NAPA VINTNERS GRAPPLE WITH AVA REGULATION CHANGES
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and Napa Valley Vintners (NVV) are in a bit of a gridlock right now regarding the formation of a Calistoga appellation in northern Napa Valley. Approval of the AVA was stalled by the TTB as it struggles to find a compromise between Calistoga AVA proponents and Calistoga Cellars and Calistoga Estate over a new “grandfathering clause.” If the appellation is approved, the aforementioned brands fear they would have to change their labels because they do not source 85% of their grapes within the proposed Calistoga AVA. Although current TTB rules provide a “grandfather” clause for labels approved prior to July 7, 1986, these newer brands were not protected.
To help solve the issue, the TTB now proposes amending its regulations so that if a brand has been in “commercial use for a significant period of time,” basically five years, it does not have to source 85% of its grapes from Calistoga to keep its original label.
It looks like Calistoga Cellars, one of two brands that had petitioned TTB to take another look at its AVA approval process, will likely maintain its brand name. This is because the TTB is proposing that March 31, 2005 be the grandfather cutoff date, and Calistoga Cellars began production in 1998. However, the other brand in question, Calistoga Estate Vineyards, will likely have to drop “Calistoga” in its name because it began after the March 31st cutoff date.
Calistoga Cellars will reportedly place disclaimers on the back of its labels stating that it doesn’t source 85% of the grapes from Calistoga, although the grapes come from Napa Valley.
The TTB is accepting written comments on the proposed “grandfather clause” in Calistoga until Dec. 20.
The issue with Calistoga prompted another proposed change that could affect all AVAs within an AVA. In all, the TTB wants to change the regulations on establishing AVAs within AVAs, such as forming a Calistoga appellation within Napa Valley. The TTB halted the approval of all pending AVAs this August in order to review and basically improve (in their opinion) the approval process. The proposal aims to “provide clearer standards for the establishment of AVAs within AVAs” so as not to hurt established businesses.
“It is important to dispel any misconceptions that AVA petitions will be approved without regard to their impact on established brands..We do not wish to discount the commercial and informational value of an established brand name, which often is built up over a period of time by substantial investments in capital and hard work,” wrote the TTB.
In other words, the TTB feared some vintners were submitting requests for AVAs as a means of stifling competition. The proposal states that the TTB has the authority to reject any petition to establish an AVA if it determines the proposed AVA would conflict with their goals or with the public interest.
Written comments on this particular proposal will be accepted until Jan. 22.
In response to the two proposals, one concerning Calistoga’s “grandfathering clause” and the other concerning all AVAs within AVAs, the NVV communications director Terry Hall states: “The effects of these proposals are far-reaching and will have substantial and severe consequences to all U.S. wine regions and wine brands, but more importantly, to the truth-in-labeling rights of consumers.”
The NVV’s statement also claims that the revised regulations “provide certain wine brands the right to market and sell their products with deceptive labels,” which “jeopardizes the integrity of the vast majority of winemakers who properly and honestly label and brand their wines…. TTB should not be in the business of making new rules to protect the special interests of producers of misleading brands.” Ouch.
To help solve the issue, the TTB now proposes amending its regulations so that if a brand has been in “commercial use for a significant period of time,” basically five years, it does not have to source 85% of its grapes from Calistoga to keep its original label.
It looks like Calistoga Cellars, one of two brands that had petitioned TTB to take another look at its AVA approval process, will likely maintain its brand name. This is because the TTB is proposing that March 31, 2005 be the grandfather cutoff date, and Calistoga Cellars began production in 1998. However, the other brand in question, Calistoga Estate Vineyards, will likely have to drop “Calistoga” in its name because it began after the March 31st cutoff date.
Calistoga Cellars will reportedly place disclaimers on the back of its labels stating that it doesn’t source 85% of the grapes from Calistoga, although the grapes come from Napa Valley.
The TTB is accepting written comments on the proposed “grandfather clause” in Calistoga until Dec. 20.
The issue with Calistoga prompted another proposed change that could affect all AVAs within an AVA. In all, the TTB wants to change the regulations on establishing AVAs within AVAs, such as forming a Calistoga appellation within Napa Valley. The TTB halted the approval of all pending AVAs this August in order to review and basically improve (in their opinion) the approval process. The proposal aims to “provide clearer standards for the establishment of AVAs within AVAs” so as not to hurt established businesses.
“It is important to dispel any misconceptions that AVA petitions will be approved without regard to their impact on established brands..We do not wish to discount the commercial and informational value of an established brand name, which often is built up over a period of time by substantial investments in capital and hard work,” wrote the TTB.
In other words, the TTB feared some vintners were submitting requests for AVAs as a means of stifling competition. The proposal states that the TTB has the authority to reject any petition to establish an AVA if it determines the proposed AVA would conflict with their goals or with the public interest.
Written comments on this particular proposal will be accepted until Jan. 22.
In response to the two proposals, one concerning Calistoga’s “grandfathering clause” and the other concerning all AVAs within AVAs, the NVV communications director Terry Hall states: “The effects of these proposals are far-reaching and will have substantial and severe consequences to all U.S. wine regions and wine brands, but more importantly, to the truth-in-labeling rights of consumers.”
The NVV’s statement also claims that the revised regulations “provide certain wine brands the right to market and sell their products with deceptive labels,” which “jeopardizes the integrity of the vast majority of winemakers who properly and honestly label and brand their wines…. TTB should not be in the business of making new rules to protect the special interests of producers of misleading brands.” Ouch.
posted at 12:46 PM
<< Home