KEY POINTS:
Wine's industry body has taken a rather blase approach to the Wither Hills furore. Philip Gregan, of New Zealand Winegrowers, says he is not concerned for the reputation of the industry. He should be. This episode is just the latest of several to hit an industry that must
prize the integrity of its product, yet seems to allow practices that can undermine it. Any more of these mishaps and New Zealand wines' outstanding reputation is at risk.
It is telling that Wither Hills' ignominy became public only because of the fortitude of one man, outgoing Cuisine magazine wine editor Michael Cooper. It was his suspicion, and his palate, that led to a bottle of the company's 2006 sauvignon blanc submitted for competition being tested, against one from a supermarket, by Environmental Science and Research. This confirmed two different levels of alcohol, sugar and acidity and resulted in the wine losing a five-star rating from Cuisine. But the publication will not contain the reasons for the disqualification until an issue in March, leaving Mr Cooper to blow the whistle.
Wither Hills' response has revealed a futile desire to play down what it describes as a "specific, technical breach" of the magazine's rules. It has attempted to undermine Mr Cooper's reputation by pointing out that Cuisine's judges were not unanimous. Never mind that scientific research backed him, or that Mr Cooper has been a national show judge for 15 years. With equal imperiousness it has challenged "any consumer" to pick the difference between the tasting bottles and those supplied to retailers.
Wither Hills' public relations blitz suggests, however, that it is aware of the potential damage to the brand. Supermarket sales have added a new element to New Zealanders' increased appetite for wine. Many people place great credence on a sticker proclaiming competition success. Obviously, they have the right to expect the wine in that bottle to be of the same quality as that which impressed a panel of connoisseurs. If there are shortcomings in a wine's consistency, as in this case, they are going to think twice about buying it.
The issues of credibility extend beyond this country. New Zealand wines command the highest price per litre of any sold in Britain. Overseas drinkers have identified an excellence, which must be underpinned by reliability. Wines from many other countries are theirs to choose if they think they are being short-changed. Unfortunately, the local industry is providing ammunition for such belief. This episode follows two in 1998, in which wine from Coopers Creek was found not to be true to the label, and the now-defunct Lintz Estate returned an Air New Zealand Wine Award gold medal because the judged shiraz differed from that sold in shops.
All this suggests Wither Hills' focus should have been less on awards and more on orchestrating production runs so that consistency was not questioned. The industry, for its part, could help itself quite easily, if only because many of those awards invite cynicism. How can it be otherwise when Wither Hills' chief winemaker is the chief judge of the industry's own Air New Zealand awards and the Liquorland Top 100? Or when the wine to be judged is submitted by the winemaker, rather than bought anonymously off a shop shelf. The present system is too open to question.
Other industries, including, recently, that teaching foreign language students, have illustrated the pitfalls of declining standards of consistency. Wine is an export flag-bearer. The variance in one of our most popular wines reflects badly on all New Zealand products. This is not a time for complacency. The industry must put its house in order before serious damage is done.
