child died at the age of 90 after a lifetime of eating butter, fat, and heavy cream. Interestingly, her husband died the same year as her at the age of 94. 

Jerome Irving Rodale, author of "organic gardening and farming" died of a heart attack while on the **** Cavette show. He was 72. 

Jim Fixx, author of "the complete book of running" died of a heart attack where three of his coronary arteries were 90%, 80%, and 70% blocked. He was only 52. 

Forget monitoring everything you eat. Forget exercise. Go get a full body scan.


----------

