by Lindsey A. Zahn on October 8, 2012
Recently, Napa Valley Vintners Association (“NVVA”) announced that Brazil has formerly recognized that Napa Valley is of Geographical Indication (“GI”) status. Brazil will now protect Nappa Valley from misuse of the wine region’s name within Brazil’s borders. (See Napa Valley Vintners Announce GI Status Approval in Brazil.)
The news was announced at this year’s International Wine Law Association conference in Bento Goncalves, Brazil. Brazil is a new world wine region, but the country is among one of the top wine producers worldwide. Currently, Brazil ranks as the thirteenth greatest wine producing country, ranking higher than New Zealand and Greece. Currently, the Napa Valley GI is recognized in areas including the EU, Thailand, India, and Canada. (See Napa Deal Bolsters US and Brazilian Ties.)
The new agreement extends from an agreement between the United Stated and Brazil from earlier this year. In the previous agreement, the United States agreed to recognize cachaça as an exclusive product of Brazil while Brazil agreed to restrict the use of the name bourbon and Tennessee whiskey to whiskeys distilled only in Kentucky and Tennessee. (Under previous regulations, the United States required cachaça to be labeled, “Brazilian rum,” without any restrictions on the use of cachaça on products from other countries or even within the United States.) (See, e.g., Brazil, U.S. Move to Boost Cachaca, Tennessee Whiskey, Trade.) The prior agreement between the two countries received favorable responses from many, specifically noting that “[t]his exchange of letters represents a very positive development for both of our industries, and reflects our Governments’ commitment to stronger bilateral trade ties.” (Id. quoting U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.)
The recognition of Napa Valley’s geographical significance throughout the world helps promote the brand identity of the wine region, and will continue to enforce the region’s significance as additional countries recognize Napa. The recent developments between the two world wine regions maintains the importance of geographical significance and identification between different wine regions and enforces the idea that geographical identity is of continuing significance.
Permanent link to this post (325 words, estimated 1:18 mins reading time)
by Lindsey A. Zahn on October 2, 2012
In May 2012, Kansas approved a law that dramatically changed the regulation of its wine industry. The new state law, which spawned from House Bill 2689, reduces the requirement of the amount of Kansas grapes that must be in a Kansas wine. The bill amends K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 41-308a. Under the amended state law, Kansas wineries now must use at least 30% Kansas-grown wine products. The new law cuts the requirement from 60% to 30%. No matter how one analyzes this law, this requirement is a significant change to Kansas legislation. While “[t]he provision doesn’t apply to individual bottles, but rather a winery’s overall products—for example, a winery that produced one type of wine with 100 percent Kansas grapes and two types with none should fit the bill.” (See New Law Changes Requirements for Kansas Wine.) This means wine producers in Kansas can legally bottle wine containing less than thirty percent of Kansas, as long as the percentage of Kansas wine from the winery’s overall products meet the Kansas legislative mandate.
There are arguments on each side for the introduction and the implementation of a law like this—those in favor of such legislation argue this new law supports a free market and will promote the Kansas wine industry whereas those opposed to the law argue the relaxed requirement could harm the identity of the Kansas wine industry. (See, e.g., Kansas Wineries Concerned About New State Law; Mulvane Winemaker Sees Opportunity for Industry Growth in New Law.) Irrespective of these different perspectives, the Kansas law itself is worthy of attention and discussion. The amended law, along with the removed provisions, now reads:
Not less than 60% 30% of the products utilized in the manufacture of domestic table wine and domestic fortified wine by a farm winery shall be grown in Kansas except when a lesser proportion is authorized by the director based upon the director’s findings and judgment. The label of domestic wine and domestic fortified wine shall indicate that a majority of the products utilized in the manufacture of the wine at such winery were grown in Kansas. The production requirement of this subsection shall be determined based on the annual production of domestic table wine and domestic fortified wine by the farm winery.
Read in conjunction with federal law, this may appear—at first glance—inconsistent with federal law. Wine labels in the United States are governed partially by Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically by Part 4. (See 27 C.F.R. Part 4.) Section 4.25 of Title 27 defines an appellation of origin for American wines. Namely, § 4.25(a)(1) allows a state to be an American wine’s appellation of origin if “[a]t least 75 percent of the wine is derived from fruit or agricultural products grown in the appellation area indicated,” as per § 4.25(b)(1). However, the new Kansas law does not avoid the federal legislation. It is possible, under this new law, to be a winery in Kansas, produce wine containing 30% Kansas grapes, and not violate the federal legislation. The federal law requires 75% of the grapes to be grown in the state of Kansas if the appellation of the wine is Kansas (e.g., “Kansas wine”), but it is not mandatory that a wine have an appellation. But irregardless of whether a Kansas winery can legally comply with the federal law while using 30% (or less) of Kansas grapes in its wine, a more proper question to ponder is this: should this rather liberal regulation of Kansas wineries be allowed?
Permanent link to this post (572 words, estimated 2:17 mins reading time)
