Defining cider

[Dougal]

A recent thread on fruit ciders has got me thinking about how to define cider and protect that brand.  I realise that this has been discussed ad nausium before.

 

The wine industry has grape wine pretty well defined.  Most countries use the 85% rule (USA is 75%) which means that in order to specify a grape variety, geographical region or vintage, 85% of the grapes must fit those definitions.  In other words, a 2011 Malborough Sauvignon Blanc must be made of 85% SB grapes from the 2011 vintage grown in Malborough.  If only 80% of the 2011 SB grapes came from Malborough, then it would have to be called 2011 New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc.

 

The wine industry's objectives are slightly different from those of cider.  They mostly make by variety while we mostly make by style.  However, I don't see why the 85% rule cannot be used; a cider must be made from at least 85% apple juice (or concentrate which, when reconstituted, makes up at least 85% of the cider).  This means that anything being cut by more than 15% would have to be defined as apple / fruit wine.

 

The only other juice component allowed is pear for cider and apple for perry, the two having a long history of being traditionally mixed from time to time.  This means that fruit 'cider' would have to be redefined as fruit wine.

 

Another thought is that the maximum fermentable alcohol for cider at any time must be less than, say, 9%.  This allows for whole juice fermentations of up to about 16 brix apple juice.  This means that anything fermented to 12% and cut with water would have to be redefined as apple / fruit wine.

 

How is that to be policed?  In New Zealand, the Wine Act 2005 requires wine makers (grape, cider, fruit) to keep accurate records.  These are randomly checked by verifiers acting for the Ministry of Primary Industries.  A scientific analysis is not required to prove that the grapes in the 2011 Mlb SB were grown in Malborough.  However, grape receival records are checked and the wine movements, additions and processes need to be able to be accurately followed from harvest to sale and traced from package to harvest.  There is no reason why the same cannot happen for cider.  For example, how much water is required to reconstitute 70% apple juice concentrate?  How much extra water would take the cider beyond the 85% threshold?  Do the records show this has happened?  What additions have been used in the cider making?  Are they allowable under the Wine Act (which provides appendices on allowable inputs)?

 

I understand that my thoughts above will not go far enough to please the cider purists.  They will certainly not please the commercial white cider producers who would be renamed apple / fruit wine producers.  But they do go some way, using grape wine as a precedent, for ensuring that "cider" is made from mostly apple juice and contains little other flavouring.  Surely that's a good start?

 

[richard marlborough]

too true

 

--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining and posting to the Cider Workshop, you have agreed to abide by our rules, and principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
 
To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/cider-workshop?hl=en

[David Llewellyn]

Dougle, it has been, and remains, my feeling that until something along the lines of what you’re arguing for is adopted, and enforced, and made clear to the consumer, ‘real’ cider will remain perpetually stifled and little more than niche. As I’ve said before, imagine what would happen to ‘real’ wine if suddenly ‘wine makers’ were permitted to sell a ‘fake’ water-and-additive-based ‘wine’ as actual wine. And if ingredient labelling were not mandatory (as we have with cider), and modern food and beverage technology enabled a very ‘good’ and palatable imitation to be produced (as we have with cider), and the fake could be produced at a fraction of the cost of ‘real 100% grape wine’ (as we have with cider)? Is it not likely that gradually over time, as the ‘fake’ becomes established and accepted, the ‘real’ will begin to struggle, eventually resulting in decline of vineyard acreages, and the ‘real’ wine producers having to agonise and endeavour to educate the consumer as to why they should be paying maybe double the price for their ‘real’ product, just as makers of ‘real’ cider have to do now?

 

As to the naming of  the products, maybe something along the lines of ‘Cider containing drink/beverage’, as in the differenciation of ‘juice’ versus ‘juice drink’. Using the term ‘fruit wine’ etc is maybe demeaning of the word ‘wine’! Fat chance, I know, of that kind of thing getting adopted, but I, for one, do believe that is where it needs to go.

 

David Llewellyn

 

---

--

[jez....@btinternet.com]

Interesting question, and also a very hot topic!!

I quite like the Cider Workshops definition... I know, I am biased - but I didn't do the work on that... Some award collecting scientist was the primary on it... If memory serves!?

I have been concerned recently with the CAMRA support of the 'beer duty' campaign. Having asked, and asked again, and even cajoled a little, they will not publicly state that the campaign will not expose some kind of cider vs beer pay off (which the beer representing organisations involved are calling for). And this is partly due to an inability to nail a clear cider definition that demonstrates a deep understanding of what it is about cider that CAMRA support. Let's face it, they don't even know the true difference in duty between the two - I have had SIBA's daft figures quoted back to me twice now!

However, it has had me reflecting on this, and I come back to our own definition - I would be content with seeing the juice content requirement doubled to 70% for the industry. I know this flies against many of the NACM members, whom I have no quarrel. But it may serve as an encouragement to some to re-raise their juice content and also provide a distinction legally from the commodity ciders.

As a producer of 98+% juice content cider it wouldn't worry me (though at sub 7hl it isn't currently an issue.) Taking this step would satisfy what the 'beeries' seem to be publicly demanding (or else may just force them to take the step of actually announcing they are anti-cider), protect those making full juice cider and also limit the amount of non apple/pear content... I think

Please note this is my own perspective and not a 'group' statement. I am also not encouraging the group to become politicised on a topic. But I think the definition of cider is a bit too wishy washy generally (both legally in terms of duty and by those who think they are bastions of cider) and this is doing us no favours currently.

Or am I simplifying things too much?

Jez
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2

[Dougal]

The defining piece of NZ legislation for grape wine is provided by the Wine Act: "the product of the complete or partial fermentation of fresh grapes, or a mixture of that product and products derived solely from grapes" (my emphasis in bold).

 

Cider is defined under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Standard 2.7.3) as "fruit wine prepared from the juice or must of apples and no more than 25% of the juice or must of pears".  So far so good, except the word "solely" is missing.

 

It then goes on to add (2) "fruit wine ... may contain - (a) fruit juice and fruit juice products ... (c) sugars ... (e) spices ... (g) water".  And there opens the door to berries, ginger and excess water!

[Rick]

Agree, Dougal. Defining "cider" may be tough to do now, but it'll only get harder as the category grows, and since (especially in the US) a majority of folks are unclear on what cider is, the timing will never be better. 

David's comment on the wine market provides compelling reasons to work to define the category, as well-defined expectations by consumers help support commensurate expectations on pricing - providing greater basis (and opportunity) for higher pricing. Conversely, consumers that may read about and give "cider" a try are today likely to experience something significantly different that what most of us consider to be representative of what true apple cider can be - and as a result, will either set their expectations to match that type of product or never come back to the beverage. 

Definitions don't have to happen at an agency level (although it would be nice, I'd see it as politically unlikely). But I could see it happening among existing or emerging cider associations. Our own regional association, the NWCA, has so far avoided defining the category - something I've always marveled at. How can any organization hope to sustain long-term support and success without defining what it is that it's promoting? For that matter, how can a product build and retain value without establishing - at least in the consumer's mind - what it truly is? 

FWIW, a new national cider maker's group (see http://ciderconference.com/cider-association-formation/) is now being considered in the US, which, at least per draft language, plans to refer to the US TTB (Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau) definition (see http://www.ttb.gov/forms_tutorials/glossary/glossary.html). It's a great start, though I'd personally urge them to consider refining the language further, at least regarding the 7% ABV threshold. 

The category has momentum. Here's opportunity. Here's hoping. 

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Dougal wrote:
> A recent thread on fruit ciders has got me thinking about how to define
> cider and protect that brand.  I realise that this has been discussed ad
> nausium before.

Possibly part of the solution would be as the Spanish have done. They
have defined a "Sidra de Asturias" DOP (Denominacion de Origen
Protegida), which is similar to an "Appellation controlée" of the
French for wines. With this, for a cider to bear the denominacion,
some stringent rules have to be followed, including the varieties, of
which only 22 are approved - this eliminates de facto any use of
imported concentrate. Needless to say, the way the cider is made is
also controlled and if you buy a sidra de asturias, you are sure to
get a true craft cider made from natural juice.

For the first time this year, we had some Spanish ciders at CiderDays
at the salon, and I must say they pleased me very much.
Claude

[greg l.]

The main reason wine producing countries are strict about the
definition of wine is employment and regional development. The wine
industry is a big employer in areas where employment would otherwise
be difficult, and contributes a lot to tourism which is also a big
employer. Because of this wine gets tax breaks and other incentives,
in Australia it is the tax office which defines wine, and cider rides
the wine industry's coattails. If cider producers make too much of the
English style white cider they would lose their tax break and be
classified as alcopop, which is what the white cider really is.
Craft cider producers in the UK could push the regional development
aspects of full-juice cider, there would be a lot more jobs if they
replaced that water with apples grown in England.

Greg

[Dougal]

I also wonder how the commercial producers would hold up under NZ's Fair Trading Act 1986?  The guts of the Act is to prohibit "misleading or deceptive conduct, false representations and unfair practices".

 

Surely, selling a product as cider that is 65% water and fermented sugars to a public that is expecting a product made from fermented apple juice is a false representation or misleading conduct?

 

Surely, calling a mostly-water-and-sugar product "cider" and competing commercially with producers of 100% apple, traditional cider is an unfair practice?

[David Llewellyn]

Is it not the problem, that we don’t have that protected definition (as with grape wine), that true cider is simply fermented apple juice, therefore legally its not deception, even though we all know that it is deception. Comes right back to the need to differentiate true cider from stuff which should legally not be permitted to be called cider.

 

---

From: cider-w...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cider-w...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dougal

Sent: 12 November 2012 23:30
To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com

--

[Trevor FitzJohn]

But cider in UK and certainly in France has and is sometimes blended with pear. Depending on the proportion it is called Cider or Perry. Calvados again has both fruits in it. I think any definition should recognise the role pears have played in the Cider story although dominated by apples. Saying that no other fruits or fruit juices should be included.

[Dougal]

Agreed, Trevor.

 

The current definition under the ANZ Food Standards Code allows for up to 25% pear juice / must.  I think that is sound in that it captures a common historical practice.  The problem is that a 75:25 apple-pear blend can then be blended down to 35% with water and called cider.  Grape wine legislation only allows sufficient water to mix permitted additives.  I think that, given agreement that cider can be diluted 10% without discernable taste deterioration, the addition of water should be regulated to no more than 10%.  That would take care of sugar-wine 'cider'.

 

I think that the current ANZFSC definition could be enforced to ensure that any fruit / vegetable / spice additives to cider, other than pear, means that the product has to be labelled "fruit wine" and not "cider".  That would take care of flavoured 'cider'.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from the powers that be ...

[Trevor FitzJohn]

Yes that sounds fine. I would be of the view that adding water should only be for reducing alcohol content to the prescribed bands to allow for variation year to year. And apple concentrate etc should not be used. ie 100% freshly pressed apple juice. Perhaps that should be defined as craft cider. I would also like to see the region on the label as per wine. It is the mixture of cider cultivars and the "terrior" of the locale that defines flavour.

[David Llewellyn]

Dougal, what are the excise duty levels in NZ with wine and cider? Is indigenous wine taxed in the same way as imported wine?

 

---

From: cider-w...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cider-w...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dougal
Sent: 13 November 2012 00:46
To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Cider Workshop] Re: Defining cider

 

Agreed, Trevor.

--

[Dougal]

1.15 - 2.5%             $0.43 / L

2.5 - 6%                 $0.67 - $1.62 / L ($0.27 / L alc)

6 - 9%                    $2.21 / L

9 - 14%                  $2.76 / L

 

You can see the incentive to throw water at cider to keep it under 6%; authentic cider at 7 - 8% gets penalised quite heavily.  (Another project for another day ...)

 

Indigenous cider is levied at the same rates as imported cider.

[Trevor FitzJohn]

And there is no small volume production exempt limit that is tax "free" either for craft producers. You start paying tax on the first litre. Cheers trevor

[Dougal]

I have mixed thoughts on concentrate, Trevor.  The realist in me suggests that using concentrate should be permittable for the big guys who wish to have year round production (so long as it is at least 90% juice cider).  Such production is a good use of capital equipment (100,000L made in four batches requires one quarter of the tank space).  I can understand that from an economic and marketing point of view.  However, I believe that if 100% apple juice is concentrated for reconstitution at a later date it should have to be reconstituted to the original brix.  The decision to concentrate and reconstitute may well impact on flavour ... and that is the opportunity cost that the cider maker has to consider.  (I should state that I am a whole juice man, in case you are wondering).

 

Here I am thinking of the wider definition of "cider" (one the public probably expects to be fermented apple juice) and not "craft cider" or "real cider" which has a more purist definition.

[David Llewellyn]

Very interesting. In Ireland it is a much more dramatic penalty for authentic cider over 6%. 2.8-6.0%ABV flat rate €0.66/l (NZ$1.0); 6.0-8.5%ABV flat rate €1,52/l (NZ$2.25/l) At least you seem to have a sliding scale.

 

---

--

[Alexander Peckham]

Good evening,

Getting official support for a sensible definition of cider is just dreams I fear.   The upsurge in interest in cider is just too tempting for the corporate brewers who have no interest in anything other than profit.  The ingredients in my cider cost me about ten times more than the apple wine based ciders that live off the waste products of the culinary apple industry.  The vested interests are too big for anything to change.   The problem is that most of the industrial ciders are not good enough to keep interest in cider going long term.   Another cycle begins as a generation is put off by overindulgence on cheap cider ; " I remember getting drunk on cider as a teenager - haven't drunk it since" ... you know the line.

Like wine, cider should be 100% juice and excise rates should be based on the alcohol levels expected from ripe fruit.   That would help build a quality and durable cider sector.  Here in NZ proper cidermaking has no powerful champion.

On another tack - and sticking my head above the parapet - I do make some fruit flavoured cider.   These ciders are not a new phenomena according to Ted Bruning in his "Golden Fire".  My berry ciders are 100% juice.   I press all my own berries.   Agreed that fruit flavoured white ciders are RTDs but a 100% juice berry cider is another beast.   Anyone who has pressed berries will know how fantastic pure berry juice is.

Cheers,  Alex

[Cheshire Matt]

Disagree for the following reasons.

Small producers are not able to get the cost economies of scale the big
boys can. That means that my cider would permanently be more expensive,
despite being of a notional similar quality.

The result would mean not being able to sell as much to the
price-concious pubs, (ie hear breweries are having to sell at �25 to
pubs in some areas and are closing as a result) Any small margin I earn
would be insufficient to make it worthwhile at the scale I operate at.

Result: we lose the great variety of small scale craft cider making
that's grown up over the past 5 years.

Without some moderation to a directly proportional sliding scale at the
lower volume end of production, excise rates based solely on alcohol
will do the opposite and kill off the quality cider sector.

Alexander Peckham wrote:
>
> ... excise rates should be based on the alcohol levels expected from

[Alexander Peckham]

Hi Matt,

Of course you are right in the UK context.  I was referring to the NZ excise regime which taxes cider over 6% at a significantly higher rate.  If we could have the UK excise setup here that would be even better.

Cheers,

Alex

[Cheshire Matt]

It's more the worry the NZ regime comes to the UK in view of the current
debate started by the brewers and beer duty!

[Dougal]

I'm still trying to get my head around what commercial 'cider' should be called ... not that it's really our problem.

 

It's not a fruit wine because a fruit wine is the "complete or partial fermentation of fruit".  The other stuff is the fermentation mostly of sugars.

 

It's almost like mead, which is diluted honey that is then fermented.  But, of course, it does not contain honey, and after fermentation it is then cut with water.  So it's not mead (or more precisely, melomel, which is mead containing fruit juice or infused with fruit).

 

Possibly it may be called "white cider", but that's still a slight on cider.  Maybe it will have to rely on brand names alone and compete in the RTD market where it really belongs.

[Trevor FitzJohn]

If commercial cider has any passing association to apples then it will be called cider by the big players just as the word  "wine" is used and abused over the years. Its how it is further defined that matters. "Craft Cider" could be a useful term. Alternatively geographic definition as well as defining the "terrior" and potential apple cultivar has the added value of excluding cider with concentrate. One can hardly hope to use  a county or regional descriptor when the concentrate is sourced from China where most is from! Cheers trevor

[Dougal]

I have to say that, in New Zealand, the word "wine", particularly where it is used to mean "grape wine" is clearly defined and closely policed.  The problem is cider is ambiguously defined and has not been policed.

 

Grape wine is characterised by being mostly made by varieties or varietal blends.  Hence, a syrah must be made of at least 85% syrah grapes to be labelled syrah.  Likewise a cabernet merlot must be made of at least 85% cabernet sauvignon and merlot grapes, with the cab sauv grapes being the largest portion.  Where a syrah from Hawke's Bay can be compared from a syrah from Hunter Valley it pays to have regional desciptors as part of the labelling requirements.

 

However, cider tends to be made by style not variety.  Most ciders are blends of many apple cultivars, and single varieties, I suggest, make up a small volume of cider produced.  More pertinent, though, comparing a blend from one region to a blend from another is pretty meaningless unless exactly the same varieties are used in the same proportions.  I can therefore understand why region of origin is not a mandatory labelling requirement for cider.  There is nothing to stop a producer adding their region on the label and for single varieties that might be a good marketing point.

 

I also fail to see how regional descriptors will affect made-from-concentrate cider.  I have been told that Bulmers is made in Gisborne from a lot of Hawke's Bay apple concentrate.  There is nothing to stop Bulmers calling their product 'Hawke's Bay Harvest Cider'.  The way to cut made-from-concentrate cider out is to more closely align the ingredients in Appendix 2 of the two NZ Codes of Practice; Grape wine allows only sufficient water to mix additions, while Fruit wine, Cider, Mead has no minimum defined.  This is probably because honey must be heavily diluted to make mead and, in a Code of Practice that covers more than one type of 'wine', that affects the allowable ingredients for cider.

 

Personally, I don't see why 100% ciders should have to change their name to position themselves apart from apple liquor / white cider.  'Real' / 'Authentic' / 'Traditional' / 'Craft' cider makers make cider in the widely understood, historical definition of the word.  Let the sugar-water producers change their product name! 

 

I think there is enough in the NZ legislation to amend the situation.  Following up the name tree, the best I can see white cider makers being able to claim is the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 No 63 definition: "liquor" (e.g. "apple liquor").  Whether that will be enforced, we will have to wait and see ... 

[David Llewellyn]

Dougal wrote:

“Personally, I don't see why 100% ciders should have to change their name to position themselves apart from apple liquor / white cider.  'Real' / 'Authentic' / 'Traditional' / 'Craft' cider makers make cider in the widely understood, historical definition of the word.  Let the sugar-water producers change their product name!” 

 

Precisely!

What is the situation in countries which have more strict laws about naming and selling of cider? Is it not true that in France for example, also Germany, that sugar-water based ‘ciders’ are not permitted to be called cider?? Anyone know the truth about how it works in such places?

 

David Llewellyn

[Raymond Blockley]

On a (sort of) parallel note...

 

I had a phone call from BBC Radio Nottingham yesterday asking for some information about "fruit ciders" as they'd picked up the current hype and reported "record breaking sales" of this stuff. The chap was a bit put out when I said I didn't make any of these "fruit ciders" and that IMHO they were not advancing the cause of true quality real cider / perry making.

 

However, this chap is someone I've been interviewed by a few times and he is keen to learn - so we chatted for some 40 mins and I carefully explained the difference between "Made Wine" alcopops such as *most* of these fruit ciders, HMRC's position (ie not bothered providing they pay the correct duty level), CAMRA's position (ie currently (hopefully permanently) anti), and the position of most true craft makers of real cider who see these low-juice-content sweet glucose-wine alcopops as having sod-all to do with real cider / perry.   

 

We got onto the current low-juice content for "cider" to carry the label "cider" and the need for some form of other name for these things or ingredients labelling that flags up what they are and allows the consumer to make an informed choice.

 

Cheers, Ray.

--

Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining and posting to the Cider Workshop, you have agreed to abide by our rules, and principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
 
To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/cider-workshop?hl=en

--
Ray B