LEVON HELM: ENGINE OF THE BAND DIES

One of the sweet human influences in my life, Levon Helm, has died.  A man who played them drums, and the mandolin, just the same delicate way he drove a tractor.  One of the greatest impassioned storytellers of what I believe to be rock and roll, or the folk music of my time.  I first heard him and The Band when I spun my import Big Pink fresh off the presses, and I was just a kid in the bush and the seventies were still ahead. Oh man, could he sing?

Ralph J. Gleeson was the first writer I read who got The Band.  I remember reading a review he wrote for Rolling Stone.  He'd been at a concert where Robbie was sick and had a hypnotist on on stage with him. I reckon that piece triggered the common goss that The Band was dodgy live - it followed them like a dog. I can't find a copy of that review, but click here to soak up the best rock reviewer of all time talking about the second album, and The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down in particular.  

And, dammit, you'd better watch this one, too.  Not a bad opener for a farewell performance. 

Take a load off,  Levon. You hauled a lot more than your fair share.

 

HEALTH LOBBY WANTS WINE WARNINGS

Gin, cursed Fiend, with Fury fraught,

Makes human Race a Prey.

It enters by a deadly Draught

And steals our Life away.

Virtue and Truth, driv'n to Despair

Its Rage compells to fly,

But cherishes with hellish Care

Theft, Murder, Perjury.

Damned Cup! that on the Vitals preys

That liquid Fire contains,

Which Madness to the heart conveys,

And rolls it thro' the Veins.

Gin Lane, William Hogarth, 1751

If We Can Save Just One Kiddie

Wine Labels Follow Cigarettes

A Quiet Discussion ... Until Now

On Wed 11th of this month, an Adelaide ABC DRIVE producer phoned me, asking me to partake in a radio discussion on the matter of warning labels on alcohol products, and wine bottles in particular.  Michael Smith was the announcer, the other guest Michael Thorn, Chief Executive of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education in Canberra.  Here is a transcript of our conversation.  Some of the callers and questions have been removed; otherwise it's verbatim.  Or as close to verbatim as I can get it.  We do talk funny.

Michael Thorn: Look, ah, our Foundation has been taking the lead on behalf of a number of public health organizations around the country promoting the idea that there should be prominent health warnings on all alcohol products and its associated packaging.  We propose that there be a clear health warning on the front of all alcohol packaging, in other words on the front of a beer can if there can be such a thing on something that’s circular, um, and that there be a range of um different, of different messages that go to addressing what we know are the key long-term harms and the risk of various cancers for instance, through to the short-term harms and the risk of injury from being drunk for instance, and of course the need for a prominent label about the National Health and Medical Research Council’s advice to women and that is it’s safest not to drink while you’re pregnant, or thinking of becoming pregnant. 

Michael Smith:  So these warnings will be on the products themselves but would also extend to point-of-sale material; those sort of things.

MT:  Yes.  So we think it’s part of the need for a broader strategy to raise Australia’s awareness about the risks associated with the consumption of alcohol.  It’s not going to be a silver bullet for all things that are problematic about people’s alcohol use, um, it’s not designed to frighten people off from consuming alcohol, but it’s certainly designed to try to raise um, the awareness in the community because really the community’s awareness about some of the short term and long term risks and what the authorities say is safe, um, is woeful.  Very few people actually are aware of some of the – of some of these risks and um say for things like the problems associated with er with injury; he problems associated with short-term harms and also long-term cancers et cetera.  But even with pregnancy where you think there was a reasonable sort of understanding in the community – fewer than fifty per cent of women know about the risks or can tell you what those risks are or what the official advice is to them.

MS:  What’s been the reaction so far when you’re made your submission to the Federal Government?

MT:  The um, the er the Foundation um, did a lot of work leading up to a meeting of all governments late last year where they decided that there should be um, one they sought further further advice from health authorities about the need for generic warning labels, but they did make the decision to say yes there should be a pregnancy warning label and have given industry two years to come up with some sort of regime for this.

So we’re heading in the right direction.  Um now, I, I don’t trust any of them frankly in terms of doing this.  It took more than thirty years from when er the British Council of Surgeons first published their findings about the link between tobacco and, and cancer, um so it was thirty years before um health warnings started to appear on tobacco products.  Hopefully it won’t take that long with alcohol.

Michael Thorn, CEO of the Canberra thinktank and health lobbyist outfit, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education  ... not your three bottle man.

MS:  How specific should these warning be?  What sort of wording could you imagine?

MT:  Well, look, um, I, you don’t have much space so they need to be short and sharp and to the point so we’ve we’ve suggested in in some in some of our policy development works some er, some, some phrases … but in in the case of er pregnancy, we, we, we think something direct that just says “It’s safest not to drink, um, when you’re thinking of becoming pregnant or when you’re pregnant”.  That that’s the sort of tone, that’s the sort of style that we would think is appropriate.  And it should be combined with some sort of er symbol to er, to, to, to, to make it you know to cut cut through to precisely what we’re trying to say here.

MS:  Philip White is a prominent wine writer in Adelaide.  He joins us now.  Philip, good afternoon.

Philip White:  Hi there Michael.

MS: What do you think of all this?

PW: I reckon as a community we suffer from acute fatigue o'warning syndrome.  We have far too much signage on everything.  I bought a mop recently and it had a warning on it “Not to be used near electrical wires”.  You know.  And I think that the more warnings we put up, regardless of the need for them, or whatever that may be, um, people stop reading them.  Er, you know.  And the thing about liquor is quite interesting.  I mean, you have to drink it.  It goes in a glass a lot of the time.  So as soon as you remove it from its bottle, there’s no warning on the wine glass that I use.  Er.  You know, these things are all a bit … it’s all a bit strange and presumptuous, and I really mean it:  we’ve got too much signage. 

MS: Philip, at the end of the day, as you pointed out, of course the alcohol ends up in glasses which wouldn’t have labels on them.  Do you think that it would be harmful to the industry if there were health warning labels on alcohol bottles?

PW: Aha!  There’s the lovely conundrum that the er that this lobby suffers.  And I know these people, I actually help them with some things.  But um, I find almost consistently with these sorts of warnings that they never get to the people, the market, that actually really needs to read them.  You know, like in The Alice Springs for example, if you buy a bladder pack, you take the bladder out of the box before you walk away from the cash register. And you know, that’s the people we need to get to.  And that’s much more about general education.  You know it’s no good putting a little pretty picture of a wine snifter - on the bottom of the box - half full of wine, with a note saying “This box contains 32 standard drinks”. That, that just doesn’t work.

And then the lobbyist is in this strange position.  Either they’re saying “We want this product to decrease in sales” [which they desire but do not say], or they say “oh no these health warnings won’t have any affect [on sales]”, er there’s a contradiction there because that means that the health warnings aren’t being noticed.

MS:  Logistically how difficult would this be for the industry to implement, if it was legislated?  Obviously the design of a label is particularly important when it comes to marketing wine.  If, as Michael Thorn is suggesting, there would a fairly prominent warning on the front label of a bottle of wine, what impact would that have?

PW: I’d be verily enticed to use a decanter in a restaurant if the wine label I was drinking had a picture of a deformed foetus on it.

Just depends how far these things go. 

I think there’s probably a good reason to have a line on the back of every alcoholic package saying “alcohol is dangerous” but you know, it’s pretty hard to find anyone on Earth who doesn’t understand that.

MS: How explicit would the labels be?  Would it simply be wording, or perhaps as Philip White suggested then, a photo of a deformed foetus?

MT: Well we certainly haven’t suggested um sort of photographic representations of some of the harms.  That’s that’s not been our position. And I think that the research from overseas shows that the simple statement is the way to begin here.

Look I I think that it’s important to acknowledge that the labels on their own are not going to solve all the problems.  It has got to be accompanied by broader sort of social marketing programs.  It has got to be about tackling the broader issues associated with the misuse and the harmful use of alcohol in our community.  To think that just a simple label is going to save um someone’s life on its own is a bit of a far, a bit of a stretch but in combination with a series of other measures, I strongly believe, and the evidence certainly supports this, you can change people’s attitudes.

The um and some of these consequences are dire and you just heard what can happen as the result of a car accident, and someone who’s drunk, and in this case they weren’t even driving, but some of these things, particularly the issue which has been running in the media a bit today about foetal alcohol spectrum disorders, this this is a life sentence if your child is born with a foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and it is er ultimately preventable, and too few women actually know that they shouldn’t really drink if they’re pregnant, or thinking of becoming pregnant.

So um some of these things have to be perhaps a bit more strident than others, and there needs to be a bit of a thinking about where you can effect or who you really need to affect and influence.

Um, you know, heavy - heavy drinkers are probably not going to be affected by any warning, and other measures need to be taken to deal with those sorts of issues.  But if you’re talking about er somebody who’s thinking about getting pregnant you really should be taking a precautionary approach here: don’t drink.  Because the risks are too great.

MS: Have the American labels had much of an impact?  They’ve had them for what – thirty years?  

MT:  Ever since 1989.  Certainly published research will show that they did have an impact on attitudes, and that people could recall the messages.  But one of the problems with the American system is … it basically says something along the lines of “The Surgeon General advises that the consumption of alcohol can have health impacts” but it’s been the same message since 1989.  There are very few um … it’s not not prescribed how this um message needs to be placed on the bottle so what we found, what we find is that alcohol producers design away the warning message for instance so you can, so it’s mixed in with a whole lot of other design work on the alcohol product.

There are seventeen jurisdictions, seventeen countries around the world where they have a health warning and like I say anyone exporting product out of Australia for instance to France or the US has to carry these warning labels.  It’s not like something that the alcohol industry in this country doesn’t have to deal with.  They already have to deal with it.

MS: Brendan’s given us a call, from Basket Range. Brendan, what’s your take on all this?

Brendan of Basket Range: A friend of mine who’s quite overweight recently bought a chair.   Clearly sitting in a chair can reduce your fitness. And er, I just think that chairs need to be labeled, er, with that warning er, to protect those who purchase chairs.

You'll have to excuse my presumption here - the dissolved ego needed a covershot after the insult you'll read next. Photo Grant Nowell 

MS: Philip White somebody here from Victor or whose name was Victor was suggesting that your face should be on bottles of wine because that’s a good warning not to drink.  That’s a bit unkind, don’t you think?

PW:  Yes. I’m used to that though.  Bring ’em on.

I’ll tell you something really funny.  I don’t know whether they’ve put it through yet, but in South Africa they’re having similar discussions about alcohol consumption on the government level and they’re seriously considering, or they’ve just passed, a law saying it’s illegal to sell alcohol to pregnant women. Which puts an incredible onus on the waiter; on the vendor.  I mean, you’re just standing there: a twenty year old kid standing there in the drive-in bottle shop and a lady pulls in in a car – I mean what do you do?

MS: Could lead to some awkward moments.  Are you pregnant or are you just carrying a few doughnuts?  Michael Thorn we’ll finish with you, where we started. Where to now from here in terms of this submission and this proposal?

MT:  Ah we are trying to work with government at the moment to establish how this pregnancy warning label is going to find its way onto alcohol products and we will continue to work with health ministers around the country to persuade them that generic warning labels should be put on all alcohol products so I know there’s lots of work to be done.  I hope it doesn’t um take as long as it did with tobacco warning labels because in response to that last caller it is absolutely clear that warning labels on tobacco, along with other measures have saved millions and millions of lives and I hope that we can do similar things um on the alcohol front.

PHYLLOXERA DEBATE RE-OPENS THE MAIL

Phylloxera Laws Loosened In Oz

The Minister Insists It's All Cool

Key Players Far From Convinced

by PHILIP WHITE

Drew and Raegan Noon are modest quiet people.  They work hard to make real wines the way their customers love them, keep their prices incredibly low, and sell out in just a few days, every year.  Drew, a Master of Wine, plays a staunch quiet role assisting his beloved McLaren Vale move to a more ecologically-aware future.  So while they have many reasons to crow, the cocky rock star winemaker image is something that just don’t fit the Noon template.  So it’s confronting to find them both seething and cranky.

On the 16th of January 2012, the Noons wrote a letter to Gail Gago, the new Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, enquiring about changes to the laws which are designed to limit the spread of phylloxera to the infected areas of Victoria and New South Wales.  Phylloxera is the dreaded root louse that demolished the vineyards of Europe, and many in eastern Australia, a century ago.  Phylloxera is nearly microscopic.  Phylloxera never leaves.  Viable phylloxera has been found in carwash sumps in Melbourne, and has been caught in a windsock dragged behind an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet over Europe.  When it ravaged Victoria, it gave South Australia the chance to dominate the viticulture business, which is has done to this day. 

Miraculously, phylloxera has never been found in South Australia.  But then, it’s not so much of a miracle.  It’s largely the result of very rigid transport protocols which were imposed by winemakers themselves long ago.  Protocols which many people want relaxed.

Three stages of phylloxera: adult, crawler, and egg.


It’s a complex story, and long, but I see more trouble than advantage in attempting to paraphrase it.  This is what the Noons wrote:

“It appears to us that South Australia has recently weakened the rules protecting our grape and wine industry from phylloxera, without consulting or informing the state’s primary stakeholders in this area, the grape growers and wine producers. The changes mean that South Australia will now allow entry of grape harvesters (and other machinery and equipment) from interstate through simple proof that they have come from a Phylloxera Exclusion Zone (PEZ) without even the requirement to clean the machine.

“Prior to this, harvesters coming from an interstate Phylloxera Exclusion Zone had to be cleaned and accompanied by a permit obtained from the Chief Inspector certifying they had been operating for at least two weeks in an area free from phylloxera, before entry into South Australia.

 
“South Australian grape growers have been paying a levy to the Phylloxera & Grape Industry Board of South Australia since 1899 protecting SA from the pest. There have been at least 7 new phylloxera detections in Australia in the last 10 years but prior to that it had virtually not moved for almost 100 years. Therefore I ask you why does SA appear to be (without wide industry consultation or notification) breaking down the barriers to entry to South Australia and putting our state’s grape growers at so much greater risk at this time? And why are these changes required, what harm is the current system doing?

“On the face of it, perhaps one could argue that the changes are required on the basis of fair trade. If a region interstate has been surveyed and found to be free from phylloxera, there should be no risk of spreading the pest so we can’t justify imposing barriers at the border...but what are the real risks and what about the consequences of a mistake?

“The real risks relate to the quality of the phylloxera freedom surveys and their maintenance over time.
 
“We believe that the interstate surveys are not rigorous enough. Phylloxera is initially difficult to detect when infestations are new, affecting just a few vines in a block and typically taking years to spread to a few hundred, at which point it will typically be detected either by the farmer and/or by a survey.  But the current Victorian freedom surveys are being conducted over only three years, so there is the likelihood that a new infestation would be missed. The surveys should be conducted over a minimum of five years and preferably seven to increase the probability they will pick up a new infestation. Given the implications of a mistake, we need to be very confident before declaring a region phylloxera free and opening the barriers to entry to this state. Three years is not sufficient time to be very confident.

“Secondly, there is the problem of maintenance of the phylloxera freedom status over time. The Bendigo/Heathcote region in Victoria has recently been surveyed and declared phylloxera free but it sits alongside the Nagambie Vine Disease District where phylloxera is known to be present. It is consequently at much greater risk of a phylloxera outbreak in the short term than regions further afield. But this is not recognised by the current rules, whereby Phylloxera Exclusion Zone (PEZ) status gives the region the same easy entry of equipment and grapes into South Australia as for any other Phylloxera Exclusion Zone (PEZ).

Drew Noon MW

“All PEZ’s are not equal! Some represent a much higher level of risk than others. The fact that we have declared a region a Phylloxera Exclusion Zone doesn’t reduce its risk level. It just means we can’t find phylloxera there at the time of the survey. And how often have we committed to resurveying these regions, to ensure they are still phylloxera free? In the case of the high risk regions, every year or two years at most would be necessary. In fact they should never be considered ‘safe’ for direct importation of equipment (or fruit) as has just been implemented. This presents an unacceptable level of risk for South Australia’s growers.

“We need to recognise that there are gold standard PEZ’s (say Western Australia) and some that are bronze at best (say Bendigo/Heathcote). By failing to recognise the varying risk levels of the surveyed areas and dropping the border rules for all Phylloxera Exclusion Zones, we are expediting the passage of phylloxera into South Australia. Bendigo/Heathcote (or any region that is in close proximity to a known phylloxera area) will always represent a higher risk for importing phylloxera than regions further afield and the current rules don’t recognise that.

“If we don’t change that soon, it may be too late. If we let phylloxera into South Australia through our lack of vigilance, we will have to live with it forever. Please don’t let that happen on your watch.

“We are also very concerned the changes to the current rules for equipment (Condition 7A) and soil samples (Condition 8A) could be the tip of the iceberg in PEZ to PEZ freedom of movement... will we blink and find a dilution of the requirements for the movement of vines and grapes next?

“Please help keep South Australia phylloxera free by maintaining our border protection rules. As a minimum, we would like to see the changes to condition 7A & 8A revert back to version 8.1 of the Standard as soon as possible.

“Thank you for your attention to the concerns we have raised. We are happy to provide any further information you may require.

“Given the importance of this matter to South Australia and the urgency of it with the grape harvest already underway in the earliest regions, we kindly ask if you could provide a specific response before the end of January, giving reasons for any decisions you make.”

At the foot of the letter was the appropriate disclaimer:

“Raegan is a member of the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of SA (PGIBSA) but the views expressed here are her own and in no way claim to reflect those of the PGIBSA.”

Once vintage was done, Drew got back on the keyboard.  They had received no response.  This time, he circulated the letters to various stakeholders around McLaren Vale.

Having reminded the reader of the content of the first letter, he added the following:

“As outlined in our letter to you of 16 January, our reading of the new Plant Quarantine Standard suggests that the requirement for wine grape machinery entering South Australia to have prior written approval from the Chief Inspector has been dropped, where the machine is coming from a Phylloxera Exclusion Zone. In fact it appears in that case, under the new rules the machine is no longer even required to be cleaned before entering South Australia. This would apply even though it could be coming directly from an Interstate Phylloxera Exclusion Zone such as Bendigo/Heathcote which sits right alongside a known, longstanding Phylloxera Infested Zone.

“In your reply to us, we would like an assurance from you that any wording changes in the new Plant Quarantine Standard will not allow the movement of equipment, under any circumstances, into the heart of South Australia without prior written approval from South Australia’s Chief Inspector and the requirement that the equipment be clean as per the rules under the old Plant Quarantine Standard.

“If for any reason you cannot give us that assurance, then it would appear that the rules have indeed changed quite meaningfully and we think SA grape growers have a right to know and be consulted about the change. This has not happened to date.

“Many thanks for your attention and we look forward to circulating your correspondence regarding this matter to others who share our concern that any changes to the Plant Quarantine Standard SA may weaken our border protection, threatening South Australia’s winegrowers and especially our precious older vineyards.”

This time they got a response within a few days.

“Recent changes to the Plant Quarantine Standard were undertaken to align South Australia with the National Protocol,” Minister Gago wrote.
  
“South Australia recognizes that there are areas outside of the state that are free of phylloxera.  The previous requirement to disinfect machinery and equipment is considered unnecessary when moving between Phylloxera Exclusion Zones.  However, machinery and equipment is still required to be certified free of plant material and soil and have a proof of origin before entering South Australia.  These changes were made on the basis that a phylloxera exclusion zone has a very low risk of phylloxera being present and do not place South Australia at increased risk of a phylloxera outbreak.

“I have been informed that the National Phylloxera Management Protocol establishes the criteria and requirements for conducting vineyard surveys to detect the presence of phylloxera.  These requirements are science based and agreed at the National Vine health Steering Committee.

“I understand that the Plant Quarantine Standards have been agreed to by Biosecurity SA and the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia with input from the Mclaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association who are currently reviewing the wording to ensure the section is consistent with the national protocol and is clearly expressed.  This has involved consultation with representatives from industry and other stakeholder groups.

Gail Gago, South Australian Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

“I want to assure you that while there have been some changes made to South Australian practices, these have been simply a measure to ensure consistency with the National Management Protocol, and are not a reduction in scrutiny or commitment to protecting this state.”

The Noons are not happy.

“It hasn’t addressed our concern that SA is now accepting fruit and machinery from regions in Victoria that sit alongside phylloxera-infested areas,” Drew responded.   “The Minister simply says that the changes are consistent with the National Phylloxera Management Protocol, which was drafted a long time ago and treats all Phylloxera Exclusion Zones as the same. That’s what needs to be very carefully re-written. 

“We think this is wrong and that we need to recognise high risk PEZs like Bendigo/Heathcote, and low, like the whole of Western Australia. This was never taken into account when the Protocol was drafted. It’s crazy to accept such a risk and growers don’t know about it. They think the Phylloxera Board of SA is watching out for their interests...but we don’t hear them explaining the changes and justifying them to growers!

“The National Protocols were drafted long before the Yarra got phylloxera in 2006. The game changed then and those National (Science Based) Protocols need review in light of the heightened and evident risks.”

“Given that it only takes 1 phylloxera insect to start an infestation, who is asking if there are any assurances that the phylloxera surveys are good enough to detect a low level infestation? Are there any phylloxera detection probability statistics on the current survey method? Are they 98% sure that the survey would find phylloxera if it were there at all? How sure are they?

“What level of risk is acceptable to SA growers who have everything to lose here?”

It seems that this conversation is far from over.

The Noons want to know who would benefit from the changes which have been quietly made.
 
Phylloxera gutsing on vine root.

“Who benefits?” Drew asks.  “Primary Industries and Resources SA, for convenience, cost & paperwork.  Large winegrowing companies moving grapes and machinery around the country, for convenience, cost & paperwork.  Victorian companies moving machinery into SA for convenience, cost & paperwork.  The Victorian Department of Primary Industries, to justify the millions spent on phylloxera surveys.  The Australian Vine Improvement Association, to assist nursery interests in PEZ to PEZ freedom.  They benefit.

“But who doesn’t?  South Australian Growers (especially those with old vines on their own roots) who are rarely or never involved with moving grapes or machinery from interstate and have everything to lose from a phylloxera outbreak?  What level of risk is acceptable to these SA growers who have everything to lose here?”
 
This discussion has been bubbling away for years.  I wrote about it at length in 2009.  As did McLaren Vale vine scientist James Hook. It is a long intriguing yarn about deeply vested interests, secretive backroom boyos, arcane political maneuverings and lots and lots of money.  The whole pile exudes not only the carrion reek of suspicion, but an infuriating wall of silence.  Rae Noon was so frustrated with the lack of detail and information that she joined the Phylloxera Board, to get directly involved. 

It does seem strange that a board member has to write to the Minister to find out precisely what is going on.  If a board member must make such an enquiry of the Minister, one can only wonder what the board would be advising the Minister.  
 
Minister Gago is the wife of Penfolds Chief Winemaker, Peter Gago, a man highly dependent upon precious old vineyards on their own roots.  As much as far-flung viti outposts all over Victoria and New South Wales.

I’m involved, too: I have visited north-eastern Victoria on several recent occasions.  It’s very confronting, coming home, to drive past the unmanned quarantine bins at the border, and suddenly realize that you’ve just been in the heart of phylloxera country visiting wineries, and saw very little there that advised you of the dangers of what might be on your boots or the muddy bottom of your car.

As for trucks and machinery?  Surely a bloke who’d risk illegally removing the speed limiter from his truck would be happy to wait somewhere for an hour or two while some brains trust in a white coat steamed its guts with disinfectant?  Oh?  The crooks are only the minority?   

DRINKSTER often wonders what phylloxera protocols were observed by South Australian country firetrucks whilst fighting the Victorian bushfires in 2009 ...

As these letters have done the e-mail rounds, some alarming comments have been made.


This is from veteran Barossa vine nurseryman and owner of 145 year old Grenache and 118 year old Riesling vineyards, Wayne Farquhar:

"Here we go again, when are we going to get bureaucrats who make these changes to realise they are potentially putting an end to the Wine Industry in South Australia as we know it.

"I have attached a letter that I sent to industry back in 2009 for your reading, pointing out exactly the problems that were facing us in SA and this new Plant Health Act change is no surprise.

"PIRSA are unable to enforce the Plant Health act, and simply make changes to make it easier for them to administer. A good example of this is when the act started in 2009 PIRSA was to monitor imports of grapes products into SA by transport manifests, this was dropped as it took too much time as there were too many manifests. SO WHO IS CHECKING WHAT COMES INTO STH AUST?????
 
"I have given up the fight as the politics of all this is overbearing and it seems impossible to get anyone to listen to reason.

"Good luck - copy of letter follows:

"26/08/2009
 
"Re: Recent Changes in Planting & Processing by large Wine Companies is putting Australia at risk of Grape Phylloxera spread, and loss of Old Heritage Vines.
 
"Dear All,
 
"Within the last six years Australia has suffered an increase in export pressures from other counties like Chile, Argentina, Spain, Italy and even America and France. Also in this same period Australia has faced an oversupply of wine grapes resulting in surpluses being held by large wine companies. To combat this increased competition in the market place, most large wineries have restructured their businesses in an attempt to maintain profitability.
 
"Part of that restructuring has been to ensure long term viability of new vineyards planted, with most large companies using rootstocks on new plantings in order to ensure long term production without the fear of Phylloxera infestations destroying vineyards. It has also resulted in a centralising of process facilities to ensure maximum use of fully automated technology, and the sale of surplus facilities assisting bottom line profits by consolidation.
 
"Whilst the centralisation of crushing will certainly have an impact on the profitability of large wineries in Australia it can also be said that this is putting Australia at an increased risk of the spread of Phylloxera. A paper titled “Pest Risk Analysis for the establishment of a new infestation of Phylloxera in Australia as a result of harvest processes” which can be found at http://www.gwrdc.com.au/nvhscphylloxera.htm along with other Phylloxera related protocols begins to explain why.
 
"This paper lists whole grape harvesting & transport as the greatest risk of spreading Phylloxera, greater than machinery, must, vehicles & tourists. It seems that Phylloxera crawlers migrate to the canopy between December – March during harvest time and if mechanical harvesting is carried out a large number of these crawlers end up in the grape bins. The risk analysis puts the crawlers at an extremely high likely hood of travelling into other regions and being able to escape and multiply into new vineyards.
 
"Now to put this in some form of perspective it is important to do a quick review of current protocols to assess how strict they are, and do they reduce the risk of harvest transmission of Phylloxera. Are the existing legal protocols adequate for whole grape movement? Are any current changes planned within the planting and processing of wine grapes by large companies? If the answer is yes, then this is a pretty scary thought for all Heritage Old Vines and own roots vineyards around Australia.
 
"The Tasmanian and Queensland whole grape protocols allow for the importation of whole grapes if grown on a property outside a 40 kilometre radius of a known Phylloxera infestation (in other words the property must be over 40 kms away from an infestation). 

"The South Australian, New South Wales and Victorian protocols allow whole grapes to move freely between declared PEZ’s. A PEZ is a declared phylloxera free area. A PEZ may border a PRZ or a PIZ. A PRZ is a zone that might have Phylloxera and a PIZ is a zone that has Phylloxera. South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria also allow the movement of whole grapes from PRZ’s (a zone that might have Phylloxera) to PEZ’s if that property is found to be free from Phylloxera after an annual inspection under protocols developed by the National Phylloxera Technical Reference Group and authorised by the appropriated state Government authority.
 
"The protocols giving status to these PEZ’s and PRZ’s are where current planting and processing practises, allied with the centralisation of crushing by large wine companies are putting all the Heritage Old Vines in Australia and own roots vineyards at risk.
 
"At recent Phylloxera meetings held in South Australia by the PGIBSA, Dr. Kevin Powell Australia’s top researcher into Phylloxera said that the Phylloxera outbreak in the Fosters Vineyard in the Yarra Valley probably occurred in 2001 and was only visible in 2006 a total of 5 years from infestation to detection. Under current protocols a PRZ can gain full PEZ status only after 3 years of surveys to detect Phylloxera, and new emerging regions after only one year, yet Dr Kevin Powell is indicating minimum of 5 years or longer which would also depend upon the soil type, moisture and temperature.
 

"The other anomaly is that if a zone is being re-classified from a PRZ to PEZ, the movement of grape plant material into the PRZ is unrestricted up until the time the PEZ is declared, then and only then do the PEZ protocols take effect and restrictions apply to the movement of grape material and grape plants into the PEZ. This is at odds with what Dr Kevin Powell is saying about 5 years or longer before the likely hood of phylloxera presence being detectable. If you take this simple statement at face value it would mean that a newly declared PEZ zone should not be given full freedom of movement until a further moratorium of 5 years or longer has elapsed. Put simply the newly declared PEZ of Heathcote/Bendigo that took place in 2009 should continue to be inspected and not allowed full freedom of whole grape movement until 2014 or longer, in case phylloxera was introduced leading up to the day the zone was declared a PEZ.
 
"Remember Phylloxera crawlers are present many years before the visible evidence of vine decline takes place, and the risk of moving these crawlers with whole grapes due to the freedom status of a newly declared PEZ is quite real. Compounding this is the fact that grape bin loads from PEZ’s do not have to be covered, allowing the crawlers to blow out along the way to the centralised crushing facility.
 
"When you apply this thinking to the newly declared PEZ of Heathcote/Bendigo which has had rapid development in the state of Victoria where all the recent Australian Phylloxera incursions have taken place, it makes one realise that the declaration of the PEZ without a further moratorium of 5 years or longer for whole grape movement and grape plant material is extremely high risk. Further complicating this is that in recent years large wine companies have increased the use of Phylloxera tolerant rootstocks in new vineyard plantings. The use of rootstocks in a vineyard puts a mockery to the annual inspection protocol as Phylloxera presence will most likely never be detected as the vines on rootstock will not show any signs of decline. The increased use of rootstock could mean that Phylloxera crawlers are spread everywhere long before detection, and that detection will most likely be the newly infected vineyards not the source vineyard.
 
"Also putting Phylloxera free zones at risk is the Vine Industry Nursery Association’s (VINA) representation to the NSW Department of Primary Industries “Directors Approval” where VINA accredited nurseries can take cuttings from vineyards in PEZ zones like Heathcote/Bendigo and send them into New South Wales to VINA accredited nurseries without Hot Water Treatment, so long as they are ultimately treated prior to propagation in NSW. This is an extremely high risk scenario as it is too late treating the cuttings after the Phylloxera has been allowed to travel and escape into the new region.
 
"As can be seen from the discussion points above, Australia is at an increased risk of Phylloxera spread, due jointly between the protocols that currently exist and the changes of the way large wine company’s plant new vineyards and more importantly the centralization of processing to maximise their profitability through advanced technology. The risk associated with new protocols for the movement of grapevine planting material are also increasing the risk of further infestations of Phylloxera throughout Australia.
 
"Don’t be complacent your future is at stake, whilst there has been numerous recent changes to Plant Health Act’s etc, that give stronger penalties to individuals who deliberately break rules, here we are talking about the existing current protocols.
 
"BE ACTIVE, HAVE A SAY, AND SEEK ANSWERS!
 
"Yours Sincerely,  Wayne B Farquhar, Frill Hill Vineyards, Barossa."

... and another, from a bloke who knows what he's talking about:


"Hi Noon family

"I just wanted to congratulate you both on a very well written letter and for raising the questions about the relaxed attitude that now exists in regards to PEZ. If the South Australian Wine Industry is serious about preventing a Phylloxera outbreak then shouldn’t ALL interstate transfer of grapes or vineyard machinery be banned? We should be increasing the measures of protection not decreasing them.  I am very concerned about the relaxed attitude that seems to be descending on this matter. I am unsure what I can do as an individual but I offer my support to you wholeheartedly.

"Regards, Justin Lane, Alpha Box & Dice."


ALL THE ABOVE HAS BEEN CIRCULATED TO MINISTER GAIL GAGO AND LOCAL MEMBER LEON BIGNELL.  THIS TOPIC DESERVES URGENT DISCUSSION.  PLEASE ADD YOUR OPINIONS BY CLICKING COMMENTS BELOW:

PINUPS: ALL THE WAY BACK TO O'SHEA

Bit soft on the bottle pixels this night, sorry, but you can probly see why. Bit too big for little Whitey?  Uh-huh. Great night well had by experts.  Ancient Australian wines in perfect bright condition.  And some of the modern pertuse whites of the region of France they call, I think, Champagne.  Just one of those sorts of evenings.  Drinkin not photographin.  And not at all sorry about this, but these old treasures always make me recall what the blokes who made 'em drove.  I want all of these wheels owned by mates up my street.  I saw 'em up in the mountains in November.  Ovens Valley, in fact ... phylloxera country! Burn rubber - fry all that phylloxera outa them big gumballs!

  

KRUG'S OLD DELIVERY VAN BACK AT WORK

During some unmentioned scrape of transport budgets during a change of partners, the Krug family long ago lost their delivery van.  They have it back, now, and have fully restored it, as you can see.  My sweet and crazy friend Francois Henri (dec.), when chairman of Krug and the Heidsieck Champagne group, wanted to put this car on the track in the early  Adelaide Formula I Grand Prix races. He had a mad dream about tying it down with Konis, getting some breathing happening in the big ol pushrod V8, kitting up in a proper chauffeur's uniform and running it in a classic race. Mumm wouldn't have it near the track.  Damn!  C'mon, feel the keys. 

The South Australian government, meanwhile, shows no chance yet of explaining why the housing development it plans on the Seaford Heights site, right in the middle of the entry to McLaren Vale, could not be developed like a series of four or five copies of  Krug's  Clos du Mesnil.  DRINKSTER has always believed, that given the irreplaceable nature of the ancient geology of this site - the only bit left on Earth - and the unchallenged excellence of the rare wines grown on neighbouring sites, the development should proceed with deep respect to the Clos.  Think of a walled village, with the houses outside the wall, and the precious garden within.  Government and Council want an extravagent zone of native vegetation "buffering" outside the intensive housing, so we can't see where the people live.  Which of course we will, if we step back ten paces.  DRINKSTER believes we could have the intensive two or three storey housing where those buffer zones are going, with their backs to the roadsides and hot sunset, and have beautiful vineyards and community gardens safe within.  If the housing is gonna be fit for humans, it should at least be of a standard that shouldn't need to be hidden from the eyes of travailers.  If we can't be proud to look at our housing, we are a decrepit community.

CABERNET CHAIR, ANYBODY? SHIRAZ?

Werner Aisslinger, the Singapore-based designer, believes that only when all people learn to grow things can humanity possibly begin to understand that worn-out whore of a word, sustainability.

In pursuit of this philosophy, he has designed this grow-your-own chair, which was just featured at Design Week in Milan.  Aisslinger sells a kit containing the steel framework, inside which you grow your chair.  

While it appears Aisslinger has used lawyer cane (which we don't want going feral in Australia), it won't be long until somebody grows a chair from their favourite grape variety.  Which grape will stand up longest?  My viticulture advisor, Michael Lane, agrees that Cabernet sauvignon would be a fairly safe seat, given the wild resilience of its canes.  

Will the biodynamic model be stronger? Well of course. I said that.

To read more, go to Studio Aisslinglinger: Plantation Furniture.