Fuel for thought

WHy DID cOMMunItIeS protest against the Mosel Bridge, the building of the A62 motorway through the Sauternes appellation, and now protest the proposed building of a tar production plant within the chablis appellation? It cannot be just the ‘blot on the landscape’ factor. Important though that is, I think that airborne pollution from construction dust and emissions, and then the relentless burden of future vehicle exhaust particulates that comes with them, are more serious issues.

It is well known that smoke taint from a forest fire can be present in a finished wine. I have tasted this at well above (at least my) sensory threshold in, for example, a DOP cariñena. My query is, if wood smoke, or for that matter eucalyptus oil in some Australian cuvées, can enter the final product, then why not vehicle exhaust particulates?

When one sees well-known european vineyards within view of busy roadways and towns, one does wonder what level and types of contamination might be occurring – and its effect on finished wine. Is there research that has addressed this particular issue? If this type of contamination does occur, then it is unlikely to have a neutral effect on grape-growing and wine production, surely?

And then I wonder about a possible link to minerality, a term that seems to have made an appearance in the 1970s and early ’80s.

It has been used to differentiate one wine from another, directly through geological type – ie, the taste of slate, granite, limestone (rather than the subtleties of the effects of a particular geology, such as temperature retention or solar reflection). I can’t help wondering whether there may be a relationship between burgeoning traffic flows since the 1970s, and some aspects of so-called minerality – for example, smokiness, a lack of fruitiness, and sulphurous notes? David Baker, Nottingham, UK