Wine Treating Materials and Related Regulations
alcohol wine recordkeeping wine treating materials fruit juice additives
2018-04-17 2017-01-25 2018-04-05 2017-01-24 2018-04-05 2016-11-29
TTB-2016-0010-0036 TTB-2016-0010-0014 TTB-2016-0010-0029 TTB-2016-0010-0012 TTB-2016-0010-0030 TTB-2016-0010-0002
04:00:00 05:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0036 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0014 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0029 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0012 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0030 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/TTB-2016-0010-0002
John Dr. robert Coleman Samantha Jesus Heather
Skrip Kreisher Reardon Hunter Zorrilla Nenow
John Skrip IV4/16/18After reading the proposed regulation amendments made by the TTB to change the classification of some wine additives I have a few comments and concerns.  The first of which being the use of spinning cone and ultrafiltration in conjunction with the reduction of alcohol concentration (page 83757 column 3 and page 83758 columns 12).  My first concern is that although it is stated that TTB also is proposing to place nanofiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis under the umbrella term cross flow filtration.  Although this sounds all well and good My first question is on the clarification of whether or not a spinning cone used to reduce alcohol content will still require a distilled spirits premises.  Although this is merely a suggestion I would recommend clarification of the issue within the proposed changes.   I would recommend the possible addition of a clause that would allow for winemakers to use a spinning cone to reduce alcohol concentration within their winery without a distilled spirits premises.  This would require some regulation for the disposal/destruction of the high proof removed from the wine; however, I believe that If done properly It would allow for more people within the industry to have greater control over the final product that they ship out.  This could result in higher quality and continued growth of the industry.One of the other Items I would like to comment on is the use of Alcoholic Oak extract for use in Wine (page 86731 column 2-3).  Although I generally believe that using an extract such as this detracts from the individuals who take the time to age in barrels or with oak substitutes I believe that the use of Alcoholic Oak extract may be beneficial to smaller wineries who do not have the time or capital to age wine.  That being said I believe that some middle ground can be reached.  I believe that in order to help consumers differentiate between genuine oak aged products and those made with extract a statement on the label should be displayed.  If these new extracts are used there should be some form of Identifier such as made using alcoholic oak extract. In doing this the TTB could protect their consumers from false advertisement and give their producers a way to promote their product all at once.The last regulation change I feel the need to comment on is the practices involving accidental water additions (page 83759 coulmns1-3).  Although I do see how not requiring TTB authorization to salvage wine which has been accidently added to water would be quite beneficial to producers by speeding up production I see a major flaw.  The way in which the regulation is worded, Proposed  24.251 sets forth authority and standards to allow for removal of accidental additions of water of not more than 10 percent of the original volume of the wine without the need to first seek TTB approval,  seems as if it would be perfectly fine; however, I can see It being abused by winemakers to fortify wines.  By using the method of reverse osmosis to salvage wine anyone who felt like not playing by the rules could distill slightly past the original concentration.  With no record of this there would be no red flags at the regulatory agencies and customers would be none the wiser.  I truthfully believe that this would be a non-issue, but on the other hand I still think that there should still be a reporting to the TTB in a formal capacity to make sure that nobody takes advantage of this new regulation.In all I believe with some minor adjustments the proposed regulations would be generally beneficial to the industry as a whole.  The reclassification and addition so new additives will make commercial scale production much simpler without approval for use of these new additives by the TTB on a case by case basis. In regard to:  Reverse Osmosis To Enhance the Phenol Flavor and Characteristics of Wine and To Reduce the Water Content of Standard Wine.I oppose this suggestion by Constellation Wines, the worlds largest wine producer. First, I will address the inaccurate and misleading statements that the Notice attributes to Constellation.1. as a product of the reverse osmosis process, it is considered to be standard wine but with reduced levels of alcohol and water.First, under current regulations, it is NOT considered a standard wine if it has been concentrated by RO. This is a mistake. Yes, standard wine processed by RO in certain ways (to reduce alcohol or VA for example) results in standard wine. But wine concentrated, which is prohibited, is, by definition, not standard wine.Second, it is simply inaccurate to state that RO concentration will result in reduced levels of alcohol and water. Think about the bit of physics-defying magic being claimed here! A 14% alcohol wine is ~1% solids, 14% alcohols, and 85% water. How can the retentate have less of both alcohol and water? It cannot. Reverse Osmosis (Along with NF) cannot reduce both. They pass water preferentially to alcohol and thus reduce water, while concentrating (increasing) alcohol in the wine. RO and UF membranes pass from 35% to 75% of the alcohol into the permeate. Therefore, the alcohol in the retentate, ie, wine is INCREASED. And it is increased considerably, up to several % by volume. These facts are well documented. You could further consult with the companies who are experts in RO and Wine and/or our fine faculty at Enology  Viticulture programs such as Roger Boulton at UC Davis. 2. the petitioner asserts that many foreign countries permit the use of reverse osmosis as an acceptable winemaking practice to concentrate phenols and flavors in wine and in grape must and The expanded use of reverse osmosis would provide winemakers with better ability to regulate the alcohol content of wines. Regulate the alcohol content of wines? How? Well, upwardly only. Concentrating by RO or NF can ONLY raise alcohol and cannot lower it. Also, it is simply incorrect to say that unnamed foreign countries allow it. Surely the TTBs international liaisons can easily dispel this. But in case one is uncertain, page 113 of Jamie Goodes The Science of Wine states it clearly. MUST may be concentrated in some jurisdictions, but wines may not. Not in the OIV. Not in any major wine producing country. The notice later claims that in cold and wet parts of the EU, low quality wine may be concentrated. This is not true. In cold and wet areas MUST may be concentrated and resulting wine labeled table wine. But wine may not be concentrated. Same in Australia, where it is prohibited to concentrate wine. 3. This regulation does not subject Constellation or anybody else to unfair competition. As it stand currently, wines concentrated by RO may not be sold in any major market, including the US. They may not be produced in any major market, including the US. This isnt unfair, its parity. So, why is this practice which Constellation wants permitted so universally reviled? Because it concentrates alcohol, acids and aromas. It does so in unpredictable manners and results in odd, unbalanced wines. NF does the same. In fact, only UF allows those things (alcohol, acids and aromas) to pass, concentrating only phenolics, color, and body. The current regulation allowing only UF and prohibiting RO and NF for wine concentration is sound and internationally recognized. IMHO, this rule change would should be denied. Wine has been produced in our country since before the signing of the Declaration of the Independence. In 2017, the National Association of American Wineries estimated the national economic impact of the wine industry to be approximately $219 billion between purchases, supplying, tourism and secondary impact. As such a large business in the U.S., it is essential the policies put forth to regulate it allow for continued growth and promote production efficiency while also maintaining quality. In regards to proposed amendments on ultrafiltration, extending this practice to separate discolored white wine for blending would be acceptable in good commercial practice. While the nuances for treating and creating red and white wine can vary greatly, allowing for ultrafiltration to be used to separate white wine would give the producer a greater control over the wine they are producing, allowing for the possibility of more product variety in the market. The use of reverse osmosis to alter wine characteristics should be allowed under federal regulation for several of the reasons stated in the proposed rule amendments. First, reducing the water content of standard wine would allow for wine producers to use more grapes in the making of their product. Purchasing more grapes as a result of this use would benefit grape growers. Including less water in the production of wine would also inherently increase the flavor of wines other ingredients and characteristics. Secondly, while America is the fourth largest wine-producing country in the world, not allowing for reverse osmosis to be used for flavor enhancement and water content regulation does put U.S. winemakers at a disadvantage. While the EU allows for this practice in only some regions, it is still occurring. And although Australia, for example, does not officially recognize the practice, it is still authorized and used. Completely not allowing reverse osmosis to be used in these circumstances prevents U.S. wine from reaching its full potential. These two proposed amendments alone allow for winemakers to have a greater control of their product, while also increasing the U.S.s ability to produce the best wine possible on the national and global stages.  I ask your attention to highlight, Flower  Botanical Wines in an effort to preserve historical methodologies, and treatments in Winemaking, and a vision to establish a broader market and diversity of winemaking consistent with good commercial practice.Thank-you for your time  considerationThis Comment refers to Page 83753 of Docket No TTB-12016-0010Add: flowers or botanicals to the definition of EssencesAdd: Below other wine Line (2) to read: wine made by blending wines or CO-FERMENTING Flowers with Fruits, or Juice24.218   Other wine.(a) General. Other than standard wine not included in other sections in this subpart are considered other wine. Those wines considered to be other wine include:(1) Wine made with sugar, water, or sugar and water beyond the limitations prescribed for standard wine.(2) Wine made by blending wines produced from different kinds of fruit.(3) Wine made with sugar other than pure dry sugar, liquid pure sugar, and invert sugar syrup.(4) Wine made with materials not authorized for use in standard wine. 1.Limits of use of L(+) tartaric acid:US notified regulatory amendments concerning the use of L(+)tartaric acid including levels of use not exceeding good manufacturing practices (GMP) on the ground that it is generally recognized as safe in food. On the other hand, the European Union (EU) and the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) both authorize the use of L(+)tartaric acid with limits respectively of 2,5g/l and 4g/l. These limits are justified by the assessment made by JECFA fixing the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is between 0 and 30mg/kg of body weight. Adding an excess of L(+)tartaric may modify the natural and essential characteristics of the wine which may come in breach of the Article 80(3)(d) of Regulation No 1308/2013 stating that oenological practices shall allow the preservation of the natural and essential characteristics of the wine and not cause a substantial change in the composition of the product concerned.For these reasons EU is of the opinion that a simple reference to GMP does not guarantee to meet the standards on health and quality set in the relevant EU legislation for EU consumers.2. Accidental addition of water:US notified regulatory amendments concerning the limit of 10 percent of accidental addition of water triggering the need to first seek for TTB approval before its removal from wines using reverse osmosis or distillation.It is useful to recall that the EU-US agreement on wine foresees in its article 3 that the term wine shall cover beverages which contain no added water beyond technical necessity and that EU considers adding water intentionally to wine products as fraud. Furthermore, in EU, any addition of water for facilitating the solution or dispersion of oenological products must be reported in a register held by the producer.For these reasons EU is of the opinion that any accidental addition of water should be reported to the competent authority and duly recorded even if it is in the context of its subsequent removal. Still on the accidental addition of water, the blending of a watered wine with a non-watered wine is not considered by EU as an acceptable solution to reduce the proportion of added water within the limit of 1%, this limit being accepted only in the context of the addition of water for facilitating solution or dispersion of oenological products. EU would like to precise that contrarily to what is stated in the notice, concentration techniques including reverse osmosis are allowed in EU for the enrichment of musts used to produce any category of wine under the conditions referred to in Annex VIII(I)(B)(1)(b) to regulation (EU) No 1308/2017. In reference to Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) additions as a nutrient required by yeast to complete fermentation:  The current legal addition limit is 8lbs/1000gallons.  There are multiple studies that show that a minimum YAN of 250-350 ppm is required to finish fermentation.  Making wine in Washington and Oregon, it is a commonly known fact that many to most of the grapes that come into the winery yield yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) levels of 0-100 ppm.  DAP provides 22 ppm of YAN for every pound per thousand gallons added to the juice.  With a legal limit of 8#/1000 gallons, that only brings the YAN addition to maximum increase of 176 ppm, which for many areas of the country is not enough nutrient for fermentation to be completed.  Since TTB is currently evaluating changes and ammendments to the current additives, Id like to propose that the legal limits for Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) be reevaluated to consider an increase in the legal addition limit to 15#/1000 gallons (=330ppm YAN), or something in that ballpark, that enables winemakers to get nutrients into the appropriate level for healthy fermentations.