Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/74662
WINEMAKING And on the other hand, 'Relax, I have a solution. It's the end of the world, but…'" Chatonnet's announcement was immediately countered by a statement from the French Federation of Coopers, calling the al- legations that coopers underestimate the risks of cork taint in new barrels "inaccurate and demeaning to the French cooperage pro- fession." The Federation's press release went on to detail their own findings about the extremely low rate of barrel contamination and the variety of steps they and member cooperages—representing virtually all of France's wine barrel production—have taken for several years to deal with problem. "A small percentage of defective products may have major repercussions." — Pascal Chatonnet of Excell Laboratory told Wine Spectator In the journal article, press releases and interviews, Chatonnet has repeatedly raised the analogy to the problem of cork taint. In the 1990s, as evidence mounted that a significant proportion of natural corks were damaging the bottles of wine they stoppered through the presence of TCA (2,4,6-trichloroanisole), the major cork suppliers—as they now readily admit—responded at first by denying that the problem existed, denouncing critics and relying on their effective monopoly of the closure market. It took nearly a decade, multiple wake-up calls and the emergence of synthetics and screwcaps as major market forces to get the cork companies to seriously address the problem. As Chatonnet told the Wine Spectator in early October, "It's like the same situation with corks 15 or 20 years ago....The cork- makers were very resistant, especially the cork-makers with a high percentage of problems. I am not saying we have bottles tainted on the table now because of a problem of the barrel. I am saying if the cooper doesn't do what's necessary to do today, maybe in 10 years it will be too late." It's almost impossible not to apply the cork taint analogy to the current barrel TCA flap. In both cases contamination can happen from a wide range of sources and in a wide range of situations: the use of chlorine in processing, or even in the vicinity; residues from wood preservatives and pesticides in production facilities; during production, storage and transit. In both cases, there are a number of chemical pathways to get to the same disagreeable result—and a whole family of unpleasant anisoles and their precursors besides TCA itself: TCP, TeCA, TeCP, TBA and so on. And in both cases, the problem can never be reduced to zero incidences, since cork and wood are natural, porous products unlike plastics, aluminum or stainless steel. The cork story contains two more crucial elements. First, the problem was quite substantial when it was identified in the early 1990s. (Estimates ranged from 5%-10% of corks being infected, and complaints from both consumers and industry professionals were widespread.) And second, the cork industry tried to stone- wall the problem for years before deciding to invest tens of mil- lions of dollars in new technology and processes. The question is, do these two legs of the cork taint analogy hold up for the barrel taint flap? QSEE US AT UNIFIED, BOOTH #1723 Wines & Vines JAnUARY 2011 119