Earlier this week, Jancis Robinson posted a short article, “Illegal substance found in wines” (unfortunately only available in full for website members), about German authorities finding low levels of natamycin in a few examples of imported Argentinean and South African wines. Natamycin is currently used in food products such as milk, cheese, yoghurt and some meat to prevent yeast and mould growth, yet European Union law bans its use in wine – domestic or imported. It’s also used medically in creams and eyedrops to treat fungal infections.
From the Wikipedia entry:
“Natamycin (INN), also known as pimaricin, is a naturally occurring antifungal agent produced during fermentation by the bacterium Streptomyces natalensis, commonly found in soil.”
The levels found are below the recommended acceptable daily intake of 0.3 mg per kilo of body weight, and in studies, natamycin hasn’t shown ill effects in people until much greater levels. In one study, it took levels of 600-1000 mg/day before symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. Regardless, the British Wine Standards Board is advising retailers to pull wine from their shelves that are proven to contain any traces of natamycin.
Obviously, the use of wine additives, natural or synthetic, is nothing new and technically, the only wrong these producers are doing is shipping this natamycin-treated wine to counties where it’s banned.
This brings up the debate over ingredients list on wine bottles, spelling out all the additives used along the way. With more transparency by producers, if the label says “16mg of Natamycin” I can make the choice to buy it or not. I understand that measuring and listing additives that were used at some point, but are no longer present, gets confusing. Would this freak too many people out and reflect negatively on many producers? Or is it naive to think that the average Joe still has a romantic notion that the wine they’re buying is simply fermented grape juice? I’m not sure, but personally, I’ve always felt more comfortable knowing as much as possible about what’s in the wine that I’m drinking.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Just like the food industry if its still in the wine then I think they should list it, I mean Sulfites is listed.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:40 am
If natamycin is legal in foodstuffs like cheese, why is it banned for wine?
As mentioned above, it took at least 30 times more natamycin than what is used in wine to make some test patients ill, and they took massive quantities daily over an extended period of time.
I am sure most people (myself included) want everything they consume to be as natural as possible. But if all ingredients in wine had to be listed, A) You’d need a really big label, and B) people would be so fearful they’d probably stop drinking wine.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Eric,
I think it’s always a little bit of a shock when an additive pops up like this when it’s not expected. In this case it may not be harmful, but it is a banned substance that has been added anyways, and was only detected because of new German technology. Who knows what else may be added?
The labels may grow slightly, but no bigger on average than say a can of Red Bull. Labels on some of the wines that I’ve enjoyed drinking lately would take up very little room: Grapes, naturally formed indigenous yeast and their byproducts (alcohol + CO2), SO2.
I’m not saying that this is the answer, but I think it would be healthy for people to questions the wines with 40 ingredients on back bottle. Is everything here necessary?
Thanks for the comment,
Jake