Tawny’s True Age Under Fire

[Andy Velebil]

I guess it was a matter of time before this happened. Heres the Dutch translation.


*Hilversum, 14January2022

Port wine ages often misleading: NVWA reports to Food Fraud Network
Friday January 14*

The age of many port wines is incorrect. This is reported by Omroep MAX's TV program Meldpunt tonight. The program had scientific research done on the actual age of 10 and 20 year old Tawny ports. In more than half of the cases (54%) the bottles appear to contain younger port than the label states.

Off the shelves
The Center for Isotope Research (CIO) of the University of Groningen determined the age of the port to within two years using carbon-14 measurements. The most extreme deviations were found with the Royal Oporto brand, sold by Makro. It turns out that it has not matured for 10 years in oak barrels, as the label indicates, but only 2½ years. The price of €22.95 per bottle is more than four times higher than what is normal for a 2½ year old port.

Retail chain Makro is taking the bottles of Royal Oporto port off the shelves of all their branches. “We will no longer offer this port until there is more clarity about it. Makro customers who have bought a bottle of this port in the last 6 months can return it to one of our branches and receive a refund. This applies to both unopened and opened bottles," said a Makro spokesperson.

But the ports Lagarada and Varossio also appear to be out of order. Those are not 10 year old ports, but 3 and 4 years respectively. Here too, consumers pay considerably more for the more expensive port that they do not receive as a result. The retail chains that sell these ports have not yet responded.

“Total deception”
The Groningen professor Harro Meijer of the CIO, says in the broadcast of Meldpunt: “What is on the label is not good at all, it is total deception. They'll have to do other tricks to make it taste like a 10-year-old port."

The port producers say in their reactions to Meldpunt that they comply with the Portuguese rules for port production, because their products would have 'the character' of a 10 or 20 year old port.

The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) says in a response: “It is a form of deception, because what is on the label must correspond to what is in the product. If you claim it has aged for 10 years, then it must have aged for 10 years. As a result of the reports from Meldpunt and the Groningen report, we made a report to the Food Fraud Network, a partnership of the European food authorities”.

Synthetic alcohol
Another striking result emerged from the study. Two bottles of the Kopke brand were found to contain traces of synthetic alcohol. That is prohibited. The alcohol in port should only be made from grapes and not from other chemicals. Incidentally, the amount of synthetic alcohol found does not pose a health risk. The manufacturer says it wants to look for the cause together with the University of Groningen.
The retail chains Albert Heijn and Gall & Gall, both part of the Ahold Delhaize group, are removing the port brand Kopke from the shelves of all branches. They are also no longer available online until clarification.

MAX: Hotline
Friday 14 January at 8.05 pm on NPO 2
Presentation: Elles de Bruin


https://pers.omroepmax.nl/leeftijden-va ... d-network/

[Jasper A.]

That was a big thing here yesterday.

The report by the University of Groningen in Dutch https://www.maxmeldpunt.nl/wp-content/u ... imeerd.pdf
show's that mostly B-brands and house-brands are not as old as they say.
The Niepoort 10 year old was also on the list, saying that it is 7 years old. The 20 year old Niepoort was correct on the otherhand.
The list:
1. Royal Oporto 10 Yr Tawny, 2½ years
2. Lagarada 10 yr tawny, 3 years
3. Varossio 10 yr Tawny, 4 years
4. Pocas 20 yr Tawny, 13 jaar years
5. Niepoort 10 yr Tawny 7 years
6. Pocas 10 yr Tawny, 7,5 yeards
7. Porto Seguro 20 jaar tawny, 15,5 years

The Big brands were fine (Fonseca, Taylor's, Graham's, Ramos Pinto, Warre), some even older than mentioned (Dow's)
For the Dutch speaking people: https://www.maxmeldpunt.nl/oplichting/l ... isleidend/

They said about the synthetic alcohol, that was most likely not done on purpose. The report of the University of Gronignen also mentions another possibility, that on botteling a large amount of aguardente was added.

You can find the official statement of Sogevinus here https://mcusercontent.com/818fee525e441 ... -198221111

[Eric Menchen]

more than half of the cases (54%) the bottles appear to contain younger port

Maybe this is just a poor transation, but I would expect that it would contain younger Port, at least some, since it is a blend that should have the character of a X year old Port. It could have some X-Y Port, which is younger, and some X+Z which is older. I guess I'll have to read the report to understand if they are claiming the average age is younger. As everyone here at FTLOP knows, even that is allowed under the regulations; but I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to average 2.5 years old.

[Eric Menchen]

So I read the whole study via google translate (since it has been over 30 years since I lived in the Netherlands, and I didn't learn much Dutch even then).

They are really taking all of the sample given and not trying to break it out as a combination of different years. In fact, they are assuming that the 10 year old was in fact all harvested 10 years prior to the bottling date. They come up with a harvest year and compare to atmospheric carbon 14 from that year. (The atmospheric data is based on collections from a station in Switzerland, but another study and testing of vintage Ports indicate that this is reasonable to apply to Portugal.) But while atmospheric carbon 14 has been decreasing in the atmosphere, I don't think this is strictly linear. It appears to vary based on solar activity and mixing of the atmosphere--one study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .1971.0016 . So I'm not sure how valid it is to compare the carbon 14 in a blended product to atmospheric carbon 14 of particular years. Maybe one could come up with a model for this, but I don't think they did.

They make a lot of assumptions about the aguardente, when it is added, how old it is, and the number of additions. They assume only two aguardente additions. Is this valid? Depending on temperature, humidity, circulation, etc. alcohol and water in wine can evaporate at different rates. I was under the impression that topping up of barrels happened a number of times, and that aguardente might be added along the way as well. They recognize some uncertainty here, but I really think the ethanol numbers aren't all that good of an indicator. The sugar numbers are more meaningful to me. I'm assuming that Port producers are not chapitalizing the wine at any point, which would make the sugar numbers meaningless as well.

There was no mention of carbon-14 decay being accounted for. Over 20 years this would change the carbon 14 by less than 1%, but that might be a lot when we are comparing to the changes in carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere from year to year. The study gave max and min expected values for carbon-14, but it didn't give the formulas or raw data to derive those numbers, so I can't be sure. But the strong correlation of the vintage Port numbers would suggest they did. I'm assuming that they did account for this, but I think they should have mentioned it.

[Andy Velebil]

It’s very common to add spirit to a port before bottling so it’s within the legal range.

*it’s better to be lower after being added during fermentation. You can always add more later, but can’t subtract if you add too much at the beginning.

[Frederick Blais]

It is very interesting! I never thought it would be such a strectch!

It was common knowledge that indication of age Tawny was not a precise science and it was more a reflect of a style of a house in a specific category. I would not have been surprised if someone told me their 10 year old Tawny was averaging 9 or 12 years old, including some 5 or 20 year old stock to finalize the blend.

IVDP can do some validation... You can't declare a 20 year old Port if you don't have the stocks to do so. But when you hold millions of liters, I bet it can be hard to validate where every bottling comes from. I know when it comes to VP bottling they follow quite closely but like anything there is always ways to get around the law.

From what I've seen and withness, IVDP has proven to be one of the strictess and zealous wine controlling agency and I hope they will correct this loop hole.

The port producers say in their reactions to Meldpunt that they comply with the Portuguese rules for port production, because their products would have 'the character' of a 10 or 20 year old port

To that quote, I do believe it is possible to produce a 5 year old Port tasting like a 20 year old and if you have the stocks to hide it, IVDP can't reject it as long as it tastes like a 20 year old.

For the correction, as far as I know, you are allowed to top a barrels by 2% of its volume every year. Adding Port wine or aguardente. But this would not account for such a difference.

[Mike J. W.]

It appears that the study was published this past November. Was their any official response from the Producers named in the study?

[Jasper A.]

It appears that the study was published this past November. Was their any official response from the Producers named in the study?

The last URL i posted was the reply from Sogevinus

The reply's by the others in Dutch: https://www.maxmeldpunt.nl/wp-content/u ... centen.pdf

The problem is the difference between Protugese law and EU law. I am not an expert, but the EU law says: That whatever you promise on the product/packaging, has to be true.
So if you sell cheese and the packaging says, aging for 2 years, EU laws says it has to been aging for at least 2 years.

So for example the Royal Oporto 10 year old tawny, says on the bottle: Aged 10 years. So that is not in line with EU law, according to the TV-show

[Mike J. W.]

It appears that the study was published this past November. Was their any official response from the Producers named in the study?

The last URL i posted was the reply from Sogevinus

The reply's by the others in Dutch: https://www.maxmeldpunt.nl/wp-content/u ... centen.pdf

The problem is the difference between Protugese law and EU law. I am not an expert, but the EU law says: That whatever you promise on the product/packaging, has to be true.
So if you sell cheese and the packaging says, aging for 2 years, EU laws says it has to been aging for at least 2 years.

So for example the Royal Oporto 10 year old tawny, says on the bottle: Aged 10 years. So that is not in line with EU law, according to the TV-show

Thanks Jasper, I completely missed that the first tie I read your post.

Sogevinus seemed to address the aguardente issue but didn't say much about the age issue itself.

[Glenn E.]

So for example the Royal Oporto 10 year old tawny, says on the bottle: Aged 10 years. So that is not in line with EU law, according to the TV-show

That might explain why so many tawny Ports now just say "aged in cask" rather than a specific amount of time in cask.

One could argue that "10 Year Old Tawny Port" is making the same promise, but it isn't as explicit and so might slide by. And also, some are even more creative and say things like:

Tawny Port
10 Anos

Which is even less clear about what it means.

[Frederick Blais]

Over the last few days, I can tell you that this investigation has caused a lot of noise around the Port trade. Some interesting points worth mentionning.

-There will be a more detailed article that will be published. It will include the list of all the Port producers tested and the result insted of naming just a few. The detail of the metodology will also be included.

-Some companies are on panic/damage repair mode as the phone keeps ringing.

-IVDP failed and needs to respond.

-This investigation reveals what many where whispering but no one dared to speak out loud. (my opinion- I don't think anyone thought it would be as low as 2,5 years for a 10 years Tawny)

-If companies need to cheat as low as 2,5 years old for a 10 years old, there is definitively a problem in the Port trade. There is an issue in the cost of goods, cost aging, cost of buying old Ports. Are those companies inveseting more in marketing than paying the proper price for a real 10 years old...

[Andy Velebil]

I think most major brand names will be proven to be fine. However, I see far more potential issues with inexpensive BOB’s. They aren’t that cheap by actually putting in old stocks. How that plays out for the producers who make those BOB’s will remain to be seen.

The regulations of these types of port, while back when written were probably appropriate and well intended, have now been abused for decades and the IVDP has done nothing to clean them up. Perhaps this will be the catalyst.

[Andy Velebil]

Have they posted the full list of ports tested and the results yet?

[Moses Botbol]

The synthetic alcohol is more interesting than the average age of what's in the bottle. IDVP is the one that says it tastes like a 10 year to them.

Adding one word to the label would fix the concern on age; 10 year "style" tawny.

[Glenn E.]

Adding one word to the label would fix the concern on age; 10 year "style" tawny.

10 Year Style Tawny Port Style Fortified Wine

[Roy Hersh]

Here is a more elaborate version with the list of Ports included: In English.

https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2022/01 ... Newsletter

[Roy Hersh]

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!

[Roy Hersh]

What nobody is talking about is that Aguardente is made from young grape neutral spirits. It makes up 20% of the volume of all Port. I wonder IF that could be the X-factor, and would be represented in the spectrum of age during the testing, (no less its 77% abv.)?

[Andy Velebil]

Roy,
I will simply point out to you that the IVDP was violating EU laws until a member here called them out for it, had a meeting set up with the president to point that out to them and the IVDP lawyer showed up to the meeting instead. We now have large format ports that are easily bought. So you can’t say the IVDP doesn’t have a documented history of having laws/regulations that conflict with EU laws.

And these aren’t “century old” laws/regulations as you state. A good majority of the current laws/regulations were established shortly after WW2 when a de facto commission met and defined them.

And it is very easy to artificially age a port, as it is with Madeira or any other wine.

[Eric Menchen]

What nobody is talking about is that Aguardente is made from young grape neutral spirits. It makes up 20% of the volume of all Port. I wonder IF that could be the X-factor, and would be represented in the spectrum of age during the testing, (no less its 77% abv.)?

I talked about it, to quote myself from above:

They make a lot of assumptions about the aguardente, when it is added, how old it is, and the number of additions. They assume only two aguardente additions. Is this valid? Depending on temperature, humidity, circulation, etc. alcohol and water in wine can evaporate at different rates. I was under the impression that topping up of barrels happened a number of times, and that aguardente might be added along the way as well. They recognize some uncertainty here, but I really think the ethanol numbers aren't all that good of an indicator. The sugar numbers are more meaningful to me. I'm assuming that Port producers are not chapitalizing the wine at any point, which would make the sugar numbers meaningless as well.