3 ms·
(1) would make zero economic sense because you're adding an extra step to the process when you could just instruct the winemaker from which you import to do thi
by stdbrouw 9y ago
(1) would make zero economic sense because you're adding an extra step to the process when you could just instruct the winemaker from which you import to do things the way you like, and as bathMarm0t notes it would require the addition of sugar or fruit juice so the yeast has something to work with, in which case you definitely cannot legally call it wine anymore.
(2) It might be out there, but I've never seen cheap wine advertising that it's been put in this or that kind of barrel for a particular amount of time. At most, they might put a barrel on the label to evoke the idea, which is fairly innocuous as far as false advertising goes.
If your interpretation of the OP is closer to what he meant, then really what you both are talking about is fraud, not common practice nor legal and definitely not likely to be true of the majority of "generic wine from our national alcohol store".
- Moru 9y agoI also watched this documentary. They add sugar not once but twice in the process. It is very economical since they can adapt to many different tastes so everyone can find something they like. But I have never found a wine I like, mabe this is why? A friends friend (and so on) buys something from a traditional wine yard that is drinkable but still not good... :) And those waiting for legislation for ingredients on wine bottles might have to wait for a while more. It has been in the works for 35 years. The industry really dont want to dispell our beliefs in the traditional wine barrel.