http://www.aglinenews.com

" I heard it
through the
AgLine"

 

December 8, 2011

 

 

·       Yo Bitch! Wine not minding its manners

·       Navy’s steep price for non-food biofuel

·       Debugging Monsanto’s bug concerns

·       Feds award $10.4M in food safety grants

·       Deforestation code aids Brazil’s ag frontier

 

 

Yo Bitch! Wine not minding its manners

 

(The New York Times) – IT’S peppery and full of fight. The tannins have grip. The nose takes no prisoners. This shiraz is a bitch.

 

It says so on the label. Royal Bitch is the name of the wine, one of a teeming sisterhood of cabernets and chardonnays from a variety of producers with labels like Sassy Bitch, Jealous Bitch, Tasty Bitch and Sweet Bitch. They’re reinforcements for a growing army of rude, budget-priced wines that have shoved their way into wine stores and supermarkets in the past few years — most recently Happy Bitch, a Hudson Valley rosé that made its debut last month.

 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, an agency of the Treasury Department, approves about 120,000 applications for wine labels every year. Most names are traditional, often genteel, especially at the lower price points. It’s natural for a chardonnay or cabernet priced below $15 or even $10 to buff the image a bit. Woodbridge, Coastal Estates and Turning Leaf could be suburban subdivisions.

 

Then there are the others. Wines like the Ball Buster, a beefy shiraz-cabernet-merlot blend from the Barossa Valley in Australia. Or BigAss Red, from Milano Family Winery in California. Or Stench, an Australian sparkler from R Winery, the company that collaborated with the American importer Dan Philips of the Grateful Palate in 2004 to get the postfeminist ball rolling with a grenache named, simply, Bitch.

 

Like a slap across the face, Bitch grabbed the attention of a certain type of consumer, primarily young women en route to a bachelorette or divorce party, or looking for a special way to say, “I love you” on Mother’s Day.

 

“They can buy it and say, ‘Here, bitch, I bought you a present,’ ” said John F. Umbach, the owner of Joseph Victori Wines, which distributes Royal Bitch and Sweet Bitch.

 

Chatham Imports sensed the appeal of an irreverent women’s drink in 2005 when one of its distributors developed a promotional rum cocktail called Jealous Bitch and shopped it around, diffidently, to bars and nightclubs. The sales representatives were a little nervous about how the name might go over. But young women loved it, and the company developed a wine to match the name.

 

“The thing is, if you come out with a conservative label, it’s hard to separate yourself from the herd on the shelf,” Mr. Umbach said. “The competition is just brutal.”

 

The competition is especially keen at the lower end of the market, where winemakers clamor for the attention of consumers looking for a drinkable chardonnay or cabernet for under $20.

 

For years, winemakers and marketers have been frantically popularizing their products, shedding the chateau image and embracing a blue-collar beer aesthetic. Last year, the top-selling wine brand in the United States was Barefoot. The label shows not a stately mansion among the vines, but the footprint of one of the winery’s former owners.

 

That irreverence reflects an evolution in the cultural presentation of wine that the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art mapped in the recent exhibition “How Wine Became Modern: Design and Wine 1976 to Now.” Traditionally, wine labels were purely informational. “Around 1980, however — earlier in the New World, somewhat later in Europe — labels became surfaces for communication, projecting a brand identity for the wine and trying to reach a target audience,” said Henry Urbach, an architectural curator who organized the exhibition with the architects Diller Scofidio & Renfro.

 

Casual became cheeky. Now, cheeky has given way to saucy. In 2005, Brandever Strategy, a Vancouver brand consultancy, was hired by Scherzinger Estates, a sleepy winery in British Columbia, to create a new image and name. It came up with Dirty Laundry Vineyard — an allusion to a Chinese laundry and bordello that flourished nearby during the gold rush era.

 

“Your immediate reaction is, this is not a good name for a wine, but that’s why it is a good name,” said Bernie Hadley-Beauregard, a principal in Brandever. “It has a scratchy hook to it.”

 

Highway workers posted a new sign along the local wine route. Traffic into the winery increased tenfold. “The owner called me and said, ‘We haven’t done any advertising, but suddenly we’re the toast of the Okanagan Valley.’ ”

 

The newer, racier-sounding wines are unlikely to displace Barefoot, but they all chase the same dream. On the golden horizon, they see Fat Bastard, a line of wines from the Languedoc-Roussillon region that was introduced in the United States in 1998.

 

Imported by Peter Click of Click Wine Group, the line sold just over 2,000 cases at $10 a bottle in its first year. By 2004, Fat Bastard was selling 425,000 cases, making it one of the most popular French wines in the United States.

 

The other wines do not come close to those numbers, but they have their little niche. Jim Knight, a salesman and buyer at the Wine House in Los Angeles, which stocks about 7,000 labels, says he sells about five cases of Bitch and the Ball Buster every month. “We carry them because people ask for them,” he said. “They’re good wines that people can give with a smile on their face.”

 

John Gorman, the vice president of sales and marketing at Southern Starz, which imports the Ball Buster, said, “The wine makes its way to a lot of lawyers from their clients.”

 

Under the rules of the federal alcohol bureau, labels cannot contain incorrect or misleading information, disparage a competitor’s product, or have a statement or image that is obscene or indecent. But the agency routinely gives the go-ahead for tasteless or risqué labels, which was not always the case.

 

“It’s actually a good place to see the cultural fault lines shift,” said Robert C. Lehrman, whose company, Lehrman Beverage Law, advises clients on government regulations. “Because of a series of commercial speech decisions, not many things are off limits anymore.”

 

Winemakers have some way to go before equaling the shock value of Jersey’s Toxic Waste, a specialty spirit. But the bitch category may yield dividends. Take Rae-Jean Beach, a blended white wine. (The name needs to be said aloud.) She’s got a husband, a zinfandel. Sorry, but the name is not printable here.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Navy’s steep price for non-food biofuel

 

(FoxNews.com) – The departments of Agriculture and the Navy announced plans Monday to buy 450,000 gallons of non-food biofuels -- at a cost of $16 per gallon -- in what will be the largest federal purchase of biofuels in U.S. history.

 

The purchase is being authorized by an executive order under the Obama administration's "we can't wait" campaign.

 

Administration officials gave no indication why they're not going through Congress, instead using a program that was established to promote rapid job growth by bypassing congressional debate.

 

Two companies will participate in the program -- Louisiana-based Dynamic Fuels, a joint venture of Tyson foods and Syntroleum Corp, which makes biofuel from used cooking oil; and California based Solazyme, which makes fuel from algae.

 

Administration officials say the aim is to promote the use of biofuels, to reduce dependence on unstable sources of foreign oil and reduce budget shocks from oil price hikes.

 

The fuel will power planes and the surface ships of the "Great Green Fleet Carrier Strike Force" in summer 2012 exercises off Hawaii. The carrier itself is nuclear-powered.

 

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the Navy's led the way in power innovation -- from sail to coal, coal to diesel, diesel to nuclear, and now to biofuel. Aircraft and ships will use a 50-50 blend of biofuel and conventional fuel.

 

The demonstration project is aimed at commercial aviation as well as the Defense Department. Commercial aviation uses 12 billion to 13 billion gallons of fuel a year and officials say biofuel blends or substitutes would be more easily distributed through 30 to 40 airports than trying to distribute it through auto gas stations to offset gasoline use by drivers.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Debugging Monsanto’s bug concerns

 

(The Motley Fool) – By Neha Chamaria: Monsanto's (NYSE: MON  ) genetically modified corn seeds have become the talk of the town, for not-so-pleasant reasons, unfortunately.

 

There's been lots of news lately about bugs hitting Monsanto's pest-resistant seeds, raising doubts in investors' minds and even putting the stock under some pressure. But is it such a big cause for concern? I don't really think so. Here's why.

 

What is bugging Monsanto?

Monsanto's genetically modified, pest-resistant corn seeds came to life way back in 2003. Things were smooth until reports surfaced a few months back about several acres of corn in Iowa being affected by a bug.

 

And now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suspects rootworms in four states to have developed tolerance to insecticides. All this has Monsanto entangled in a web of questions over its debugging technology. So what is Monsanto doing now?

 

Is it so serious?

Monsanto seems to be taking the EPA reviews seriously and is working with researchers to understand things. The company has also outlined some tips and recommendations for farmers for the next season. Among these is an idea to switch to Monsanto's SmartStax products, which offer higher insect protection.

 

I find this impressive -- the smart trick of using the bug issue to promote important products. These SmartStax products have impressed the EPA, too. This is why the EPA extended the registration of two of these products last month. This very move suggests how the entire bug concern may not be as serious as it is being projected.

 

What can Monsanto lose?

While Monsanto gets bugged, other players who are in the seeds and herbicides business could gain.

 

Peers like DuPont (NYSE: DD  ) and Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW  ) , which offer similar genetically modified seeds, may take this opportunity to push their products harder. So far, DuPont's pest-resistant corn, developed with Dow, hasn't faced any issues. During its last quarter, DuPont also won approval for two new insect-protection products targeted at U.S. corn growers.

 

However, it isn't a death knell for Monsanto's corn seeds. One, it is the world's largest seed company. And two, demand for genetically modified feeds is growing globally, especially in emerging markets.

 

Global gains

Monsanto is betting big on emerging markets, especially the Latin American nations of Brazil and Argentina. In fact, corn accounted for the highest sales in Monsanto's largest segment, seeds and genomics, in its fourth quarter as demand in this region rose.

 

How fruitful these markets could be can also be gauged from peer Syngenta's (NYSE: SYT  ) optimism. Last month, it received approval to sell its genetically modified corn seeds in Argentina after launching them successfully in Brazil.

 

A rise in global demand should keep Monsanto's top line fertile.

 

The Foolish bottom line

You should be concerned if a company shows signs of slowing down when faced with problems. Fortunately, that's not the case with Monsanto. In its last quarter, Monsanto's numbers beat Street estimates, in spite of the bug concern.

 

Monsanto's confidence in its products is evident from the 17 new blended seed corn products it has lined up next year. Monsanto might just have to buck up its research and technology to deal with all the criticism. Besides that, I do not see any problems with this four-star ranked company that should scare you away.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Feds award $10.4M in food safety grants

 

EAST LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Wednesday it had awarded 17 grants totaling $10.4 million for university research projects designed to boost food safety at a time when millions of Americans get food-borne illnesses each year.

 

The funds are being divided among universities in 13 states, Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan said during a visit to Michigan State University, a recipient of three grants. One of the studies there will look for better ways to prevent harmful pathogens from contaminating packages of ready-to-eat, fresh-cut produce.

 

"Primarily, we expect that the research and education spurred by these grants will find solutions to some pressing food safety issues," Merrigan said. "Additionally, we want to help American consumers, restaurant employees and teachers put new food safety principles into practice."

 

The grants were made through the National Integrated Food Safety Initiative, which deals with food safety issues across the spectrum, beginning with production on the farm and including processing, distribution, and selection and preparation. The institute's programs combine university research with education of consumers, food service workers and others.

 

A $1.8 million grant to Michigan State University will support the project designed to develop the best possible packaging systems for fresh-cut produce and detect practices that increase the risk of contamination.

 

Another project, awarded $542,824, will look for ways to reduce the risk of salmonella contamination of low-moisture foods such as flour and peanut butter.

 

Other studies will focus on safety of eggs, meats and canned foods.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Deforestation code to aid Brazil’s ag frontier

 

Sao Paulo, Brazil (CNN) -- Brazil's Senate passed a controversial forestry bill late Tuesday, supported by ranchers and farmers but opposed by many environmental activists.

 

Supporters say the legislation will help cut carbon emissions and establish more realistic deforestation rules in what has become Brazil's fast-growing agricultural frontier.

 

After a long debate, senators voted 59 to 7 to approve the legislation.

 

The new "forest code" now returns to the lower house for approval and then must be signed by the president.

 

The bill reduces the percentage of land that farmers and ranchers must maintain as forest when they develop it. It also establishes an amnesty for some past illegal deforestation.

 

Critics say it will encourage developers to continue to illegally cut down the Amazon forest while supporters say it brings the country's legal framework in line with reality.

 

In recent years, private ranchers and growers as well as the government have invested millions to expand soybean and beef production and build massive hydroelectric dams in the region.

 

"Brazil has to take care of the environment, but at the same time it also has a responsibility to feed the world," Senator Jorge Viana said in a statement released by a pro-legislation lobby.

 

Brazil is the world's No. 1 beef exporter and second biggest soy exporter.

 

On Monday, Brazil announced that deforestation in the Amazon had fallen to a record low for the third straight year, providing more support for the forest code.

 

Under the approved rules, developers will still be required to preserve some land as forest and replant other areas, thus helping cut carbon emissions.

 

But stricter limits and fines have been stripped out of it.

 

Environmentalists say that changes to the decades-old regulations on deforestation were necessary, but that the amnesties granted in this bill are excessive.

 

Greenpeace Brasil called it a "Day of Shame."

 

It is expected to land on the desk of President Dilma Rousseff early next year. It could prove a challenge for the new leader, who has supported development initiatives in the region, but who must also placate left-wing environmentalists in her coalition.

Return to Top

 

End Transmission