NORTH BAY BUSINESS JOURNAL EVENT

2008 Going Green Conference: Building, Technology & Practices

Thursday, October 9, 2008, 7:30-11:45 a.m., Doubletree Hotel, Rohnert Park

E-Mail Express

Name:

Company:

E-mail:

Phone:

Battle continues to rage over viticulture areas

NAPA – Three months after closing public comment, the federal bureau that regulates wine viticulture areas still has not announced its decision on two highly contested rule changes that could force some companies to change long-established labels.

The changes proposed last year, including creation of a Calistoga viticulture area, were open for comment until this March and vintners have voiced opinions both in favor and against the alterations.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau announced plans to clarify its regulations after three wineries voiced opposition to the creation of a Calistoga viticulture region. Federal officials responded saying the dispute was indicative of a clear need to modernize some of their standards.

According to the document, the continued proliferation of American Viticulture Areas, more than 100 of which are in California, has spawned new complications that must now be clarified.

“For a number of reasons, [the bureau] believes that a comprehensive review of the AVA program is warranted in order to maintain the integrity of the program,” officials wrote in a November 2007 proposed revision.

Last year, Calistoga Partners, Calistoga Cellars and Chateau Calistoga officials said current rules would unfairly and adversely affect their brands if the bureau approved the creation of a Calistoga AVA.

Under current regulations, a wine is not permitted to use a viticulture area name or a portion of the name on its label unless at least 85 percent of the grapes used to produce it come from the viticulture region. In effect, the Calistoga-named wines would have to change their brand because they all use wine from several regions, including Calistoga.

“Your new proposed action would have a devastating economic effect on our company,” Calistoga Estates Managing Partner Marvin Stirman said in response to the Calistoga AVA petition.

“We have spent over two years working very hard to establish our brand. … We have spent a large amount of money and time and effort to accomplish this beginning level of success. For us to have to change our name at this time would be devastating.”

In response to the first proposed rule change, bureau officials offered an exception to wineries that established their label before March 31, 2005, which updated a grandfather law that was previously set at July 7, 1986.

However, several entities disagree with the new exception, saying regulations should remain unchanged.

“The City Council wants to make it clear that they are opposed to the use of the Calistoga name on wine brands not in compliance with the origin requirements for the proposed Calistoga AVA, as it would be harmful to the name and the economic well-being of the city and the region,” the city of Calistoga wrote to the bureau.

Also, von Strasser Winery owner Rudy von Strasser wrote to the bureau saying the Calistoga-named wineries’ current predicament is a result of them “not doing their homework” on the risk of taking on a geographic-based name.

“This concept has been an industry standard for over 20 years, and has been a standard we all understand and have learned to live with. I personally had to make numerous choices of trade name usage based on these rules of play,” Mr. von Strasser wrote to the bureau.

The second rule change equally contested but mostly without vintners’ support would remove a winery’s ability to display an AVA name if it is located in a sub-AVA, even if it is entirely contained in the larger AVA boundaries.

“This rule is very problematic to growers whose grapes would be more valuable if listed under the larger AVA program,” said Sonoma County Winegrape Commission President Nick Frey.