Mike Tommasi wrote:
> JEP62 wrote:
> >
> > > What I can't understand it what is to be gained from forbidding the
> > information on the label? I say leave it up to the grower/winemaker.
>
> There are some oversimplifications in both the above snippets.

Possibly :-)

>
> If you left it up to the winemaker, he could freely add things like
> "made from magnetically correct grapes" or "drinking my wine will cure
> cancer".

And if the buyer falls for that, whose fault is it.

> So all those things are confined to the less visible back
> label, leaving the front one free of clutter and allowing the consumer
> to chose and to compare fairly the wines he wants to buy. Why? Because
> the information on the label are the ONLY elements that are guaranteed
> by the appellation system and the system of checks and controls around
> it. Everything else is not verifiable, and therefore relegated to a
> lesser label in tha back. Now you guys in the US should be sensitive to
> this consumer protection stuff, really!

So if it's on the front label, it is governed and verifiable but if you
put it on the back label you can lie ? That's not consumer protection
in my book.

BTW, aren't grape varieties "guaranteed by the appellation system and
the system of checks and controls around it" ?

>
> Otherwise you end up with all those silly Aussie labels. ;-)

LOL

>
> Seriously, the problems of the appellation system are certainly real,
> but the issues are far deeper than the label.

Agreed.

Andy