Until recently, the only pressure for ingredient listing has come from outside the industry. Indeed in the UK, the Co-op claims that to do so is actually illegal; after 13 years, this is still the only chain to have taken this step. But now there's a robin in the nest; a group of - some would say eccentric - winemakers are beginning to create a situation in which these listings may become a necessity.
Producers of natural wines and their keen fans murmour darkly about the potions to which "industrial" winemakers (a term that sometimes seems to cover anyone who even adds sulphor to their vats) routinely resort. This pressure is unlikely to go away, especially as the Naturalistas slouch slowly towards legally defining sets of standards and practices. Obviously no one is going to suggest that everybody should go natural, but the existence of these purists inevitably raises questions about what others are doing. Observers like Fiona Beckett are writing compelling pieces in which winemakers such as Jason Lett of Eyrie Vineyards in Oregon dish the dirt on "Why some reds are so soft and syrupy"
There's a parallel here with what is happening in countries like South Africa and Argentina. If you're not certified as a Fairtrade winery, you'd better demonstrate that you treat your employees properly. I know that there's not much space on a back label (and that European producers often prefer to not even to have one of these) but that's also true of a yoghurt pot and a chocolate bar, and producers of those products seem to manage.
Just as they also manage to achieve some level of accuracy in what they print there. Could somebody, somewhere please tell me why New World wines think that it is legitimate to allow themselves 1-1.5% leeway in their alcohol content? A wine labeled "12.5% alc. by vol." can, in reality, actually contain between 11.0%-14.0%. Above 14%, the margin drops to 1%, so a Californian Zinfandel labeled "15.4% alc. by vol." might actually contain anything between 14.5%-16.5%.