Immigration: Effect of Whine on Wine

Debate over the current state of American immigration remains a hot topic in the political arena. It is no secret that farmers often rely on immigrant labor. Therefore, it is no wonder that farmers support immigration reform. All across the nation, farmers are suffering because of the insistence of some that undocumented workers be driven out. In a recent Legal Ruralism post, I noted how all across the country, farmers face farm labor shortage concerns from a wide range of agriculture, from dairy to berries. California wine is no exception.

In California, farmers are worried about their grape harvests (and subsequent raisin production). Individuals, such as Roy Beck (the executive director of Numbers USA, a nonprofit that supports lower immigration levels) suggest that farmers resort to mechanization of harvesting. Some vineyards have headed this suggestion and replaced grape harvesting jobs with machines. No only have some vineyards implemented mechanical harvesting, some find this method superior to handpicking for a variety of reasons (most notably its cost effectiveness). But for others, mechanical picking does not adhere to the spirit of wine making while others possess vineyards not suitable for machine work (as the machines could cause damage to the vines and soil).

Proper agriculture labor involved with wine growing is both physically difficult and requires a level of skill and sophistication. It took several strikes by the United Farm Workers union for grape growers labor conditions to improve beyond the horrific depiction in Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath." This should have made the cost of grapes increase, but instead they stayed the same. America likes things cheap, and we constantly undervalue the effect proper compensation of lower tier employees has on the end cost of a product. Wineries in Napa and Sonoma have the capacity to pay their employees a fairer price as their grapes yield a higher value. In turn, these wineries possess a lower reliance on undocumented labor.

Some fear that undocumented workers take American jobs. When it comes to agriculture, this argument simply does not hold up. The Gray Report blog astutely points out, "[i]f we didn't need them, we wouldn't hire them, and they wouldn't come." Wine Geeks fears about what would happen if the labor force vanished. They logically predict that,

Prices will skyrocket. Production will drop. Small mom and pop wineries, the kind that we winegeeks love to praise, will be forced out of business because they cannot get enough people to harvest the grapes and they can’t compete with the gigantic companies who harvest by machine. This is but one aspect of our society that has become increasingly dependent upon the work of those who are foreign to our soil.

It is clear that immigration reform is needed in order to accommodate both the quantity of workers wanting to work in the United States and the amount of work that needs to be done. Personally, I believe this country craves more creative policy suggestions. For example, The Gray Report suggests issuing visas for guest workers, which would permit multiple entries and be renewable. After consistent presence and lack of criminal activity, they would be able to obtain a higher level of green card. These kind of solutions help fulfull the immigration enforcement primary policy objective, while providing labor for the work that needs to be done.

Despite the policy shift, there also needs to be a cultural shift. There is no way for wine to remain as cheap as it currently is without relying on machine harvesting or underpaying the workers who pick the wine. As a country we simply need to come to terms with this understanding and move on. I suggest doing so over a glass of nice California wine with some close friends.

California's Proposal to Raise "Sin Tax" on Alcohol

Prohibition era and earlier thinking about alcohol demonized its consumption and derided its costs to society. Consequently, sin taxes have historically been levied on alcohol in the United States due to alcohol's image as an immoral, unhealthy, and socially costly endeavor. With the federal government and states throughout the nation facing multi-billion dollar budget deficits, proposals to increase the "sin tax" on beer, wine, and other alcohol have been introduced in at least twenty-two individual states and have been considered in the United States Congress.

In California, Assembly Member Jim Beall has been at the forefront of the effort to increase taxes on alcohol in the state. Assembly Bill 1694 (AB 1694) of 2010 outlined an aggressive increase in taxes on beer, wine, and distilled spirits. According to Assembly Member Beall, alcohol-related problems cost the citizens of California $38.4 billion annually in "alcohol-related illness and injury, criminal justice, lost productivity, and impacts on the welfare system, fire and law enforcement response, trauma and emergency care, and the foster care system, among other costs." AB 1694 claims that alcohol use "drains California's state and county governments of approximately $8.3 billion annually in increased . . . costs . . . ."

Assembly Member Beall's bill did not pass the California legislature. If it had, taxes at the first point of sale in the state would have increased by $0.53 per gallon of beer, $1.28 per "wine gallon" of wine, and $4.27 per "wine gallon" of  distilled spirits, raising over $1.4 billion annually for the state of California.

There is no doubt that alcohol-related costs affect California's bottom line; but many other behaviors do as well. Consider the following: a study by the Rand Corporation found that air pollution from cars and other sources in Central and Southern California alone cost hospitals in the area nearly $200,000,000 from 2005-2007. Over $27,000,000 of those costs were borne by the state of California and the federal government paid an even greater amount. Statewide costs are almost certainly higher with proportional increases in state and federal costs. And the study only analyzed direct emergency room visits, not costs like "lost productivity" and other long term expenses as Assembly Member Beall did for purposes of calculating the cost of alcohol-related problems in AB 1694.

Efforts by Assembly Member Beall and others in California and throughout the United States rely on social attitudes toward alcohol that harken back to the prohibition era and earlier attempts to demonize "intoxicating liquors." Alcohol consumers are an easy target: while beer, wine, and other liquors are enjoyed socially, they are not seen as an essential component of a functioning society. Instead, alcohol consumption is associated with other undesirable effects like those listed in AB 1694. The conclusion is that increasing taxes on alcohol will raise necessary funds for the government on the back of individuals engaging in a behavior that is largely disapproved of by society (or at least not valued).

If the true purpose of AB 1694 is to increase taxes on a behavior that costs California state and county governments millions of dollars each year, why single out alcohol consumption? Why not also increase taxes on air pollution activities in proportion to the costs borne by California state and county governments? The answer is simple: alcohol consumption is a luxury that society has summarily decided provides little-to-no social benefit while costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Prohibition era thinking about alcohol apparently still controls the public debate. Based on historical precedent, therefore, alcohol consumers in California and throughout the United States can expect proposals like AB 1694 for years to come.

Women's suffrage and Prohibition

I learned in Wine Law class that the first women’s movement for social reform in the United States was not Women’s Suffrage. Instead, women came together out of a growing aspiration among wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters to achieve purity and sobriety. Led by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, women banned together in great numbers for the first time in history to push for Prohibition. The impetus for these noble Prohibition pioneers was not grounded solely in dutiful piety. It was also understandably motivated by the sin-filled saloons of the time, where imbibers, mostly men, could kick back after work with a pint, or two…or five. Toasty in spirit and mind, men could then cavort with prostitutes, returning home empty handed save for shame and, sometimes, an STD. These women were not exaggerating a benign problem. Americans were drinking a lot and suffering the health and social consequences. Prohibition may have been a failure, as evidenced by the quick passage of the 21st Amendment only year later. But there was a reason why so many Americans wholeheartedly endorsed the 18th Amendment. Interestingly, the distaste for saloons was so potent that it lasted even after the 21st Amendment was passed, repealing Prohibition. The word “saloon” remained taboo post-Prohibition.

That women were able to play such a central role in passing a Constitutional Amendment was proof to everyone involved that women, when properly motivated, could affect big change. It was a moment of empowerment. This is not to say that successfully banning alcohol led to women’s suffrage or vice versa. Rather, it is more accurate to see the two movements are two woven threads through the times and politics of the United States, involving the same key players and decision makers. Those who opposed Prohibition, namely the brewers and drinkers, opposed women’s suffrage, because they believed a female constituency would lead inevitably to their demise. Women who were pro-Prohibition, were often leaders in the suffrage movement. Indeed, the timing of the two Constitutional Amendments illustrates their connectivity—the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919, and the 29th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, was passed in 1920, just one year later.

Should movie theaters be allowed to serve beer and wine in the presence of minors?

On January 30^th, 2012, Seattle’s King 5 News reported that a Seattle, Washington movie theater that has been serving beer and wine for the last seven years may soon need to change its business model.

Central Cinema, located in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, serves beer and wine to customers over the age of 21. The theater even hosts cartoon happy hours, during which children watch cartoons while their parents enjoy a glass of wine or beer. Patrons may order food as well. Central’s owner only recently became aware that the business was breaking a 2010 law.

The King 5 News article states that the 2010 law allows theaters like Central Cinema to serve beer and wine, but only as long as there are no minors present. The owner of the theater, Kevin Spitzer, says that the theater has been an “all ages place” since it opened close to seven years ago, and that he wasn’t aware of the 2010 law until he applied for an enhanced liquor license that would allow him to sell cocktails in addition to beer and wine. Spitzer has successfully renewed his license since 2010, and the oversight was not detected until he applied for the enhancement.

Spitzer and other theater owners are looking to the state’s lawmakers to change the law. A proposed bill would allow the theaters to continue serving beer and wine while minors are present, so long as there are measures in place to keep alcohol out of their hands. The bill defines “minor control plans” as  “…written, dated, and signed plan[s] submitted to the board by an applicant or licensee for the entire theater premises, or a room or area therein, that shows where and when minors are permitted and the control measures used to prevent minors from obtaining alcohol, prohibit minors when drinking alcohol predominates, and minimize minors' exposure to a drinking environment.”

A representative of the Washington State Liquor Board, Brian Smith, commented that the problem with the proposed bill is enforcement. He said, "Imagine a movie theater, a dark movie theater, can you go in there and be able to check ID's without being disruptive? No, you can't really do that very easily."

Many of the public comments to the King 5 News article indicate that some members of the public don’t see the difference between theaters like Central Cinema and restaurants that serve alcohol in the presence of minors. Other comments show concern that the presence of alcohol in movie theaters will lead to disorderly conduct. User “emptynestr” characterized the difference between the two as disastrous, calling movie theaters like Central “…a recipe for untold disasters...stalking, preying on innocent girls, to name a couple.” Other comments suggested that theaters like Central should be strictly 21 and over.

California’s El Cerrito is also home to a movie theater that serves beer and wine to its 21 and over clientele. The theater has a license issued by California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the sale of beer and wine on the premises as an “eating place.” In addition to wine and locally brewed beers, the theater serves pizza, sandwiches, and salads.

Despite the similarities between Central Cinema in Seattle, Washington and Rialto Cinemas in El Cerrito, California, the two states take different approaches to alcohol regulation. While California is a license state, Washington is a control state. In California, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues licenses for the manufacture and sale of alcohol to all individuals and businesses in the distribution channel. In Washington, however, the Washington State Liquor Control Board is the only authorized wholesaler of and operator of liquor stores, and the sole governmental body responsible for issuing retail licenses to bars for the sale of beer, wine, and spirits for on-site consumption.

Following the repeal of Prohibition, the control states contended that eliminating or limiting the role of the private enterprise in the liquor market was the best way to ensure the health and safety of the public. Despite a seemingly more “temperate” reputation, most control states, like Washington, are now hybrid states (monopolizing wholesale liquor sales and licensing retail liquor sales). If the Washington legislature decides to pass the proposed bill, it might not be long before both license and control states are serving alcohol in movie theaters- an idea that may have horrified the supporters of the temperance movement.

Direct Shipping Law Signed in New Jersey

The Twenty-first Amendment gives states broad powers to regulate the importation and use of alcoholic beverages within their borders. While there are federal laws dealing with alcoholic beverages, each state is able to create its own laws regarding the importation of such beverages. This has resulted in a patchwork of state laws that vary widely.

These variations have major implications for the wine industry. One’s ability to participate in wine of the month clubs, make online purchases, and ship wine home from a trip to the Napa Valley is dependant on where one lives. While some states have no restrictions on direct to consumer shipping, others prohibit the practice entirely, while still many more limit the amount allowed to some degree.

Last month, New Jersey became the most recent state to allow direct to consumer shipping of wine. Governor Chris Christie signed the legislation approving this measure, meaning that New Jersey will join 38 other states that allow at least some form of direct to consumer shipping of wine into the state. The law will go into effect on April 1, 2012.

Not only will this law allow residents of New Jersey to import wines from around the country and abroad, but it will also allow New Jersey wineries to ship their wine directly to customers outside of the state. Under the new law, customers can have up to twelve cases of wine per year shipped to them for personal consumption from a winery that produces 250,000 gallons of wine or less annually.

While not a place one usually associates with wine making, New Jersey has more than forty wineries that produce over 225 different varieties of wines, and is the seventh largest producer in the nation. Local New Jersey vineyard owners said that the new law allowing small wineries to bypass distributors and ship directly to customers will benefit their industry, though it may take a few years for them to recognize significant profits. Some have even noted that Robert Mondavi had to start somewhere, and hope that the new law will provide them with opportunities to make New Jersey wines as well known as those from already well-established winemaking regions. This is an important step for local winemakers as they seek broader recognition of the quality of their products.

However, not everyone is pleased with the new legislation. Wine retailers are concerned that they will see their sales of cases of wine decline, particularly around the holiday season. Direct shipping allows wineries to undersell local stores, providing a benefit to the consumer, but a potential detriment to the stores. Owners of “mom and pop” shops are concerned that they will see sales decline. Some are also concerned with the potential effect this law will have on the New Jersey economy, from the extra 18-year-old workers they hire during the holiday season to the state and local jurisdictions that will not receive tax revenue, to the fact that direct shipment from California wineries will result in revenues spent in other states, rather than New Jersey.

Though the legislation was signed into law, it still faces the approval of a federal court judge who must rule whether New Jersey the legislation is constitutional, and ensure wineries have stopped disallowing out-of-state wineries to operate retail outlets and tasting rooms within the state. Previously, in Freeman v. Corzine, 629 F.3d 146 (2010), the court held that New Jersey policies prohibiting out-of-state wineries from operating retail outlets was unconstitutional. Furthermore, it may still take time before the law can be implemented effectively by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission.

Each state in the United States has its own laws regarding direct shipment of wine. New Jersey’s twelve case rule puts it on par other states such as Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wisconsin. Other states vary wildly, from Wyoming and Minnesota that allow only two cases per year, to Idaho at 24, New York at 36, and California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Washington that have no limit. Still other states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah, prohibit the practice entirely. 

Is wine good for the heart?

A glass of wine a day is good for the heart. And wineries are capitalizing on the medical benefits assigned to their product. One winery is hosting a Women Take Heart program this month where women can taste wine, eat heart healthy snacks, and get tips on how to stay health from a cardiologist and nutritionist. Which begs the question—is wine really that healthy for the heart? Or do we just want to feel good about having a nice beverage in the evening?

According to one study ,“scientific research has demonstrated that the molecules present in grapes and in wine alter cellular metabolism and signaling, which is consistent mechanistically with reducing arterial disease.” The study fell short, however, of endorsing wine as a definite health-producing drink. Another study found that wine had a greater beneficial effects on “total mortality” than beer or other spirits, but warns that this only includes moderate wine consumption. Then again, perhaps it is only because we believe that wine is good for us that it produces beneficial side effects. A Danish study found that “a light to moderate wine intake is related to good self perceived health, whereas this is not the case for beer and spirits.”

With all of the conflicting evidence, I turn to the Mayo Clinic for conclusive advice. The take away is that red wine may reduce “bad” cholesterol and prevent blood clots, but a good doctor is unlikely to prescribe wine to combat heart disease due to the still inconclusive research on the topic. Resveratrol, which is found in the skin of grapes, may be the reason red wine lowers “bad” cholesterol. Resveratrol is also found in peanuts and cranberries, but it is unknown whether these foods would produce the same beneficial results that wine does. The Mayo Clinic also suggests that it is possible that it is the alcohol itself that is beneficial, inferring that a beer a day, or a shot a day could be a healthy substitute. The verdict is not yet out though so, for now, it may be best to stick with red wine, and only in small amounts (5 ounces/day) if any.

Starbucks: the bar?

Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) recently announced plans to begin selling wine and beer in four to six of its Seattle-region stores. Starbucks has plans to later expand to Southern California, Atlanta, and Chicago. Beers will sell for $5 and a glass of wine will sell for $7 to $9. The transition for Starbucks from coffee and juice to wine and beer seems as thought it will be relatively simple. Starbucks already has a loyal customer base and adequate indoor seating at most locations. The interiors, however, will undergo some changes. Starbucks will make use of community tables and local art to make the space inviting for evening customers looking to unwind after work.

Clarice Turner, Starbucks' senior vice president for U.S. operations, explains the rationale behind the transition into wine and beer sales.

As our customers transition from work to home, many are looking for a warm and inviting place to unwind and connect with the people they care about. At select stores where it is relevant for the neighborhood, we are focused on creating an atmosphere where our customers can relax with a friend, a small bite to eat and a cup of coffee or glass of wine.

Some critics argue that Starbucks should just focus on what they do best: serving coffee. Others think it makes sense for Starbucks to move into this market. Given Starbucks broad appeal, it seems like a logical evolution of the brand. Current sales are concentrated in the morning hours (70% of Starbucks' sales occur before 2pm). By moving into wine and beer sales, Starbucks can grow its afternoon and evening business.

What will these changes mean for local bars located near a Starbucks that is serving beer and wine? For beer and wine-serving tenants in the same complex, Starbucks could draw some business away. Starbucks' prices are very competitive and they already have strong brand recognition. These factors could easily sway customers to choose Starbucks over local bars who cannot afford to charge only $5 for a pint of Rogue Ale.

In states with a local option for alcohol sales (meaning the local jurisdictions can vote to restrict the time and place of alcohol sales), there are often limitations as to how many establishments within a complex or city/county can have a liquor license. With Starbucks' now obtaining liquor licenses, it may be harder for local bars to move into these locations.

Starbucks isn't the only chain moving into this market. Sonic and Burger King are also exploring beer and wine sales as a way to expand their current market share. Burger King now has "Whopper Bars" where customers can order a beer along with their burger. Locations include Miami, New York City, and Las Vegas. Sonic plans to sell bottled and draught beer and wine in two South Florida locations. These fast-food chains may need more capital investments than Starbucks, however, to get their locations ready to serve beer and wine. Sonic, with mostly outdoor seating and in-car service, will definitely be making some upgrades before alcohol can be served.

So why is Florida so popular for these new fast-food bars? Perhaps it's because Florida is not an alcoholic beverage control state. Alcoholic beverage control states are states that have a wholesale and/or retail monopoly on some or all forms of alcoholic beverages. In Florida, as a non-control state, the state does not have a monopoly on retail sales of liquor, including wine and beer. Only a liquor license is required in order for an establishment to serve alcohol on a regular basis. This would be easily obtained by large fast-food chains where over 51% of their total sales is from food. Starbucks, however, will need to up their food sales to reach this threshold as required by many non-control states.

Wine Label Claims: an Introduction

The other day I bought a bottle of "The Organic Wine Works - California Red Wine - Radical Red." I couldn't tell you why, other than I'm a sucker for organics and it was probably relatively cheap (a Google search revealed that indeed, it is cheap, selling for as low as $7.34 online. I don't know how to buy wine online, someone should write about that).  Also, the bottle was colorful. 


This is where I would talk about their website, but even though the label lists a website, the website is "coming soon." It appears that The Organic Wine Works is embedded within The Hallcrest Vineyards, "established in 1941 in the Santa Cruz Mountains where the soil and climate are ideal for producing premium California varietal wines."


What made we want to write about this otherwise forgettable bottle of wine, was some of the claims made on the label. To wit: 

1. USDA Organic logo.
2. "America's Favorite Vegan Wine"
3. "Sulfite free" and "No sulfites added"

1. Organic

There's not much to discuss here. The "organic" logo is fairly ubiquitous at this point. Perhaps to a lesser extent on wine and alcohol, but most consumers recognize what it means, or at the very least what it stands for.

2. Vegan Wine

This is a topic that I would like to delve into further, and perhaps write my paper on. As a vegetarian, inching ever so close to becoming a vegan, I'd have to say that giving up dairy, eggs, or cheese might be demonstrably easier than giving up wine/beer. Yet, other than wine/vegan enthusiasts, who knew that wine wasn't already vegan, or at least vegetarian? I didn't know until a few years back while working at a restaurant. (Super important parenthetical sidenote: every week my restaurant would have "wine-o-Wednesday"in which wine reps from our different suppliers would come in and educate us on the finer points of their wines which we offered, what to pair it with, how to describe it, and so on. Much of this was informative and useful. However, the more important part was that we would be tasting all of these wines as we were being educated. At about noon. Every Wednesday. Those were the days.)

So, what makes most wine non-Vegan? After doing some quick research to refresh my memory, I can say this: during fining, a clarification process in winemaking, a protein is used to attract unwanted particles that make a wine cloudy or affect its color.  This protein is often egg whites or fish bladder (gross!), and historically has been anything from ox blood or horse gelatins, and thus, not vegan. 

So how would a wine not be vegan? Well, it could not go through the fining process, for one, which some winemakers will proudly display on their labels as "unfined and unfiltered." Also, it appears that other materials could be used during fining, such as Bentonite, a aluminum silicate clay from Wyoming. 


I'm assuming there's some sort of laws regarding who can say "vegan" on a bottle of wine, but interestingly, in Australia it's mandatory that a label include wording regarding "allergens" including dairy products, or sulphites above 10ppm.

How The Organic Wine Works determined they were "America's favorite vegan wine," I couldn't tell you.

3. Sulfite free


"Any wine bottled after July 9, 1987, must have a label affixed that is a declaration of sulfites. The label may be front, back, strip, or neck, but it must be affixed to every bottle." - WinePros.org


Why? Well, because a very small percentage (about 1) of people suffer from sulfite allergies, which doesn't sound like an awesome affliction, particularly because most winemakers add sulfites, or sulfur dioxide, to help preserve the wine. 


According to The Internet, people think that sulfites in wine give them headaches. Most people respond to this by saying, "No, that's the alcohol." And they're right. 


So why the "no sulfites" label? For one, it's a marketing ploy, if you ask me, because people are still going on the assumption that sulfites give them headaches, whether they're correct or not. Second, clearly there is some danger for those allergic to sulfites. Lastly, I think people, particularly those purchasing an organic and vegan wine, are of the mind that anything being added to a food/drink product is inherently bad, even if it's been done for generations and has no danger associated with it. Oh well.