Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

WINE: Stricter rules hurt small vintners

Letter by Brad Slusher, Tacoma on Nov. 25, 2011 at 11:28 am with 8 Comments »
November 25, 2011 12:48 pm

I believe most people drink wine because it tastes good and enhances the experience of foods with which it is paired. I can’t imagine anyone would mistake wine for something that has anything to do specifically with nutrition, although there are studies that show it can have beneficial effects on digestion when used in moderation.

So why would federal regulators feel the need to “protect” consumers from something that will have so little effect on their consumption habits?

Who is driving this need for regulation? Do regulators have so little to keep them occupied that they must find new ways to justify their existence and budgets by ever expanding their scope?

Ultimately, as quoted in the article, the Family Winemakers of California state that “laboratory testing and relabeling requirements will undermine industry growth and dampen product innovation.”

Small vintners will be run out of business because of the costs of compliance, and only the large corporate wineries will be the de facto beneficiaries of these new regulations. Who are the ones putting the regulators up to the task?

Remember the saying: If you can’t innovate, regulate. Oh, and it’s to protect the consumer, of course!

Leave a comment Comments → 8
  1. alindasue says:

    Not that I consider labeling wine that important an issue, but I don’t see how something as simple as redesigning the label to include nutritional information is going to run small vintners out of business. Is printing new labels really that expensive?

  2. I have to agree with you alindasue.

  3. blakeshouse says:

    More nanny state BS. Any and all new regulation takes funds out of every ones pockets, from the business saddled with compliance, who then pass the cost on to buyers and then with raised costs that leaves more sales taxes on the table to be wasted by the idiots in Olympia. Regs are what drove businesses overseas to begin with, along with unions demanding the moon from said businesses. No matter how you look at it this is nothing more than a big power and money grab by the socialists who now infest our country with their vile ideology….

  4. In years past, the legislation fighting the legalization of gambling in Washington was funded by Nevada casinos.

    Who stands to make the most money by limiting the wine market in Washington?

    Don’t forget, we just “eliminated the monopoly”.

  5. BlaineCGarver says:

    Nutritional value of wine? Well, since catsup and pizza are now veggies, I suppose anything stupid is possible from Washington DC….We pay unelected morons and idiots to ruin our lives by fiat. I hope I can once again see sanity return to this once great country.

  6. Catsup as a veggie? Look back to the Reagan Administration for that one. It was being called such in 1986.

  7. falkoja6 says:

    Give me a break… this is over regulation plain & simple. I have travelled all over Europe and it’s so refreshing to walk into an English or Irish pub and not having to read the warning signs for pregnant women to abstain from consuming alcohol. I have bought wine in France, Luxembourg, Germany, and Italy….. No warning on the labels… Our Nanny State is too busy trying to regulate behavior. That is NOT a function of government… I just can’t wait until some goody two shoes group comes up with proposed regulations that will restrict when one can pass wind to curb global warming!!

  8. Who stands to make money if smaller vineyards can’t compete?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0