Blogs and Stories
The Great Wine Cover-up
Do you know what you were really drinking last night? The dirty secret about wine is that it frequently contains wood chips, chemicals, and something called Mega Purple.
Most wine bought in the United States cost less than $10 a bottle. Of that price, the winery makes less than $2. A large chunk of that goes to pay for the glass, the labels, and the corks. Another chunk goes to paying for the winery staff, another goes toward taxes... you get the idea. To make any sort of profit, the winemaker has to buy low-quality grapes in bulk and mass-produce the stuff.
Since only a tiny amount is needed to fix an entire barrel, Mega Purple is probably being added to over 25 million bottles of wine annually.
Wine from mass-produced bulk grapes is going to be a tad nasty. More often than not, it will taste harsh and vegetal; possibly like a dead squirrel dipped in kerosene. This is where modern winemaking comes into play. There is a standard toolbox of secret winemaking techniques to shape up such craptacular vino.
Trick No. 1 is something called Mega Purple. Not figuratively—literally. Produced by the same company that gave us Manischewitz, Mega Purple is a grape concentrate that adds fruit and color to red wine. You’ve surely consumed it. Winemakers use an estimated 10,000 gallons of the stuff every year—because only a tiny amount is needed to fix an entire barrel, Mega Purple is probably being added to over 25 million bottles of wine annually. A former winemaker at Yellowtail and several distributors tell me that the wildly popular Australian label, among others, uses it. (A member of the Yellowtail production team did not immediately return an email asking for comment.)
Besides the look, Mega Purple smoothes out the flavors, and give it a fruity wallop. It will also hide unwanted vegetal flavors and even mask certain types of spoilage. It’s not just the low-end wines that utilize this nifty little cheat. I’ve been told—as a rule, wine folk are rather gossipy and catty—that this technique is being used heavily on wines from California and Australia that retail for upward of $20, and even the occasional ultra-premium wines. A former winemaker from California’s Central Coast tells me that "it’s used extensively around here. It pumps up a jammy quality and hides green flavors, especially in Cabernet."
A winery does not have to purchase the grape concentrate to initiate this coverup. Any winery that possesses a reverse-osmosis machine—usually used to remove alcohol from wine—can create their own concentrates. Many of the ultra-premium wineries and chateaus across the world possess this machine. Are some using it to occasionally pump up their wines artificially? It’s like asking whether some suddenly large baseball players seem to be hitting more home runs than expected.
Another way to hide flaws is to increase the alcohol content, which can easily be done by adding sugar to the grape juice prior to fermentation. This is a traditional style of manipulation called chaptalization, and gives the wine a rich mouthfeel. It's legal in many places, and even some of the best Bordeaux chateaus were chaptalizing their wines well into the 1990s. It is also done illegally, as was the case in 2006: Sixty French wineries were implicated in a police investigation that allegedly uncovered 10 years of illegal chaptalization in the Beaujolais wine region.
Another common trick is to flavor inexpensive wines with oak chips or staves. Wine drinkers are accustomed to the taste of oak in wine, and often seek it out. However, aging wine in oak barrels is quite expensive, adding at least $1 to the cost of every bottle of wine. That would eat up the winery's profit for any bottle that retails for less than $12 a bottle. Instead, they store the wine in large stainless-steel vats and add bags of toasted oak chips, to give it a nice cinnamon flavor. Pessagno Winery in Monterey uses oak staves and chips in almost all of its wines, most of which retail for more than $30 a bottle, and they’re not alone at the high end—just the only one that’s honest enough to admit it.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
The Myth About Old Wine
Keith Wallace is the founder of the Wine School of Philadelphia.
How Wine Became Like Fast Food
Keith Wallace is the founder of the Wine School of Philadelphia.
The Great Cabernet Ripoff
Keith Wallace is the founder of the Wine School of Philadelphia.
kscr14
The image of a low quality grape is not pleasant. I'm guessing not very good for us either. I love my Vino, so this article has left me a bit startled. I have enjoyed the wine articles on TDB.
How about a list of favorites from Keith sometime.Any additive free that you know of?
justbuilditjim
Try the South American wines. The exchange rate with the dollar is still good and you get a great wine from Chile or Argentina for under ten bucks.
I don't much care what's in it so-long as it is safe and gives me the pleasure that only wine can provide: A nice little buzz while fixing the eavning meal.
desfordm
I read the article thinking, wow this reads like someone was trolling the aisles of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's wine and spirit shoppes. And then I saw the Philadelphia Wine School tag.... Indeed, it is easy to be jaded in Pennsylvania.
BlowupDoll
I enjoy wine but must say I have been concerned why so many people I know are "hooked" on wine.
Really have to wonder what other additives are in the mix.
Perhaps it's time to label wines so we know what we're really drinking.
For me? One more of life's enjoyments just bit the dust!
butlerreport
"hooked" is another word for addicted - probably the alcohol if I' not mistaken :)
dcbooknurse
Does this apply to local wineries? I would think they have less overhead by selling directly to the public and would be more concerned about destroying their reputation, but also may be under more financial pressure to produce.
hithere3
I have a problem with this article.
It doesn't actually tell us how to avoid this crap beyond suggesting we all spend $30 on a bottle of wine.
KeithWallace
There are two reasons I didn't give suggestions. First, there are plenty of wine writers who will give you suggestions on what to drink: I'd rather give you some zero-fluff pieces on TDB. For wine suggestions, I run a free newsletter (plug, plug) through the Wine School.
More importantly, I can't. The usage of the Purple is so endemic, and so few wineries will admit to using it publicly (many winemakers will admit to it in private, as long as it remains off the record), there is no way I can give you such a list.
What I will say, though: If you drink Cali and Aussie wines in the $6-$15 price range, and you like them... I just outed you. Proclaim your unmitigated freaky love for Mega Purple, and pop open a bottle with pride.
Personally, I don't think it's a moral issue, and I don't think using the Purple is a bad thing. It really does give wines a bigger pop of fruit and a richer mouthfeel. However, I do think --as an industry-- we need to be honest about what we do, and let the consumer make up her mind.
SiduriWines
Keith,
I am still trying to find out how you know that the "usage of the Purple is so endemic." You wrote about an estimated 10,000 gallons....where did that figure originate?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
hithere3
I fully agree with you (and others, I assume!) that more information is always good. If there are practices winemakers are embarrassed about, a self-reporting requirement could lead to self-policing.
NHBill
Health and safety first. Then truthful labeling. After that if it tastes good I'm all for what ever it takes to keep the prices down. Why shouldn't cheap wine taste good?
puckaboo
This is an incredibly disingenuous article. The author may (or may not...) know about wine, but, he understands virtually nothing about winemaking. We certainly all use the same set of tools. Much as chefs the world over use the same set of tools. Why no backlash against the devious chef adding salt to your food? Or olive oil - a product extracted from another food and added to increase weight and mouthfeel?
On one specific point - why always the indignation over wood chips? What is the awesome artistic difference between putting wine in oak and putting oak in wine. It's the same wood. It's less expensive, more environmentally friendly, and allows greater flexibility. So - God forbid - the bottle of wine can taste great and cost less.
Finally why give four non American examples of horrendously irresponsible winemaking and then behoove us to "Buy European"?
Embers
Puckaboo,
If that's your attitude, then it's not hard to understand why American wines largely taste so awful.
PhillyHank
Puck, are you seriously trying to compare a chef adding salt or olive oil to a dish with a winemaker using Mega Purple, or even hydrochloric acid? Your analogy breaks down pretty quickly. No chef is going to tell you he's serving roast poularde but then secretly stuff a skin with the concentrated mush of 10,000 ground up chickens. And anyway, that's called a "McNugget", and it's delicious.
And as the author points out, there's nothing wrong with the wood chips at all, but how many bottles of wine can you show me that say on the label "Plus we put a big ol' sackful of wood chips in their for flavor!"
It's about honesty, integrity, and an educated consumer. Don't get so bent out of shape.
joymars
I hope your remarks are not coming from a wine-maker. You obviously have no comprehension of what wine can be. It is not just a great-tasting drink, to be fiddled around by scientists in a flavor lab, like so much soda pop.
The genus of wine is that it's literally an organic (in the fundamental, natural meaning of that word) experience. Or it's supposed to be. Jacking flavors up and down with supplemental flavors is a travesty. It certainly is NOT the wine mystique.
Little wonder these techniques are kept secret. Like the guide on a wine tasting tour would EVER divulge any of that. Oh no, it's the grapes, it's the old processes merely translated by modern machinery, it's time and aging -- that's all you'll ever be told on a tour. And that's all you ever think is going on.
Buyer be ware.
dgbrowne
Oak chips simply add oak flavor...whereas barrel aging ads the flavor of the oak while also permitting some oxidation of the wine - changing flavors, color, tanin intensity etc. Depending on the barrel and the wine maker's treatment of the wine and the barrel additional fermentation may also occur - softening acids. Nothing wrong with oak chips - they just are not the same as barrel aging. I appreciate Keith's article. We should know more about the beverages that we drink and how they are made if for no other reason than to enhance our enjoyment of them.
puckaboo
Dead right on the two techniques. I just grow tired of the vehement disparaging of non-barrel oak applications. Chips, blocks, staves are adding EXACTLY the same compounds as barrels.
I am always totally honest about how my wines are made, but, one can understand why many wineries get nervous about disclosing this stuff when the reaction to anything non "traditional" is so often so negative.
SiduriWines
As the owner/winemaker of two small wineries (Siduri Wines & Novy Family Winery), I also have some problems with this article. Certainly there are things that have been and are being added to wine....and I, amongst others, are willing to talk about it factually....but the problems I have on this article specifically are:
1) Wines produced from "mass-produced, bulk grapes" isn't necessarily nasty. We don't make anything from such grapes...but to compare them to "a dead squirrel dipped in kerosene" is unnecessarily hyperbolic. Wine made from "mass-produced bulk grapes" is more often dilute...but that is about it.
2) I have problems with phrases like "estimated 10,000 gallons." Estimated by whom? The manufacturer who has a vested interest in saying they sell more so as to make everyone believe that everyone uses it? -- I also have problems with heresy like implying that a certain winery (Yellowtail) does something based on what an unnamed former winemaker and several unnamed distributors supposedly said.
3) I also disagree with the idea that buying European wines is a way of staying clear of "overly manipulated wines." First off, the Europeans have different regulations...but they are just that, different, not always stricter (depends on what you are discussing). Also, that assumes that a producer adheres to the regulations. A corollary would be that just because the US has stricter drug laws that means it is more free of drugs?
The real question, of course, is what manipulations are okay with you (I'd have a hard time, for instance, in stating what moral or health difference there is between oak chips and oak barrels)....and how to know what wines are made using what techniques. I think one thing you can do is to get to know the various producers. With smaller wineries you can usually email the winemaker/owner and ask what they do...and they will tell you. Take advantage of that.
My $.02.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines & Novy Family Winery
Embers
Wine produced from bulk grapes is uniformly nasty. The "squirrel dipped in kerosene" analogy is apt. YOU have an agenda, too.
SiduriWines
Embers,
First off, I've worked at wineries that buy bulk grapes (not in production....but have seen and tasted the grapes) and have not found them to be nasty....just plain and diluted. I am straightforward about who I am and what I have seen. I've never tasted squirrel dipped in kerosene....so wondering what have you seen and tasted.
Second, your post doesn't address any of my points....which I'd be happy to discuss with you, Keith, or anyone else who chooses to address them rather than simply take what is said in this post as gospel.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
KeithWallace
Adam,
Before I respond your questions, I first must gush a bit: I am a big fan. Your Novy Gary's Vineyard 2003 Syrah was my benchmark cali syrah for many years.
Also to readers: Adam may disagree with me on points, but he is a kick-ass winemaker. The guy is a purist, which makes it kinda weird to be arguing with him on this subject.
Okay, now for some intellectual ass-kicking:
You questioned my description of mass-produced wines, and called it hyperbolic:
I would say at such wines are -at best- dilute. If you are sourcing high volume from young vineyards, you end up with more nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds. Calling such wines dead squirrels dipped in kerosene is intended to be hyperbolic and evocative: I was thinking about generic must with a brix over 25 and 15ng/l of 2-methoxy-3-isobutylpyrazine in the must... nasty stuff just begging for some Mega Purple goodness.
You also questioned where I got the 10,000 gallon number for Mega Purple:
That is a very conservative number. As you have noted elsewhere, this would only affect 1% of the annual US wine production. In writing this article, I erred on the side of caution. The real number is very likely much, much more.
The difficulty in getting to that higher number is threefold: Mega Purple is not sold directly to wineries, but through a network of distributors; not all the product is sold to wineries (it is used in food products, too); finally, very few winemakers are willing to admit using it, even off the record. I can prove 25 million bottles of wines contain Mega Purple. However, my gut tells me its closer to 300 million.
You called my reporting that Yellowtail used grape concentrate as hearsay (well, you wrote heresy, but I think that was a Freudian slip ) and wondered why I didn't name names for my sources.
While this info regarding Yellowtail's use of grape concentrate may be new to you, it has been written about extensively in the trade journals. Dr. Jamie Goode has written an excellent piece which references the subject, which I would be happy to send you. (and because I think more people should read his stuff.)
Also, it is standard journalistic practice to allow a source to remain anonymous when printing their names could jeopardize his or her career. Take a look at all the other comments here. There are several California winemakers who have written in, but only one -you-- had the stones to print his name. If your fellow winemakers are not willing to publish their names in a conversation about wine manipulation, do you really expect my sources to?
FYI, its not hearsay if there are sources. By your definition, all journalism would be hearsay, and that would be heresy.
You also don't like that I recommend Euro wines:
Your analogy with our drug laws does not hold up: most European drug laws are as strict as ours, but they are also smarter.
I would argue that European (and by European, I mean the major EU wine producing countries) regulations in wine are not only stricter than ours, but also smarter. EU agricultural regulations are highly detailed regarding additives, and the majority of manipulations that are customary here in the US are expressly not allowed in the EU, except in extreme circumstances.
Of my second suggestion (stay away from the discount bin).... why are you complaining that I am telling people to buy more expensive wines? I am basically telling them to buy your wine. You really shouldn't bitch about that one too loudly ;)
The negative comments by winemakers here at TDB and over at www.wineberserkers.com seem to be more defensive than anything else. I suggest letting the "holy shit he's airy dirty laundry" gut instinct fade away, and then re-read the article. On a second read, you will realize that its very fair and balanced. If anything, my article will push people away from high-volume wines (where manipulation is more likely) and toward small artisanal brands like yours.
Like I said in the article, I think making the best wine possible is the job of all winemakers. However, I also believe we need to be honest about what is being done to make that $8 bottle of wine so palatable. It's a necessary conversation to have.
KeithWallace
Garys' Vineyard (not Gary's)
SiduriWines
Keith,
Thanks for the reply and the kind words.
Let's check out the intellectual ass-kicking:
1) 2-methoxy-3-isobutylpyrazine. Let's call them IBMP's for short...produce bell pepper characteristics...amongst other flavors....in wine. These IBMP's are detectable at 15ng/l in Brodeaux reds (it differs by wine type). So the number you state is the beginning of detection levels. Higher levels of IBMP's are associated with less ripe grapes.....thus CA wines often have less IBMPs than European wines. Other factors, such as leaf pulling also affect IBMPs. But the idea of recommending European wines because of a lack of IBMPs or associated additions becasue of IBMPs makes very little sense.
2) The 10,000 gallon figure for Mega-Purple actually came from a figure quoted by the VP in charge of Research and Development for Constellation....who undoubtedly has a vested interest in saying more is produced than less. BTW, 50,000 gallons are, according to the same source, produced annually so most doesn't go into wine....it goes....someplace else (but given all of the warning labels on stuff and yet I've never seen it listed....where does it go?). The idea, though, that 300 million bottles of wine are using MegaPurple is fanciful.
3) You mention YellowTail and grape concentrated. Yes, Jamie Goode has written about Yellow Tail and grape concentrate....but not MegaPurple (which is made thru a proprietary method). You'd also do a service by presenting the entire story by quoting Jamie when he says things like "While the use of grape juice concentrate has been uncontroversial for inexpensive sweeter white wines in Germany, where it is known as süss-reserve...." Or mentioning the widespread use of Beet Sugar in France and Italy (at least concentrate comes from grapes).
4) As far as European laws regulations go.....each region has a disturbing tendency to outlaw things they rarerly have to do thus creating a pointless law. But Velcorin was legal in Europe first (as an example). Moreover, there are many loopholes in European law....for instance, you can't add sugar and acid to the same wine. But you can take 10 tons of grapes from one vineyard, ferment 5 tons in 1 tank, 5 in the other...add 2X the sugar to one tank and 2x the acid to the other....and then blend them back together post ferment. That is legal. --- Honestly, I think it is telling that the incidences you site of truly egregious examples of additives in wine come from European wines.
I really don't think that because I (or some others) took issue with your article we are being defensive. Criticism isn't necessarily bad for wine writers or winemakers. I think one thing that would help with regard to being fair and balanced is avoiding speculation "my gut tells me...it is 300 million," hperbole "dead squirrel dipped in kerosene," and a full telling of the facts.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
BTW....and the end of these comments I mention what I've used....in case anyone is interested.
KeithWallace
Gary,
The IBMP numbers I am giving are threshold numbers, since I am talking about low-quality under-ripe grapes, that pretty much makes sense, yes?
The problem is that you are conflating two different arguments: my first argument is that mass-produced wines require a certain level of manipulation to be acceptable to the "New World" wine-drinking public. The second argument was that one way to make sure your wines are not being manipulated (by Mega Purple or Chipping, at least) would be to either spend more money and/or opt for "Old World" wines.
As I said in my original reply, the 10,000 gallon figure is the most conservative number I unearthed, which is the reason I used that number. Since we know that at least 50K of the substance is produced -as you admit there is no way to know where the rest of the Mega Purple goes--it is unfair of you characterize my belief (which was NOT in the article, FYI) that upwards of 300 million bottles may have been modified with Mega Purple as "fanciful".
It is also a fault of logic to assume motive for someone's actions. The management at Constellation is just as likely to downplay the usage of Mega Purple since they are not selling it to the public (and as you can read from the replies, there is a good reason for them to be afraid of too much publicity). Also, since they are selling it as a silver bullet to winemakers, it would also make just as much sense for them to underreport usage so individual winemakers using the product are under the illusion that they have a competitive advantage over their competitors.
You also slam me for not writing about chapatalization, yet I gave it a full graph, right under the two graphs I gave to Mega Purple. What's up with that?
In the end, it is interesting that you think my article is a criticism of winemakers. That is an incorrect reading of the article. Nowhere in the article did I say manipulation was unethical or wrong (except when it's harmful). In fact, I pointed out that a winemaker has every right to do so. I leave the moral arguments to others, like yourself.
I love a good argument. However, the insulting comments of another winemaker, and your claim that the piece was not "a full telling of the facts","hyperbole" and "speculation" are brazenly incorrect. I just spent a dozen paragraphs gently answering your questions, point for point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and -if you want this conversation to continue-- I expect the same from you in return.
SiduriWines
Keith,
I can't reply to your reply below but let me ask....
1) Where did you come up with the figure of 300 million bottles of wine are made with Mega-Purple? Even if all 50,000 gallons of Mega-Purple were used in the wine business that would account for 125 million bottles.
2) When you mentioned chaptalization in France you discussed it in the past. It is still legal, yes? And still practiced, yes? I didn't criticize you for not writing about it....but it should be noted that it is standard practice at many Burgandian estates. -- Also, btw, did you ever find where Jamie said Yellowtail was made using MegaPurple?
3) As far as your article not being critical....I think you are trying to have it both ways....using phrases like "cover-up," "dirty little secret," etc and then saying you weren't implying they were wrong.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
KeithWallace
Gary,
You are conflating issues again. The numbers you are quoting are not in the article, but in a reply to you. I strictly stated that it was a gut instinct (based on .2% per gallon rate). If I thought that number was solid, it would have been in the article.
Journalism 101: the editors write the headlines and teasers (they even edit articles, too!).
Never said Dr. Goode refered to MP: just concentrates (and yes, MP is really a distillate and not a concentrate, but (again, Journalism 101) that difference does not affect the average reader's understanding of the story.
Once again, you are conflating issues. I did not cite Dr. Goode in the article, only in my response to you in the comments.
The graph on chaptalization was written in the present tense. If I was writing about things in the past, I would have been writing in the past tense.
I have replied to all your questions fairly and honestly. This is the point where you thank me for responding to your questions, and sign off.
If you want to continue the conversation, we can do it via email.
SondraB
Thanks Adam,
A very interesting discussion that makes you think about - what's legal in oomphing up a wine, what's safe and what's NOT okay. I agree that oak staves or chips don't endanger our health anymore than barrels. I guess it depends on whether the winemaker, like you, says the vineyard makes the wine, or the 'cook' in the winemaker makes it.
Sondra Barrett
Wine's Hidden Beauty www.SondraBarrett.com
EdmondDantes
A brilliant wine marketer should immediately bottle some cabs called Mega Purple. Play it up! Make fun of it!
clmadson
I am not sure how critical these additives are, but wouldn't it be nice if there were regulations that required wineries to put what is in the wine on the back of the bottle, like other foods? Just sayin', and it would give the wineries who are ethical and more purist a great marketing tool as well to compete with the cheap mega wine producers
Embers
It's amazing that they aren't required to list their ingredients. Read some of the comments from wine producers on here? They're so indignant, there's no telling what they're dumping in their wine -- which was undoubtedly swill to begin with.
puckaboo
What do you drink?
Siduri makes great wine. I make pretty damn good wine. What is more important to you - how wine is made or how the wine shows? I ever never actually used Mega Purple, not because it's BAD but because it seems easy. It does actually improve some wines.
And how does one define Bulk Grapes? Do you get them in those little bins at the grocery store?
kscr14
Or how about Mega Purple FREE!!!!!!!
fedyna
or how about Free Range Mega Purple?
whipmawhopma
Drink a decent beer with the ingrediants listed on the label and you can skip all this wine nonsense. Shop around for a beer that tastes good to you. Different beer types taste different, the same beer type by different brewers will taste different, and most ales taste like something from a chemical factory, but some are tasty. Really tasty.
I like lagers and wheat beers and recommend Miller MGD, Shiner Bock, Pyramid Wheat, Wiedmer Brothers Wheat, Monthy Python Holy Grail (ale), Corona lager, Carta Blanca lager, El Presidente lager, Yuengling lager, Carlsberg lager, Leinenkugel's Original, Newcastle Brown Ale, Rogue's Morimoto Soba Ale, Spaten pilsener and many others.
PhillyHank
I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that one can substitute MGD for a good bottle of wine.
whipmawhopma
You might be right. There are certain white German wines, Rieslings in the $10 to $20 range, that are better than MGD. Quite yummy. Beaujolais is generally better than MGD. And so is Le Grotte's Reggiano Lambrusco.
I like wines more sweet than dry. Shameful. I hope that Megapurple, which sounds like something from the Chowder series, isn't to be found in these wines.
SFGiants
Some good suggestions, but my preference is for Canadian lagers (Molsen, et al).
whipmawhopma
And Birra Moretti if you want something from Italy.
MOZART
I would rather have an ounce of Glenlivet 12 year old scotch on ice than 6 bottles of any kind of wine.The wine industry is the biggest rip off in this world.
However, I would walk a mile for a sip of homemade wine my brother in British Columbia makes every year. He picks the grapes in Kelown, hauls them home and makes about fifty bottles of wine every year.
Good, healthy, pure. Now, that is a treat.
Redana
Single malt on ice? Don't get me started!
Just kidding. I love a good single malt (neat and peaty) but scotch prices these days are way worse than wine (at least in my corner of the world). I live in the above mentioned British Columbia, about 250 miles west of Kelowna, and a decent bottle of single malt will set me back about $60 but a fantastic bottle will cost me $150. Even if that bottle will last much longer than a bottle of wine, that's still a lot of money all at once.
I would suggest a Beautiful BC wine with dinner and a scotch digestif (I had to look that up). Why not have the best of both worlds? I would walk more than one mile for a good BC wine but thankfully my Liquor Store is closer than that.
The actual reason I posted is because MOZART mentioned my part of the world and we have amazing boutique wineries in the Okanagan Valley (of which Kelowna is a part). If you've never had BC wine, I suggest Burrowing Owl, Quail's Gate or Blasted Church as great places to start; they're average to above average in price for BC wines.
Also, if you've never had one, try an Icewine. I'm not 100% sure if they're unique to BC wines but they are a fantastic dessert wine, well worth the cost if it's a special occasion.
I did a little checking and the BC wines that are VQA approved (Vintner's Quality Assurance) means this:
"The VQA seal also ensures that quality production standards are upheld. These include brix levels at harvest, oenological practices, additives, chaptilization level limits, the use of sweet reserve and fortification."
So, I guess, additives are hard to avoid but with VQA wines, at least it's regulated. (hopeful shrug)
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.