International Riesling Foundation: What's the Point?

When I first got the press release announcing the International Riesling Foundation's (IRF) newly proposed Riesling Taste Profile, I didn't give it much thought. It seemed a bit frivolous to me. Just another act of oenological masturbation -- only satisfying or useful for one or a small group of people. I dismissed it really.

But then I started seeing more and more coverage of it. Sure, the stories read an awful lot like the press release I got, but I'm still left asking "What is the point?"

The concept is simple enough and on the surface it makes some sense. The IRF has identified four 'styles' of riesling: dry, medium dry, medium sweet and sweet, and to help wine makers consider which terms to use for various wines, the committee developed a technical chart of parameters involving the interplay of sugar, acid, and pH which "helps determine the probable taste profile of a particular wine."

They have also designed labels (examples here on the right) that producers can put on bottles of their riesling to help consumers, I assume, predict how a wine will taste... at least in terms of sweetness vs. acidity.

Several Finger Lakes producers already use graphics like these on their back labels for all of their wines, so this really isn't anything new. It's just a bit more formalized. The technical definitions are:

Dry. Here the ratio between acid and sugar would not exceed 1.0 acid to sugar. For example, a wine with 7.5 grams of acidity and 6.8 grams of sugar would be in the same category as a wine with 9.0 grams of acid and 8.1 grams of sugar. Similarly, a wine with 12 grams of sugar and 12 grams of acid would be dry. Notice also that wines that are totally or “near-totally” dry (such as 4 grams per liter) will have a much lower ratio. For instance, a wine with only 3 grams of sugar and a total acidity of 6 grams per liter will have a ratio of .5, and clearly the wine is dry.)

As to pH: we assume that the range of pH for most rieslings is between 2.9 and 3.4. So 3.1 is the “base” pH with which most wine makers will be working. So if the pH of wine is 3.1 or 3.2, it remains in this dry category. But if the pH is 3.3 or 3.4, it moves up to Medium Dry. (And if the pH is 3.5 or higher, the wine maker may wish to move the wine to Medium Sweet.)

Medium Dry. Here the ratio is 1.0 to 2.0 acid to sugar. Example: a wine with 7.5 grams of acid could have a maximum sugar level of 15.0 grams. And if the pH is above 3.3, it moves to Medium Sweet, and if the pH is as low as 2.9 or lower, the wine moves to Dry.

Medium Sweet. The ratio here is 2.1 to 4.0 acid to sugar. Example: a wine with 7.5 grams of acid could have a maximum sugar level of 30 grams. And again, the same pH factor applies as a level two wine: if the pH rises to 3.3, you move up to Dessert, and if the pH drops to 2.9 you move to Medium Dry. And if the pH is 2.8 or below (highly unlikely), the wine could be called Dry.

Sweet. Ratio above 4.1, but using the pH adjustment, a sweeter wine with a ratio of, say, 4.4 might actually be moved to Medium Sweet if the pH is significantly lower.

I'll admit that I'm not as technically savvy as I'd like to be when it comes to wine, but I'm not sure that pH should have so much weight here. Maybe a winemaker or someone else in the industry can help clarify for me.

So those are the basics. Why does this seem so useless to me? There are a few reasons:

Why Complicate Wine Labels?
I could be wrong, but there seems to be a trend where wine labels are being simplified, especially in the riesling world (Germany anyone?). In a sense, we're dummying down riesling while making things more complicated. Speaking of the Germans, aren't they already doing something like this with terms like trocken, halbtrocken, and the ripeness levels (Kabinett, Auslese, etc.)

Even though these proposed label additions are relatively small and are certainly straight forward, do they really offer that much information? Which leads me into...

What Do They Really Tell You?
These suggested standards only tell the consumer about the acid/sugar balance. What about flavors? texture? weight? I like steely, minerally riesling. It can have some sweetness, or it can be bone dry. Why is sweetness (and perceived sweetness) being pushed as the most important thing? It's not.

Does the Average Consumer Know What They Like, Anyway?
This is probably the most important argument I have against this system. Will Joe Winebuyer know whether or not he prefers Medium Sweet vs. Medium Dry riesling? Labels like "Dry" and "Sweet" are a bit less problematic (though the technical specifications proposed leave a lot of wiggle room within those classifications as well), but terms like Medium Sweet and Medium Dry are awfully hard to define across all palates. What I consider Medium Dry, I'm sure someone else will consider Medium Sweet.

Does this Matter if Only a Handful of Wineries Use It?
I don't think so. Unless it's a true standard, it's pretty useless. And I don't see this becoming a standard.

Why Do I Need/Want to Know?
For me, one of the most exciting things about opening a bottle of wine is NOT knowing what to expect. Sure, I know generally what I'm going to get if I'm opening merlot vs. zinfandel vs. riesling, but the allure is the exploration and discovery, isn't it?

I know that this post is going to come off looking like a rant, and I guess it is. I just think that if you take a step back and look at this whole situation, in context, there isn't much value here. It's just another marketing push with good intentions but little value.

I have a lot of respect for Dan Berger, who spearheaded this initiative, and many of the other members of the IRF. They are smart people who know wine. But I just don't see the value.

Maybe someone can convince me?

Comments

[Dirty]

This one doesn't bother me. A lot of consumers think they hate "sweet" wines so steering them in their direction is fine.

Same goes for people not liking "dry" wines. If the wine is too astringent they feel it may scratch the rims on their trailer...

Yeah- this whole thing feels a little redneck to me, but if it helps someone buy and enjoy wine, I'm ok.

Sometimes Alsace throws me for a loop-

(This bugs me less than seeing "Pinot Noir" printed on a Burgundy bottle)

[Jack]

Ha! I want to see this label on ALL wines.

Needed - if you've ever opened a bottle of wine expecting dry and getting off-dry (or vice-versa), you would not have that problem again.

[Jack Everitt]

I can tell you haven't been at a restaurant, had a bottle of Alsace or Chenin opened and your were expecting dry, but it was off-dry; too sweet for the food you were having it with. This is killing Alsace sales...particularly of riesling. But take the 2001 German vintage; Kabinetts have the sweetness levels of Spatleses. So, unless there's some clue on the bottle, what's a consumer to do?

(Only Zind Humbrecht has a 1-5 sweetness scale on their labels.)

P.S. It would also be fun to see the sugar levels of the high alc. red wines.

[Erika]

I think "not knowing what to expect" is fun for us geeks but for people who need help selecting wine, it's good to know what you're getting before the purchase is made. Then again, couldn't the level of sweetness be tackled with a basic description on the back? I don't know that a formal schema was needed, but I bet it'll be appreciated.

[Lenn]

Jack,

In that instance, IF all (or at least a large %) wineries were using the label, then we'd have some value here. I've asked a number of winemakers both here in NY and elsewhere what they think and they don't think they are going to adopt this for any number of reasons.

To your specific point though, would the sweetness label be on the wine list itself? Assuming not, how would you know if a particular bottle will have it? I guess you could ask the sommelier, but they should be able to tell you about the wine and how it'll pair with your food anyway.

Any thoughts on people's ability to discern between medium dry and medium sweet?

I think in general, I agree with your point (and Erika's) but that's only a small sliver of my argument here.

This IS only meant for riesling, remember.

I agree though, it would be fun to see this on some of high alcohol reds.

[Jack Everitt]

Well, it's a Riesling organization doing it because riesling wines are the most problematic; particularly in Alsace. When sales have declined because a consumer doesn't know what he's getting - something should be done.

Btw: Do you like seeing the variety Dry Riesling or Dry Muscat on a wine label?

[Lenn]

The IRF even said in their press release that riesling is second only to pinot noir in terms of sales growth in the U.S. So sales are not declining...

The only time that "Dry" is useful to me really is up in the Finger Lakes where many producers make a "Dry Riesling" and then one that they just label "Riesling". But that's only useful in the context of a single winery.

[Jack Everitt]

How are sales of Alsace riesling over the last five years? And, do you see them more often on wine lists or less often, now?

(Btw: I feel we've been this to death now.)

[Jason Feulner]

While we can argue about various elements as to whether this is a system that can or should be implemented in the general sense, I think the existence of four categories is problematic in terms of logistics. Simply put, we can all try and relate to dry and sweet, but as someone has pointed out what does medium dry and medium sweet mean to a given consumer? The organization justifies these categories with a measurement, but at the end of the day only a subjective analysis works in terms of how to employ these labels in any real way.

My medium dry is nowhere near someone else's, measurements be damned. Yet me and this other taster might be able to agree on dry and sweet in a categorical sense, and probably each place a group of bottles in one category or the other with only a few outliers. If we had to deal with four categories, we would be in a mess and agree on very little.

This is a great system and/or argument for wine nerds who might actually talk about a wine's residual sugar, acidity, etc. in numeric terms, but in a consumer-driven industry that has a great deal of subjective loyalties, analysis, and opinions, I really don't see how this system could be implemented.