4 ms·
With all due respect, I'm not sure you really follow the argument being made here. Yeast is a strain of microorganisms that consume the sugar in the juice, and
by Lazare 9y ago
With all due respect, I'm not sure you really follow the argument being made here.
Yeast is a strain of microorganisms that consume the sugar in the juice, and produce a number of complex organic chemicals including alcohol, but also a number of others, some of which provide, yes, fruity flavours. When we find a strain that provides a flavour profile we like, we isolate it, breed more, and then, yes, package them and sell them to vintners that want it.
> And these flavors then turned up in the liqour store on the wine where the yeast was used.
Yeah, that's one of the key pointS of winemaking. All winemaking. Everywhere. All types. You pick an appropriate strain of yeast to yield the finished product you want; it's a critical step in the process.
> So the yeast was used as direct flavoring.
...no. Yeast does not end up in the finished product, and is not used as a direct flavouring.
> My point is that it's processed wine and this isn't clear to the consumer.
All wine is processed wine; wine making is one of the oldest industrial processes, dating back six thousand years. Was there some specific part of how this wine is processed you have an issue with? And if so, what? And why?
> And I'll gladly await the EU decision on whether or not wine distributors will have to declare contents.
But they've got the same ingredients right? Grapes, yeast, maybe some extra sugar and water? What are you expecting to see on the "bad" wine label that you won't see on "good" wine?
Edit: Looking at your other comments, it seems you're mostly upset about the idea that some wines might have two seperate fermentation stages. But this is a traditional wine making technique for centuries; it's a defining trait of the champagne and governo methods. So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Wine is a heavily processed product; what's wrong with these particular processes?
- bjourne 9y ago> But they've got the same ingredients right? Grapes, yeast, maybe some extra sugar and water? What are you expecting to see on the "bad" wine label that you won't see on "good" wine? What processing aids and additives are used. A list of allowed chemicals is found here: http://redax.tv4.se/kallafakta/LISTA%20TILLSATSER_ALLERGENER.pdf http://redax.tv4.se/kallafakta/LISTA%20TILLSATSER_ALLERGENER... I don't care one way or another but "wine snobs" claim some of these are giving them headaches.
- lttlrck 9y agoSo perhaps something like the Reinheitsgebot for beer? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
- Lazare 9y agoFrom your link: > In addition, the law allows the use of powdered or ground hops and hops extracts, as well as stabilization and fining agents such as PVPP. Top-fermented beer is subject to the same rules, with the addition that a wider variety of malted grains can be used, as well as pure sugars for flavor and coloring. That sounds like the exact sorts of things the original commenter was upset about with wine. And many of the things in the list the guy you were replying to linked are "stabilization and fining agents".
- Lazare 9y agoI don't read Swedish, but glancing through that list I do recognize several very traditional and widely used preservatives and fining agents, which are used in traditional wine making. Plus fining agents, by design, aren't present in the finished product so I'm still not clear on what a labelling law is meant to achieve. Example: A traditional fining agent in that list is egg albumen (aka egg whites). No detectable traces remain in the finished product. Is that a problem? Why? That list highlights it as an allergen in red, but again, it's not in the wine and (unsurprisingly) studies show they do not cause allergic reactions. If there are specific concerns about specific additives, then 1) they should probably be banned from all products, not just wine and 2) we should be having a conversation about those specific additives. General concern about "additives", in general, just comes across as scaremongering.
- sportanova 9y agoIt's like the dihydrogen monoxide scare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax - you start using words like "chemicals", "industrial", "process" and people get worried. Even more so when you add "money" or "profit"
- oliv__ 9y ago> you start using words like "chemicals", "industrial", "process" and people get worried. Even more so when you add "money" or "profit" Ummh not sure if this is sarcasm but most of the time, rightfully so. Especially when you add the last two words.