Roy Hersh wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:27 pm
However, Burghoorn said: "There is a discrepancy between EU law and Portuguese law over labeling, which needs to be resolved."
In my humble opinion:
This should have been clarified as to what the difference is between EU laws and IVDP regulations. To ruin centuries old reputations of Port firms, with studies allowing for a margin of error of two years — seems to be plain wrong.
These NL studies have to be vetted closely are a “nothing burger” but may tie tighter the difference between EU and IVDP regulations. The former, more specific about dates on labels; the latter using different nomenclature and organoleptic testing procedures acceptable for samples provided and approved.
In reality, how is it possible for a 2 yr. old Port, (the age of every VP) able to approximate the color, smell and taste of any 10 Year Old Tawny Port?
At 4 years of wood aging, as claimed in the article, you have an LBV that was initially aged in wood. Yes of course that category can also be aged for five or six years, but generally four is pretty typical. So have you seen any newborn LBV bottling that can show or fool one into believing that it is a 10 Year Old TWAIOA? Yeah, me neither!
If they are trying to prove that EU rules and I VDP regulations are not perfectly in sync, then that should have been stated more clearly, which it was not. But, the Port trade has long been exceptionally transparent, for as long as I’ve been around Port. (1983). If I understand the difference clearly, and I can’t claim to be an expert on EU regulations and law; here is the discrepancy … For a stated age, say “20 Year Old” on the label, it is a specific AVERAGE AGE. That’s EU, if my understanding is accurate.
IVDP (paraphrasing here) regulations state: that the age designation of a Tawny, must deliver the organoleptic qualities: color/appearance, smell, taste, etc. of a Port of that age. These are independently tested for all batches of Port, produced by the IVDP’s human tasting panel of experts, (all of whom are peer tested for accuracy and consistency) that utilize computers for chromatography (and other facets) and to enhance their individual tasting regimens.
So the Port trade is going by IVDP, which are regulations NOT the same as EU. There is way too much to lose, to even attempt cheating. But we have seen other industries, bend the rules. That said, I do not believe that there is any intention to defraud the consumer going on, whatsoever!
Back when agencies within governmental control, (Casa do Douro?) bulk purchased “aguardente” were responsible for procurement of fortifying spirit for Port, in 1972-1973 there were REAL and dangerous chemicals found by a German lab in many Ports back from those two vintages. I will let Eric M. expound on that point if he would like. But it is very easy to find on FTLOP or Google about this terrible two years for Port.
I have personally observed the tasting panel of IVDP a couple of times way back when, and a simulation of that process in more recent years, as the head of that panel allowed, when doing this with a group. But far more importantly ... I have spoken to the head of the IVDP Tasting Panel many times and we remain in touch. These guys taste so much Port, they make me look like I am a rank beginner. The ongoing peer testing reviews of the IVDP panelists is tough and thorough. It rarely happens, where a taster’s palate is off and that individual is temporarily removed from the panel while their palate regains acuity. This can be someone having a cold, or their palate It is a heck of a process and these tasters are super professionals.
Is it possible for a mistake to be made? Certainly. When humans are involved, it is always possible. However, if you saw the specificity of the computerized methodology employed, combined with the human inspection and the evaluations utilized, it is safe to think/believe that this system is pretty close to fool proof.
IF the main point is to close the gap between the IVDP regulations about the age of Tawny Port With An Indication Of Age, (TWAIOA) and the EU laws … well that is possibly worth reviewing. But again, given a 2 year acceptable difference stated as the “margin of error” that would put most of the claims against certain producers, in a realm that is far less egregious. There is too much to lose and the current Port trade would NEVER jeopardize their reputations, company-by-company to obfuscate their methodology in blending, and the subsequent IVDP approvals or trying to short change consumers, with intent by using 2-4 years olds and calling them Port. No way, do I believe this to be even remotely the case.
But if this ONLY serves to bring interested parties at the laboratory and NL scientists, (along with NL importers, distributors and agents) and the Port trade to have discussions; that is not a bad thing. Nonetheless, I do not see this having huge long term impact on Port as a category. I am certain that groups mentioned, Sogevinus, RCV, Niepoort, and others ... are not jeopardizing all that they have built trying to hurt themselves by using non-natural aguardente or producing Ports that are of sub-par age and quality.
We shall see!