Ever wondered what’s inside a bottle of wine? Naturally, grapes come to mind. But isn’t it just wine, not some fruit-infused vodka mix?

Consider this—there are over 60 possible additives approved by the government that could be in wine. These include elements like gum arabic from acacia tree sap, albumen from egg whites, isinglass made from fish bladders, and even polyvinylpolypyrrolidone, which is a type of industrial glue. The term Special blend just gained a whole new dimension.

One might think it’s logical to list these substances clearly on the wine bottle’s label. But when I first advocated for ingredient and nutrition labels on wine bottles back in the early 2000s, the response from industry leaders was less than encouraging. The head of a major wine organization dismissed the idea as confusing for consumers—who, according to him, weren’t interested in that information anyway. A prominent U.S. wine journalist commented that most wine drinkers wouldn’t comprehend the details anyway.

Given such resistance, it’s no surprise that, almost two decades later, despite continuous efforts by federal regulators, wine still lacks mandatory nutrition and ingredient labelling. It’s one of the few major consumer products without such requirements. For context, during this period, we have witnessed significant historical and technological advancements—from the election of the first African American president to the mainstream adoption of doorbells with cameras and the Chicago Cubs winning their first World Series in over a century. Yet, information on wine bottles remains limited.

“For over two decades, I doubted whether my advocacy for ingredient labeling on wines would have any tangible impact,” shared Randall Grahm, a revolutionary winemaker from California who has persistently championed this cause. “The lack of interest within the wine sector made our efforts seem even more daunting.”

This year, however, marks a pivotal change. With renewed attempts from regulators to mandate these labels, the surprising twist is the industry’s lack of resistance. This shift is attributed partially to declining wine sales and interest, particularly outside the baby boomer demographic, in conjunction with a surplus of unsold and unharvested grapes. It appears the industry is now willing to experiment with transparency in labeling, hoping it might alleviate some of their financial difficulties.

I can only echo the sentiment that disclosing ingredients in wine is a logical step. It is regrettable, however, that it has taken two decades to reach this conclusion.

The push for ingredient labeling began roughly in 2003 when the Tax and Trade Bureau, part of the U.S. Treasury Department responsible for alcohol regulation, introduced this initiative. Given alcohol oversight falls under their jurisdiction rather than the Food and Drug Administration, they aimed to replicate the clarity seen in grocery staples like ketchup and cream-of-mushroom soup through a comprehensive ingredients listing on alcoholic beverages including wine, beer, and spirits. Michael Kaiser, involved in government affairs with the Wine America trade group, recalls the origin of this regulatory proposal, though details of the exact time seem faded by years.

Was this request unreasonable? According to Jamie Mok, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, it wasn’t. “From a dietitian’s perspective,” she notes, “the goal is to educate and increase awareness about what is in our food so that individuals can make informed decisions about their health.” This may include essential details like sugar content for diabetics or hidden allergens such as eggs and nuts.

However, the backlash in 2003, which generated 34 pages of comments, might make one think the TTB was attempting to reinstate Prohibition. One notable backlash came from the Wine Institute, which argued that nutritional labels were ineffective, pointing out that obesity rates in America had soared despite their introduction in the 1990s. Such a drastic viewpoint essentially suggested discarding the proposal altogether, urging the government to consider “reasonable alternatives.”

The concept of transparency seemed to lose its value here. Grahm believed that the term reasonable was more about excusing winemaking compromises than enhancing product quality. “If winemakers had to disclose all substances used in wine production, the approach to winemaking would likely become more cautious and deliberate,” he argues. “This would not only enhance the general quality of wine but also lead to the production of more unique wines.”

Opponents also argued against ingredient listing, citing problems such as ‘label clutter.’ Winery back labels were already crowded with UPC codes and promotional text; where would nutritional facts and ingredients fit? Indeed, the industry prioritized enticing descriptions like “flavors of gooseberry and lychee nuts” over conveying nutritional data.

My preferred strategy for discussion? Wine, consumed purely for enjoyment, doesn’t necessitate informational labels! This idea stems from a viewpoint expressed in a 2014 article by two lawyers in a trade magazine that no longer exists. This argument, known as the “Wine Is Art” claim, suggests that wine should be treated differently from other consumer products, warranting an exemption from typical labeling requirements. As reported in a 2019 study, it was found that consumers felt uncertain and bewildered about ingredient disclosures on wine, which in turn, diminished its perceived naturalness.

The wine industry did have some reasonable worries, however. It was unclear how the TTB would manage to regulate labeling on imported wines, which make up about 40 percent of the wine sold in the U.S. Crucially, the requirement for annual label updates due to vintage changes could be economically draining for the approximately 11,000 small wineries across the country. While the biggest 100 wineries, responsible for 90 percent of U.S. wine production, wouldn’t be significantly impacted financially, a tiny winery producing merely 500 to 1,000 cases annually could incur considerable costs if required to update labels yearly.

Not to be overlooked were the objections from the beer and spirits sectors, particularly from craft beer producers. These producers were against listing calorie content because hop-rich craft beers can contain up to 50 percent more calories than standard beers. They also contested the TTB’s method for determining serving sizes based on alcohol content; the higher the alcohol percentage, the smaller the deemed serving size. Most beers hold about 5 percent alcohol, yet craft brews can have much higher alcohol levels. Craft beer makers resisted the idea that a single bottle of their 9 percent alcohol beer might count as two servings, contrasting with mainstream beers of similar size being considered a single serving.

Hence, the proposal remained just a proposal until 2016.

When the TTB introduced a rule permitting optional labeling, a select few international beer and spirits manufacturers adopted it, but the bulk of wine producers chose to disregard it. This decision led to two outcomes: firstly, Kaiser of the Wine America group declared the matter resolved, with those desiring labels free to use them, while others could maintain the status quo. Secondly, individuals like Grahm believed this signaled the conclusion of mandatory labeling initiatives.

However, subsequent developments over the next few years prompted the TTB to reconsider its stance, with the two leading wine industry organizations eventually offering their backing. In 2022, three consumer advocacy organizations, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, initiated a lawsuit against the Treasury Department to enforce the implementation of alcohol labeling proposed in the early 2000s. While legal experts were divided on the lawsuit’s potential success, the action signaled to groups like Wine America the substantial consumer interest in labeling. Kaiser noted, “All market research indicates that consumers desire this. We just need to find a method that introduces labels without economically straining the industry.”

The European Union offers an example, having mandated ingredient and nutrition labeling by the end of 2023, a regulation that also applies to U.S. wines sold within its borders. To alleviate the financial burden on smaller wineries, the EU adopted a UPC code system that links to a winery’s website. This code remains the same across vintages, allowing wineries to update label information online, thus eliminating the need for new print runs.

But perhaps the most important event is the 2-year-old—and still-going-strong—wine slump and what appears to be little enthusiasm among younger cohorts for red, white, or anything else. Mok says those younger consumers prefer ingredient transparency, especially for things like added sugar and nonvegetarian ingredients. Not surprisingly, two urban myths have emerged in the past decade or so, directly related to the lack of labels: that wine is full of added sugar, when, in fact, most of the sugar disappears during fermentation; and that wine uses animal products for filtering, when almost all wine is filtered through a gravel-like product called bentonite.

So where are we today? How soon can you expect to see a proper label on your favorite bottle? The TTB has outlined a process to first add fact boxes and allergen warnings, followed by ingredient labels. It includes a period for public comment as well as what are called listening sessions, during which TTB staff can talk to producers about the proposal. The timeline is vague, says Kaiser—maybe by the end of 2025, maybe longer. And it could also change depending on the results of the presidential election in November; a GOP victory could further slow the process.

For those of us who have been waiting two decades for labels, this isn’t the best news. But a process is more than we’ve had, and as long as we keep the process moving, we can get the change we want—and that the wine business needs. Just think: In a few years, you might be able to gaze into your evening glass and fully appreciate what’s in there—lovingly harvested grapes, fish bladder derivatives, and so much more besides.