WINE AND ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO THE LABORATORY DIRECTOR OF THE ITALIAN WINE UNION, FRANCESCO PAVANELLO: “UNDERSTANDING ORIGINS AND VARIETALS BY ANALYZING A BOTTLE IS POSSIBILE WITH A SUFFICIENT DATABASE TO COMPARE WITH, BUT TODAY THIS DOES NOT EXIST

“If a database of ‘testimonial wines’ was created, made with analytical parameters connected to aromas, polyphenols, terrain, and other elements, then it is possible to create a pertinent grid. Without this, references can be made only to data offered in literature, but they are much weaker”.
This was the recent response by Francesco Pavanello, laboratory director for the Italian Wine Union (UIV), in offering his point of view on what the possibilities of verifying the origin of a wine are from the analysis of the contents of a bottle. According to Pavanello, his concept holds true for the identification of the varietals that have been used to obtain a wine: “Scientifically, in the absence of a grape and must database, it is impossible to determine the specific corresponding area, varietal, or even vintage of a wine.

The moment I constitute this entire patrimony of data – and unless there is an uncertainty due to the high number of samples made – then I will be able to say whether this wine pertains or not to a specific varietal or region. And it is the same thing for understanding whether a wine is mono-varietal or not, because even for these analytical parameters of isotopes, sugars or other, a single value does not exist, but intervals in which they belong… For this reason, one can discover that Merlot wines have an anthocyan content that is lower than that of Sangiovese wines, but they still have them. Therefore, it is evident that, either I completely substitute a product, but the difference is so striking between one and the other that I can say this is Sangiovese and this is Merlot, or rather, add just 10-20% of Merlot, so I am unable to distinguish it from Sangiovese because it remains within the field of natural variability”.
“From a legal point of view” – continued Pavanello – “there are no officially recognized methods, but it is clear that if one proves the distinctiveness of a determined element, with the method that we explained, this could be valid even in a legal office because the other side must then demonstrate its non validity. The judge accepts the scientific reconstruction even if it is not official, and it is up to the accused to disprove this approach”.
Are there precedents in this sense that exist abroad?

”In Germany, in regards to watering down, Pinot Grigio and Shikimic acid, there were some actions taken but of a more commercial character rather than legal. For example, in the case of Pinot Grigio, it was possible to contest the proposed data because the statistic base was too high and the intervals too restricted, and they were not accountable for by the natural variability of Pinot. It passed from 15-20 milligrams/liter of Shikimic acid that is permitted, to 30-35 milligrams, but San Michele all’Adige claimed to have a database with some Pinot that had even 30 and, therefore, this type of approach was contested. It is clear that where there is no possibility for scientific contestation, things will take their own path”.

”That which we are discussing” – concluded Pavanello – “is the future, not the present, because these databases are necessary, and once they are created we will begin to reason again”.