Skip to main content

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: Apparently having nothing better to do, the Feds prohibit the micro-consumption of ocean-aged wine...

The folks at the U.S. Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTB) have a lot of time on their hands. Otherwise, what would account for their draconian efforts to prevent Mira Winery, a reputable Napa Valley vintner, from exploring the aging effects of seawater on a small sample of their wine production? 

As Mira's President, Jim Dyke, describes in "The Wine-Dark Sea of Regulation" in today's Wall Street Journal, Mira decided to see if "intentionally submerging wine bottles for months at a time could speed the aging process and enhance flavor." So, they submerged 28 bottles of their 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon in steel cages 60 feet under the waves in Charleston Harbor, where "there exists a promising blend of temperature, pressure, and darkness, with the additional variable of constant motion."  To protect the wine, the top of each bottle was coated with a high-grade wax sealant. 

Mira retrieved the submerged wine after three months and proceeded to compare it in tastings around the country it with normally-stored wine from the same vintage and production lot. And the tasters concluded that the submerged wine showed uncharacteristically round tannins - the sign of a mature wine.  

Mira repeated the test with a few more cases and conducted more tastings. Then, in late 2014, the ATTB decided that the submerged wine could not be legally sold, shipped, or consumed, because in their opinion, wine aged in the ocean must be adulterated within the meaning of the U.S. Federal Food and Drug Act. The wine, you see, was "held under unsanitary conditions." No matter that Charleston Harbor is a renowned fishing attraction; apparently, the fish swimming about the submerged wine are perfectly fine to ingest, but somehow the wine is not! 

And there is not one shred of evidence that Mira's "drowned" wine was adulterated in any way. Mira's own laboratory tests and observations revealed that it was not contaminated. None who sampled the wine became ill. And the FDA did not deign to test any of the submerged bottles. 

The ATTB and the FDA have no business engaging in these prohibitory efforts in the absence that Mira's ocean-aged wine was in fact adulterated. And our tax dollars should not go to fund these irrational regulatory initiatives.

The federal government should instead encourage Mira's attempts to understand the ocean-aging effects on wine so that, as Mr. Dyke states, "we can try to simulate them on dry land. We don't envision expanding into vast underwater wine storage..."

I applaud Mira's efforts in seeking legal recourse against the ATTB and the FDA to end these regulatory actions run amuck.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW 2021 Year in Review - Brit English Sums It Up!

  I'm at a loss to describe 2021 using American English, sorry. AmE has grown tiresome. Don't believe me? Just turn on your local TV news and listen for how many times the news people use "prior" instead of "before" and pepper their speech with "as well," frequently tacking it on after using "also" in the same sentence, as in "It will also rain tomorrow as well." How can all be WELL when every other sentence ends with AS WELL? Warning: don't play a drinking game to count the number of  AS WELLs or you'll be pished (as they say in Scotland) in 10 minutes. Which reminds me of why we should be thankful for Brit English to describe 2021: it was another year that we good guys got knackered .   Consider: Covid continues unabated - now improved with variants (get your booster, wear a mask)! The peaceful transition of the U.S. government after the 2020 presidential election almost didn't happen (can you say "insurrectio...

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t...

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....