The news about the EU’s recent decision to ban certain terms from US imports got me thinking about Seth Meyers from "Saturday Night Live." He has a segment in the news called “Really? With Seth Meyers.” If you haven’t seen it before, check it out here: 

Obviously this affects Clos LaChance. Technically, the Euro have banned the term "Clos" (means closed in area). And Chateau (means castle), and a bunch of others like classic, sur-lie, late-bottled, noble, superior, vintage and ruby.

Really?

A little background about why this makes me, as a US wine producer, just a little ticked off. I have tried to sell wine in the EU. The taxes on US wines are insane. Basically the price at least doubles once you get the wine there and on the shelf. Every deal we have done in the EU, we came down significantly on price. And we have also had to put on special labels....more materials and labor costs for us. Our margins barely break even. Over the last couple of years we have given up on the European market and focused on friendlier export territories like Asia and Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get the sense of place in Europe. There is nothing like drinking Riesling in Germany, Pinot Noir in Burgundy and Soave in Venice. Eating and drinking locally allows one to experience the true culture of a region.   

However, how would Old World wine producers be effected if Americans started having that isolationist attitude here in the US? Come on guys, let's make things as difficult for them as it is for us. Our consumption of wine per capita is growing significantly every year. France, for example, is going down (their new President is not a fan of the drink.)   We have the power people!

All these recession news reports have been telling me that the alcohol industry hasn&rsquot been affected that much. Makes sense. People drink to relax, let loose a little and forget their troubles. Nothing wrong with that.

Want to make a little extra dough US government? Start taxing imports the same way they tax us trying to get our wine into the EU. France for example, ships a sea of wine to the US every year. I would even venture to say they would be kinda screwed without the US market (well, most wine producing countries would).  Charge an equal percentage of tariffs or taxes or whatever they call it. Protect the US's home grown goods a little. It's hard for us to compete.....especially with labor and land prices in places like Australia, Chile, South Africa and Argentina. I can't tell you how many placements I lose to wines from these areas because it&rsquos just cheaper to make similar quality stuff.

Recently California wanted to raise the excise taxes by 400% on wines produced here in California and sold in California. Really? Why not slap those taxes on the French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, Australians, Chileans, South Africans, Argentineans and anyone else who is trying to bring wine in to compete with our locally grown wines? It didn't pass....but if it did, California wine prices in CALIFORNIA would have increased significantly. Really?

So, consider this an open letter to whomever is making the deals with the EU and this whole wine term debacle. Realize you are in a position of power. Tell those Frenchies that if they want to ban the term "classic" or "Clos" on a wine label then you can't use it on your labels that are shipped over here.  In addition, raise some money for our country, encourage people to drink US, and tax them how they tax us.

Really EU? You want to complain about words that are considered commonplace amongst winemakers all over the WORLD? I totally get the reason why you want to protect "Burgundy" and "Chablis"and "Champagne." Same reason we want to protect Napa Valley and the rockin' Santa Cruz Mountains. But come on vintage? Really? Classic? Really? Ruby? (means we can't sell our Ruby-Throated Cabernet in the EU). Really?

Like most people I know, I have a glass of wine pretty much every day. During the week, I drink usually just one glass of wine with dinner. On the weekends it ends up being two or three. Add that up…that’s five glasses on weekdays and four to six on Fridays and Saturdays. My maximum average consumption (outside of special occasions) is 11 glasses a week. A little less than three bottles (I pour approximately 4 glasses to a bottle).  Not too bad right?

In 1991, the French Paradox  story aired on 60 Minutes. Red wine sales boomed and the health benefits of wine in moderation were the talk of the town. Other health benefits of wine have since emerged, including:

-Women wine drinkers have fewer kidney stones
-Moderate Wine consumption reduces risk of stroke
-Studies link moderate alcohol usage to life longevity
-Drinking wine can reduce chance of upper digestive tract cancers
-Anti-oxidants in wine can reduce the occurrence of cancer in general
-Moderate wine drinkers have a lower chance of getting diabetes

(click here for an interesting summary of the aforementioned studies—compiled by a wine shop in New Jersey)

So this is great news, right? Wine is healthy and everyone should drink a glass a day for a longer life without strokes, cancer and diabetes. Well, then this came out last week:  a study saying that just one drink a day actually increases the risk of cancer in women.  

So now there are opposing studies….one says that wine decreases risk of cancer, the other says it increases the risk in women.   

Being in PR and knowing a little bit about how the media and news stories work—these “health benefits” or “health risks” stories always intrigue me. I am sure the reports are very complex….discussing the test group vs. the control group, taking socio-economics into consideration, age groups, etc.  But journalists have to fit the results of a giant report into a one or two column article. So they tend to leave out things about how the research was done and just focus on the sensational headline and reactions to it. Or they write their story based on the press release from the research facility—which essentially does the same.  

I feel the same way about the positive articles about wine consumption as I do about the negative ones. Skeptical. Who funded the research project? How were the test subjects chosen? How were the test subjects surveyed? How were the results compiled? What was the duration of the project?  It seems like every week there is a news article about one thing or another being bad or good for us. I would just hope that people question these things and do their own research before jumping on any type of mass hysteria bandwagon.

It has now come out that the one drink a day research was flawed.  Among other things, the questionnaires asked about weekly consumption and then divided by 7, vs. asking about daily consumption. If someone averages 7 drinks a week, but they were all consumed in one or two sittings, then that is bad for the heart, the liver and a bunch of other things.

In any case, risk or no risk, I will continue to drink in moderation.  For me, life without good wine and good food isn’t really living.