It’s a little late to express this but, because of the magazine’s deadlines, I couldn’t beat the November election results. I want to congratulate the voters of the state of California for having the wisdom to defeat Prop. 37. I never cease to be amazed at how unpredictable some people can be. Thankfully, science won over fear of the unknown, so we can all be grateful that the world won’t stand still and the future will continue to produce wonderful new things, both GMO-wise and otherwise. Out of curiosity, I wonder, if it had passed, whether we’d have to label some wines that are produced from genetically modified varieties or rootstocks. GMO will be the ultimate answer to disease control as the geneticists keep finding usable genes to stem off diseases in vines as well as people. What would you like: GMO vines or lots of pesticides being used? Just some food for thought.
With the New Year comes all of our resolutions, and I’m willing to bet that most of us have included the inevitable “I need to lose weight.” How many years have I done it and lasted about three bottles of wine? In general, we’d like to think of wine as calorie-free—or so I keep telling myself. Unfortunately, the truth rears its ugly head and we have to admit that calories are real and present. It obviously depends on the wine, but the range is somewhere between 110 and 300 calories per glass. There are lots of variables including alcohol content, sweetness and serving size. If your serving is a 12-ounce beer mug, it’ll have more calories than a six-ounce wine glass, quite logically. If it’s a port or stickie (late harvest wines), residual sugar is a major factor. It’s interesting to note that alcohol has more calories per gram (7) than sugar does (4). We like to think that most dry wines have between 11 and 14 percent alcohol, but in reality, our alcohol-loving winemakers produce a lot of wine in the 15 to 17 percent category, especially some old vine Zinfandels. Are you ready for this? A standard, six-ounce serving of a 15 percent alcohol wine has 175 calories! A similar six-ounce serving of port has about 310 calories. I know you wouldn’t pour a full six-ounce serving of port all at once, but I’ll bet you refill your two-ounce serving a couple of times. How about a chocolate-covered donut instead? But, I really love port, so I need to cut out something else—maybe no French fries with my next hamburger. Sparklers are also full of calories, with a five-ounce serving having 120 to 175, depending on its sweetness.
A recent blog on Winefolly.com (a really neat blog, especially for the beginner) made some comparisons of calories in wine vs. other food. A couple of quick examples are: A glass of sparkling wine equals one tall, nonfat, sugar-free vanilla latte; a glass of Cabernet equals about one-third of an Egg McMuffin Sausage sandwich; or two to three servings of a tawny port equals two small scoops of chocolate ice cream. (Remember I said you couldn’t stop with a single glass.) Thank you winefolly.com for the true insight. Just to compare with beer, here are the numbers. One bottle of wine has about 750 calories and a six-pack of ale has about 900. Said another way, a standard, six-ounce serving of a standard dry red has 180 calories and a standard 14-ounce serving of an IPA is 190 to 265 calories. OK, want to redo your New Year’s resolution?
Has anyone taken on the task of going through the new Amazon wine sales program? It’s tried to sell wine in the past with some very poor results so now it’s jumped back in a big way. It appears it has some wine “on hand” when you look at the selections and many more are referred to another store or website. Prices seem to be close to tasting room prices, meaning full retail, or a few cents higher or lower, so selection, not price, is the benefit. When searching for wines on the Amazon site, there are several filters available to save having to look at 43,000 wines. The filters include type, variety, specialty, alcohol, vintage, price, brand, bottle size, country and tasting notes so you can look for the blackberries or cherries based on somebody else’s taste buds.
According to the site, there are literally 43,000+ wines available and God only knows how many wineries. There are 28,000 reds, 14,000 whites, 850 roses, and 2,416 sparklers. What about varietal selection? Try 9,623 Cabernets, 11,109 Chardonnays, 9,349 Pinot Noirs, 4,291 Sauvignon Blancs, 4,557 Merlots plus many more. To me, this seems to be a bit daunting. A wide selection is generally good, but this seems on the side of ridiculous. Now, if you want to see what Amazon actually has, rather than acting as an advertising site, the selection narrows down to 1,326 wines. I haven’t a clue how the wines were selected but they’re quite varied. Just scrolling down the pages, it appears as though Napa, Washington and Mendocino are well represented and Sonoma seems like it’s on the short end of the stick—but that could be just my prejudice…naw, couldn’t be!
So the big question is: Will this sell more wine because of accessibility? I think that’s doubtful, but only time will tell. I also wonder how it’s going to handle the shipments into other states, which currently is a typical giant fiasco built by politicians and state governments trying to show they can be independent and idiotic. Yes, I know states’ rights are important and they’re trying to show they can screw things up just as bad as the feds! Shipping costs $9.99 for one, three or six bottles and certain states are listed and the wine is shipped from the selling winery.
OK, check out Amazon and see what you think of the big experiment and run to the refrigerator rather than walk to burn off those calories from your last glass of wine. Also, stand out of the way at your local truck dealers. With all of the grapes this year, the growers will be able to join the vineyard management company owners and have their yearly new pickup. Tractor dealers might be happy also. It’s amazing what big crops and high prices can do to an entire industry’s attitude. Happy New Year to all!
