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!