You are here:  Home >> Free for all >> Bust-up in Burgundy
Latest articles
Georgia undaunted (Free for all)
18 Mar 2010 by Umay Çevike
New owners for Vinfolio (Free for all)
17 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson
Mature and maturing bordeaux week (Free for all)
16 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson
Last weekend's bottles (Free for all)
15 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson
Ridge - a California exception (Free for all)
13 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson/FT
Fine wine v billionaires (Free for all)
12 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson
Cape prospecting plans dropped (Free for all)
12 Mar 2010 by Jancis Robinson
Save this page as PDF  View a Printer Friendly version of this page  Send a summary of this page to someone via email
[Previous]  [Next]

Bust-up in Burgundy

8 Jul 2009 by Jancis Robinson

A serious split has opened up in Burgundy between the generic promotional body, the BIVB (Bureau Interprofessionnel des Vins de Bourgogne), and the Syndicat des Bourgognes, which represents the growers. Relations have been so soured that events planned for yesterday to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the BIVB were cancelled.

The issue is exactly which wines may be labelled with the generic appellation 'Bourgogne', French for Burgundy. As things stand at the moment, this usefully smart-sounding term can be applied to Pinot Noir and Chardonnay grown in vineyards in the Côte d'Or, Côte Chalonnaise and Mâconnais and, rather oddly, to Gamay grown in the top Beaujolais Crus.

The Syndicat des Bourgognes is concerned about signs that the BIVB is cosying up to their counterpart generic body in Beaujolais, which would give the BIVB greater powers, and which could, they fear, allow bottlers more flexibility. On Friday they issued a provocative statement entitled 'Luxury liner goes adrift', alerting readers to the possibility that the generic appellations could be diluted. They are specifically concerned that the BIVB seems in favour of 100% Gamay Bourgogne Rouge and that Chardonnay grown in the Beaujolais region could be labelled Bourgogne Blanc, and could be used in Crémant de Bourgogne. They pointed out that as many as 200 ha of Chardonnay have been planted in Beaujolais recently, and that its produce is the equivalent of 20% of all Bourgogne Blanc produced.

In a direct reference to the BIVB's source of funding, the doom-laden statement ends, 'The BIVB liner is heading straight for the iceberg of Beaujolais, risking drowning those who paid for the voyage'.

The BIVB has responded not just by postponing 20th-anniversary celebrations until after the harvest, but also with its own statement alleging that the growers' statement is full of falsehoods and 'profoundly harmful for the image of Burgundy'. Instead of the celebrations, it held a press conference yesterday to explain the 'complex issues' involved.

Strong words indeed.

See Beaujolais and Burgundy thread in members' forum.

Tags:  Burgundy
4 comment(s)

Comments

I could see one making a case for the continuance of Chardonnay grown in Beaujolais being labeled "Bourgogne Blanc" rather than insisting on "Beaujolais Blanc," since the grapes are the same, and since Chardonnay is planted in Beaujolais - especially in the South - on chalk-clay soils that don't promote the classic perfume associated with Gamay grown on granite and other volcanic soils (dominant in the North). I'm not saying the legislation for Chardonnay shouldn't also be reviewed ... but at least it is plausible, whereas calling by the same name (red) wines grown from entirely different grapes and in entirely different soils is, as Jasper pointed out, ridiculous ... particularly since the inclusion of Gamay in a Côte d'Or wine legally triggers a change of appellation (to Bourgogne Passetoutegrains or - oxymoronically - Bourgogne Grand Ordinarie).

8 Jul 2009 18:35 by David Schildknecht


Well said Jasper - there are some really great Beaujolais around (not a huge number admittedly) but it's a nod in the right direction. Last thing they should be doing as a marketing body is mixing in with some of the filth that has Bourgogne slapped on the label or smudging their point of difference.

8 Jul 2009 10:11 by Neil Irvine


Ah well, that will just give me an excuse to drink only village wines and up (lest I run the risk of finding myself unknowingly drinking a gamay from Beaujolais). I would have thought that, in any event, the decision to increase the size/reach of the appelation would originate from the nice folks at the INAO, not the the generic trade bodies?    

8 Jul 2009 09:43 by Thomas De Waen


Jancis I have for years been campaigning for this anomaly, by which the Beaujolais crus can be declassified into Bourgogne Rouge, to be suppressed. There is a commercial history behind it, but surely it flies in the face of what terroir is about, which is matching grape varieties to locations. There is nothing in common between two wines labelled as Bourgogne Rouge, one grown on acid soils and made with gamay, the other on alkaline soils made with pinot. It worries me that there may be more overlap between these two completely distinct regions. What we need is for the Beaujolais to regain its own valuable identity, not for it to be propped up by sliding under the wing of Burgundy. No point in going back over where Beaujolais has gone wrong, but we should be thinking on how to discover a successful future. I have started drinking much more Beaujolais in the last couple of years, having discovered how good straight Beaujolais grown in teh hills can be, as well as finding growers in the crus who concentrate on quality without recourse to thermovinification and other short-cut techniques. But the good growers are not charging enough for their wines, so it is hard for them to continue to invest in quality without adequate return. If 2009 turns out to be as good as we all are hoping (admittedly two months before harvest) it might be a great moment to start a rediscover Beaujolais drive.

8 Jul 2009 09:39 by Jasper Morris

[Back to top]
[Previous]  [Next]
© Copyright 2000-2010 Jancis Robinson