Laden with Bubbles

---

Contributed by "El Jefe" - Jeff Stai of Twisted Oak Winery & El Bloggo Torcido

Today over on Vinography I noticed a short blurb by Alder about a story from Chiclayo, Peru.

Seems that Peruvian authorities confiscated several cases of a bubbly called "Bin Laden Champagne", but not because of the name. Apparently the ill-named hooch was illegal and a health hazard, and was disposed of. I'm sure they sold a lot of "One Buck Bin" before they were shut down, however.

Peruvian authorities want you to know that, if you did buy a bottle, DO NOT DRINK IT! It'll make you blind. Or something. Alert your friends. Alder, this means you!

I agree with Alder that the EU and especially the French would be all over the name - can't have "Champagne" on a New World label. Not allowed.

In regards to the rest of the name, I think most people are not aware that this is a wine-making term. We use it all the time - for example: "Get the forklift and bring that bin laden with a half ton of Mourvedre over here."

---

Editor's Note: Alright. Today one wine-maker (Jeff) says you CAN'T use "Champagne"; Monday, another (Jen Wall) tells me you can (and is using it).

Jeff even sent some supporting links:

• http://www.ttb.gov/industry_circulars/ic2006_01.html
• http://www.ttb.gov/wine/itd_qas.shtml

Can Anyone set us straight once and for all???

Comments

[Jessie Jane]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I read Jeff's links correctly, the use of the term "Champagne" is permitted on US-produced wine labels, provided the appelation is included as well.

So a Napa Valley "Champagne" is allowed if "Napa Valley" appears on the label.

My understanding is that most US winemakers (I suppose not all—particularly the unscrupulous ones) generally only use the term "Champagne" if they have adhered to the methode champegnoise (or methode traditionelle).

I haven't exactly done an audit of all US-produced sparklers, however, and as a winemaker Jeff likely knows more than I do about this one.

[eljefe]

I'll be the first to admit this gummint gobble-de-gook is a bitch to make sense of, and JJ's comment made me go back and make sure that I had it right, and it still took some time....!

The OLD rule, established in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is that a "semi-generic name" like "Champagne" was allowed if the actual appellation of origin was include - as JJ described above.

The NEW rule, is established by the Treaty with the EU and has yet to be fully put into law is to restrict the use of semi-generic names "...solely to wines originating in the applicable EU member state."

There are a lot of words in there that go on at length about the "grandfathering" of existing brands.

Work your way thru the "Example" in the first link and you'll see how it all works.

The final point is that the TTB is in fact allowing new label approvals under the old rule because the law implementing the treaty has not been enacted by Congress. HOWEVER, when the law is implemented, any approvals after March 10, 2006 will be REVOKED if they contains one of the prohibited semi-generic names.

Here is the key statement:

" 1. “As per the Agreement Between the U.S. and EU on Trade in Wine, the U.S. is seeking to change 26 U.S.C. 5388(c) regarding the use of semi-generic names and Retsina to limit their use to wine solely from the applicable EU member country unless used on a COLA before March 10, 2006. If enacted, this change will result in this certificate being revoked by operation of law (27 CFR 13.51)."

COLA = Certificate Of Label Approval

I'm trying to explain this without writing a thesis, hope I succeeded this time...;-)

thanks!

[Jessie Jane]

Gotcha. I will concede that I may have glazed over a time or two while reading those links.

So we're affirming that as of March '06 for a wine to be labeled "Champagne" (capital C or otherwise) it must come from Champagne, France, yes?

Now that that's settled, I'm thirsty...