“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.”

1 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.