“Blended deceit from the nanny state”

Lynne Kiesling

If you are a wine fan (oenophile if you’re feeling fancy) and you are not reading Dr. Vino regularly, you are missing a real treat. Dr. Vino is a political scientist who, in addition to having a good nose and good taste and a good palate, is an expert on the political economy of regulation in the wine industry. His recent post summarizing last weekend’s wine commentary contained this gem:

Canadian wines can contain 70% imported wine and still say “cellared in Canada” on the label. Big companies are for the practice according to The Economist, who calls it “Blended deceit from the nanny state.”


One thought on ““Blended deceit from the nanny state”

  1. What’s the big deal? Anybody who cares the slightest bit about Canadian wine knows that the only decent Canadian wines have a VQA designation, and those are all 100% grown in Canada. Pretty much every country has somewhat loose labeling restrictions on lower-end stuff – for example, buy a French Vin de Table or Vin Ordinaire and you’re not really sure what you’re getting. Except, of course, it’s a little difficult to get French Vin Ordinaire over here, since nothing but AOC’s and Vins de Pays are imported.

    It’s amusing that this article refers to Canada as a nanny state: I had less intrusion by government into my daily life when I lived in Alberta than in my currect domicile, in Pennsylvania. For example, in Alberta I could buy liquor in whatever quantity I wanted at any one of hundreds of privately owned stores. Here, I have to go to a government store to buy from a limited selection of wine and liquor, and if I want to buy beer I have to either buy a minimum of 24 at a distributorship, the number of which are limited by the state, or a maximum of 12 at a bottle shop, the number of which are also limited by population. (It’s a good thing I live close to Delaware.)

    But I guess a good stereotype is the best friend of a lazy magazine contributor.

Comments are closed.