> they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made. Is there really any evidence to suggest that is going on? It does

> they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made. Is there really any evidence to suggest that is going on? It doesn't make a ton of sense as an (admittedly amateur) wine and beermaker. I mean, I suppose adding more yeast is possible, but it seems like it would work... very poorly, especially into finished wine. You'd have to use a much more alcohol-tolerant strain than the original fermentation, but not if the original wine contained sulfites (which stop fermentation -- that's the major reason why they're added)... It doesn't seem to make a ton of sense. Rather, I think what is perhaps going on is a misunderstanding, or even a sort of mendaciously inaccurate description, of how modern winemaking works, where you -- just like beermaking has for centuries -- put in (aka: "pitch") yeast, selected to be consistent with the type and style of wine you want to make. The alternative would be to make the winemaker depend only on the randomly-occurring yeast in an area. (Which I suppose is a sort of 'terroir', but it's not the sort I think most people would appreciate.)