Is it common for French wine to produce less headaches? Tried the
following two and the second one didn't give me a headache.

2007? Oak Leaf, Cabernet Sav (from Walmart $3/bottle).
2005 Mouton Cadet, Bordeaux, Barron Phillipe De Rothchild.

Mike Tommasi wrote:
jay wrote:
Is it common for French wine to produce less headaches? Tried the
following two and the second one didn't give me a headache.

2007? Oak Leaf, Cabernet Sav (from Walmart $3/bottle).
2005 Mouton Cadet, Bordeaux, Barron Phillipe De Rothchild.

If any, those wines WOULD give you a headache. Mouton Cadet is made in
a giant factory in the Bordeaux area...



Jay, you were probably just lucky. Both wines are made under industrial
conditions. It just so happened that the Oak Leaf had some chemical
or process that your head didn't like.

Unfortunately it is hard to find decent wine at the price point you cite
now a days...

-E

jay wrote:
Jay, you were probably just lucky. Both wines are made under industrial
conditions. It just so happened that the Oak Leaf had some chemical
or process that your head didn't like.

2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't seem to
bother me. Is it an industrial production wine also? Thx.

No, I don't think so. Seems like a large production, we see it here in
France in one of the large supermarket chains (Leclerc). I tried it some
years ago but don't remember much (so I guess it didn't make much of
an impression on me...)

Gotta be 3X the price of the Oak Leaf, though?

-E

Jay, you were probably just lucky. *Both wines are made under industrial
conditions. *It just so happened that the Oak Leaf had some chemical
or process that your head didn't like.

2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't seem to
bother me. Is it an industrial production wine also? Thx.

On Apr 9, 11:28�am, jay wrote:
Jay, you were probably just lucky. �Both wines are made under industrial
conditions. �It just so happened that the Oak Leaf had some chemical
or process that your head didn't like.

2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't seem to
bother me. Is it an industrial production wine also? Thx.

No, it's a small property in the Cotes de Castillon and it costs about
double what Oak Leaf does. FYI, Oak Leaf is only distributed by Wal-
Mart much like Charles Shaw ( Two Buck Chuck) is only distributed by
Trader Joes.

Emery wrote on Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:49:18 +0200:

ED jay wrote:
?? Jay, you were probably just lucky. Both wines are made
?? under industrial conditions. It just so happened that
?? the Oak Leaf had some chemical or process that your head
?? didn't like.
??
?? 2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't
?? seem to bother me. Is it an industrial production wine
?? also? Thx.

ED No, I don't think so. Seems like a large production, we
ED see it here in France in one of the large supermarket
ED chains (Leclerc). I tried it some years ago but don't
ED remember much (so I guess it didn't make much of an
ED impression on me...)

ED Gotta be 3X the price of the Oak Leaf, though?

I don't think there is much real evidence that the wine from
different countries is more or less likely to produce hangovers.
I'm pretty sure that if I drink too much I'm more likely to
suffer from red wine than white. Sparkling wines seem safest to
me. At the New Year we had about one bottle each of Korbel
Champagne with smoked salmon on rye bread and got up late the
next morning. After a longish hot shower, I did not detect any
ill effects and had my normal breakfast.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't seem to
bother me. Is it an industrial production wine also? Thx.

No, it's a small property in the Cotes de Castillon and it costs about
double what Oak Leaf does. *FYI, Oak Leaf is only distributed by Wal-
Mart much like Charles Shaw ( Two Buck Chuck) is only distributed by
Trader Joes.

$ 3, Cab Sav, Oak Leaf
$ 9, 2005 Bordeaux, Mouton Cadet, Baron Phillipe De Rothchild
$12, 2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon

On Apr 9, 12:33�pm, jay wrote:
2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon didn't seem to
bother me. Is it an industrial production wine also? Thx.

No, it's a small property in the Cotes de Castillon and it costs about
double what Oak Leaf does. �FYI, Oak Leaf is only distributed by Wal-
Mart much like Charles Shaw ( Two Buck Chuck) is only distributed by
Trader Joes.

$ 3, Cab Sav, Oak Leaf
$ 9, 2005 Bordeaux, Mouton Cadet, Baron Phillipe De Rothchild
$12, 2001 Bordeaux, Chateau Brisson, Cotes de Castillon

Generally wine at Oak Leaf's price point is made at places that look
more like chemical plants than wine making facilities. The "wine"
usually goes from grapes to consumer in a couple of weeks. Lots of
chemicals are added to speed up the process and to "enhance" the
flavors which probably accounts for your headache. I would shudder to
think of what exactly goes into these wines and perhaps someday the
makers will be compelled to list the ingredients on the label until
then drink them at your own risk.

"Bi!!" wrote in message
...

Generally wine at Oak Leaf's price point is made at places that look
more like chemical plants than wine making facilities. The "wine"
usually goes from grapes to consumer in a couple of weeks. Lots of
chemicals are added to speed up the process and to "enhance" the
flavors which probably accounts for your headache. I would shudder to
think of what exactly goes into these wines and perhaps someday the
makers will be compelled to list the ingredients on the label until
then drink them at your own risk.




Which, in a sense, takes us back to the discussion about US varietal
labeling vs French labeling: The French labeling rules at least define a
minimum standard and the ingredients are limited by the Appellation rules.

pk

I think everyone's missing the point.
Here in Australia, where vineyards variously date from any time between the
latter part of the 19th century to the present day we have three types of
vineyards
1. Old.(30 years plus) No headaches.
2. Young. (previously virgin ground or cow pasture) No headaches.
3. Young. (Previously fruit orchards) HEADACHES!
Old and virgin ground vineyards have no DDT in them.
I always ask the winemaker what the ground was previously used for.
If I can't ask him, the first few sips usually let me know. If they don't,
the following morning does.
Its much easier to remember the wines you don't like than the ones you like.

Almost all French wine is either old plantings, or planted on previous
vineyard sites.
No artificial insecticides have ever been permitted on vines in France.

Ergo.................IRMC

"PK" wrote in message
...
"Bi!!" wrote in message
...

Generally wine at Oak Leaf's price point is made at places that look
more like chemical plants than wine making facilities. The "wine"
usually goes from grapes to consumer in a couple of weeks. Lots of
chemicals are added to speed up the process and to "enhance" the
flavors which probably accounts for your headache. I would shudder to
think of what exactly goes into these wines and perhaps someday the
makers will be compelled to list the ingredients on the label until
then drink them at your own risk.




Which, in a sense, takes us back to the discussion about US varietal
labeling vs French labeling: The French labeling rules at least define a
minimum standard and the ingredients are limited by the Appellation rules.

pk

Mike Tommasi wrote:
[]
the first place. And it imposes no further limitations on pesticides or
herbicides than conventional farming. It states silly things, like
farmers should read the labels on pesticides, keep them in a safe place,
and not rinse the empty bottles in the local rivers.


Hehe. I haven't seen this but indeed, anyone who's lived here for a while
in the country would see through it in an instant. It's right up there with
the Union's contention that "farmers are protecting the beauty of the
countryside."
A quick tour of a big pig farm will clear that one up for you!

I've never heard of any relation between DDT and headaches either, but
you can
certainly be sure that it was widely used here before being outlawed.

-E

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:45:53 +1000, "Potblak"
wrote:

No artificial insecticides have ever been permitted on vines in France.

Where ever did you get that idea?Tthere are groups of winemakers that
ban synthetic pesticides (and fungicides) - they are the "organic"
winemakers and those belonging to Demeter or Biodyvin who use
bio-dynamic methods of control.

On the other hand, if a winemaker uses the expression "lutte
raisonnée" you can be sure the DO use synthetics.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

"Potblak" wrote ..............

Here in Australia, where vineyards variously date from any time between
the latter part of the 19th century to the present day we have three types
of vineyards
1. Old.(30 years plus) No headaches.
2. Young. (previously virgin ground or cow pasture) No headaches.
3. Young. (Previously fruit orchards) HEADACHES!
Old and virgin ground vineyards have no DDT in them.

Ummm - Potblak - let me put this in a vernacular that (being Australian)
you may understand.

HORSESHIT !!!!!

In my childhood, on the family farm, we broadcast spread, with bare hands,
DDT mixed with powdered lime, as a pasture insecticide to control grass grub
and porina..

DDT and other organochlorides (dieldrin was extensively used on sheep farms
to kill blowfly - and many old farmers still say it was the very best!) were
banned, not because they were toxic to humans, but because they were
regarded as a persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

And contrary to what you are expounding, the main reason for their being
banned was the effect they had on wildlife (particularly raptors and
fishlife).

DDT does not accumulate in soil - it is fat soluble and readily passed
through the food chain, so if a rat ate a DDT dusted cricket, the chemical
accumulated in the fat of the rat, and if a falcon, hawk or eagle ate the
rat, the chemical accumulated in the fatty tissue of the bird.

The effect on raptors like the American Bald Eagle and peregrine falcons was
devastating - however, once the use of DDT was banned, hundreds of trials
(mostly initiated to trace dioxin residues in humans) have shown decreased
detection in humans and wildlife.

To completely counter your assertion, a paper was published in the Journal
of American Medicine (Oct 1956) where humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of
DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years
afterward.

Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other
adverse effects were observed.

I am not advocating the use of such products - only the continued
broadcasting of emotional and uninformed clap-trap by those who do not
accept that it is impossible for a plant to uptake DDT from soil.

Off soap box - now where did I put that glass - memory is going - (no doubt,
Potblak would blame exposure to DDT!)

--

st.helier

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:00:09 +0200, Mike Tommasi
wrote:

That is correct. Lutte Raisonnée is a fake label invented by the union
of big farming in France to make heavy handed agriculture look better in
the eyes of the consumer,

It is less clear-cut that that. See:
http://www.john-libbey-eurotext.fr/e...type=text.html
And that's just the synopsis! I think I need a lie down.

I always thought it was a reaction to the indiscriminate spraying of
chemicals on a regular basis whether the vines (like Queen Victoria
and her baths) needed it or not.

but in fact the label does nothing but state
that the farmer must... respect the rules. Which he is supposed to in
the first place. And it imposes no further limitations on pesticides or
herbicides than conventional farming. It states silly things, like
farmers should read the labels on pesticides, keep them in a safe place,
and not rinse the empty bottles in the local rivers.

Sure the term carries no guarantees - depends entirely on the
producer. But I am less cynical than you. At one extreme, lutte
raisonee production is identical to that practiced by many uncertified
"organic" producers. That is: normally they do not spray, but if they
see their crop about to be destroyed they reach for the appropriate
chemical.

Organic certified farmers (and winemakers) in France can use synthetic
pesticides in limited amounts under certain conditions. Biodynamic
certified winemakers cannot use any.

Organic producers can also use copper sulphate. One of the nastiest
chemicals. I have heard arguments that newer systemic fungicides used
in moderation are less harmful to the environment.

I have also heard concerns about certified organic vineyard being
subject to chemical sprays from aircraft and neighbouring vineyards,
but that is a slightly different issue.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

For anyone intersted in pesticides in wine, there is a mine of
information he
http://www.wineanorak.com/pesticideresiduesinwine.htm

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher