Once upon a vine


Once Upon a Vine: The truths in labeling



Allow me to paraphrase the first item on your list of New Year’s resolutions: lose weight. I’m right there with you. We’ll start out conscientiously. Eat less, exercise more. But we’ll make allowances … er, excuses … by dinner on Valentine’s night, and will use at least the last six months of 2004 trying to convince ourselves we might as well wait until the next new year to make said resolution again. And take it seriously.

I know I’ll also begin the new year being a lot more suspicious about the wine in my glass. My doctor told me on a recent visit that I need to shed about 10 pounds. And aside from trying to break a sweat at least once a day, he suggests I consider limiting my consumption of all that is red, white or bubbly.

“Do you know how many calories are in one glass of red wine?” he asked me, as if the shock of the answer would really dissuade me from going home right after my appointment and popping a cork with dinner.

Yes, I replied, but I realized I only vaguely knew, or perhaps assumed, a glass of wine contained about 100 calories. That’s about 200 calories in the two glasses I might have with dinner tonight. And if I’m at a dinner party, that might be upward of 400 calories. And I’ll leave the Courvoisier I might have with dessert out of the equation altogether.

My worry was fleeting because I realized I really didn’t want to know the calorie content in my favorite syrah. For me, knowing such details would actually eat away at the pleasure and the fun I derive from drinking wine. It’s enough for me to know there’s alcohol in wine. And calories. So I’ll drink responsibly. And I won’t make wine a major part of a weight-loss program.

I was pondering all this on my drive from the doctor’s office when I remembered a recent e-mail I got from a group called the National Consumer League. Hadn’t heard of it before but it turns out it’s been around since 1899 with the mission to “protect … the social interests … of consumers.” And its current effort? To convince the federal government that wine bottles should be outfitted with “Alcohol Facts” labels. Just like those “Nutrition Facts” labels you find on your favorite bag of chips.

The NCL wants every wine bottle “facts” label to include (a) alcohol content (b) calorie content and (c) ingredients. This, it says, will “empower consumers to make informed decisions” about the wine they drink.

Is this really necessary?

First, wine bottles already include alcohol content. And anyway, I think very few people refuse to buy a bottle of cabernet because it’s 15 percent booze, rather than the 12 percent they were actively seeking.

Second, the concept of ingredients. Wine bottles already tell us if they contain sulfites, an added preservative. That’s important because some of us may be allergic to them. But what else do we really need to know to be an “empowered” wine drinker? The Agriculture Department has published reports saying that wine is mainly water and alcohol. Its simplicity in content is part of wine’s elegance. Do I need a whole new label to tell me that?

Then there’s that whole calorie thing. If I want a second glass of wine with dinner, I’m going to have it. I’m enjoying it. It’s part of my culinary experience at that moment. I’m not going to turn the bottle, seek that new government label, and fend off the next pour when I’m reminded that my next glass of chardonnay will mean about another 100 calories.

Now, to set the record straight, here are some basic nutritional facts for your average 3-ounce glass of red wine. Numbers for white wine vary slightly.

Calories: 80

Fat: 0 grams

Saturated Fat: 0 grams

Calcium: 9 mg.

Iron: 0.3 mg.

Sodium: 5 mg.

If you must, photocopy this little chart and glue it to your wine bottle.

As for carbohydrates, wine has none, although it does contain what the government calls “carbohydrate equivalents.” Worry not, Atkins worshippers. This is a general term lumping together other elements that don’t fit into the standard list of ingredients. Most experts say it’s mainly the derivative “glyerine,” which is simply another form of alcohol.

Again, do we really need all this stuff on a label on a bottle? Does it really make you feel more empowered?

We haven’t even touched on how an added label, aside from the pointless and distracting information on it, will affect the mere look and presentation of a wine bottle. After all, most wineries design the exterior look of their bottles to be appealing and unique enough to serve as their own best marketing tool.

And if the government is going to slap alcohol nutrition labels on my wine, what about putting on labels touting wine’s benefits? Why not remind me that study after study has shown wine to ward off heart disease, cancer, strokes and ulcers? Uncle Sam has fastidiously frowned on this notion for many years.

Mind you, I’m not undermining the importance of medical vigilance when it comes to wine drinking. The same doctors who discover wine’s health wonders, after all, are the ones who push the importance of drinking it in moderation: two glasses a day for men and one for women.

And I certainly don’t mean to shrug off my own doctor’s concerns and recommendations. I do have my own hereditary issues to contend with. I do want my liver to be happy. And I do have those 10 pounds to shed.

So as part of my New Year’s resolutions, I’ll jog more and I’ll play more tennis and I’ll cut back on dairy fat and I’ll eat less red meat. I also resolve, though, to guiltlessly enjoy wine with dinner. Hopefully, this works. If not, there’s always next year.

Gabe’s radio show, The Grapevine, airs from noon-1 p.m. Saturdays on KZBN AM1290. He can be contacted at gabe@thegrapevineshow.com.