From Die Burger, 26 June 2026
Although South African winemakers are currently producing the finest wines in the country’s history, the same level of expertise is, unfortunately, not shared by the industry bodies responsible for the regulations and legislation these highly skilled and respected producers are required to follow. A recent spate of absurd decisions emanating from the country’s wine authorities should serve to illustrate this point to anyone still in doubt.
The first concerns the production of wine from old vineyards, a category that has captured the imagination of both local and international wine lovers over the past decade. South Africa is blessed with an abundance of mature vineyards whose age and accumulated experience are key factors in producing distinctive wines of character.
Producers who make wine from these veteran vineyards are entirely justified in drawing attention to this fact on their bottles. “Old Vine” or “Old Vines” frequently appears on labels, or “Ou Wingerd” in Afrikaans, alongside the usual vintage, cultivar, region and other required information.
This year, however, the country’s wine authorities have decided to interfere with this long-established practice. The Afrikaans term Ou Wingerd remains acceptable. But producers using English on their labels – by far the majority, given the importance of export markets – are now required to alter their wording when referring to old vineyards.
The term “Old Vine” may only be used on a label if the wine in the bottle is made from a single vine. Otherwise, producers are required to use the plural, “Old Vines”. This ruling has caused considerable frustration among producers who have long used “Old Vine” on their labels, as it now forces them into costly and time-consuming label redesigns.
The absurdity of legally enforcing the distinction between “Old Vine” and “Old Vines” becomes evident when one considers the realities of viticulture and winemaking—subjects about which those responsible for drafting this regulation appear to know remarkably little. The simple fact is that no wine is made from a single vine.
On average, one vine yields approximately 4.5 kilograms of grapes. Depending on the winemaking process, this quantity produces roughly five bottles of wine.
Which raises the obvious question: who on earth is going to produce a commercial wine consisting of just five bottles? Because only a wine made from a single vine would qualify to use the designation “Old Vine”. Such microscopic logic renders the rigid distinction between “Old Vine” and “Old Vines” entirely incomprehensible, leading one to conclude that officials occupying desks within South Africa’s wine industry bodies have little more worthwhile to occupy their time.
To date, the relevant authorities, namely those within South Africa’s Wine Certification Authority, have been unable to provide any explanation for this official distinction despite repeated enquiries from the media.
What makes the situation particularly ironic is that South Africa’s entire old-vine movement is driven by the Old Vine Project, known in Afrikaans as the Ou Wingerdprojek. It will therefore be interesting to see whether the organisation now feels compelled to rename itself the “Old Vines Project”.
The second peculiar piece of proposed legislation relating to wine labels lies ahead, and it demonstrates the same lack of logic and industry understanding as the first.
The authorities are now advocating that descriptive terms be placed prominently on the front labels of producers’ wines, such as “Dry White Wine” or “Dry Red Wine”.
The first question is why these obvious descriptions need to be emblazoned across the front label when they can quite adequately appear on the back label without compromising the appearance and integrity of the brand. And once again, one has to ask what practical purpose these arbitrary front-label descriptions are meant to serve.
Just as BMW or Mercedes-Benz are not required to print the words “Fast German Car” across the bonnet of their vehicles, it surely cannot be necessary to tell consumers buying a Meerlust Rubicon or a Kanonkop Paul Sauer, via the front label, that the wine is a “Dry Red Wine”. The brand and the wine’s name already say everything that needs to be said, and if further explanation is required, the back label is precisely where such information belongs.
Indeed, placing “Dry White” or “Dry Red” prominently on the front label strips a wine of its premium image, since these types of generic descriptions are generally associated with inexpensive boxed wines where only the most basic information about the contents is considered necessary.
Like every wine-producing nation in the world, South Africa faces numerous challenges. One would hope that the relevant authorities would devote more of their time, resources and intellectual energy to developing meaningful strategies, offering support and providing practical guidance to producers, rather than concerning themselves with bureaucratic trivialities. South Africa’s wine producers deserve better, because they are the ones doing the hard work and carrying the industry forward.
Enjoyed this article?
Subscribe and never miss a post again.
Madness!!! One visualizes a little person in a hazard vest with thick glasses and a clipboard empowered to “make rules” !!!! completely beyond any logic. I shall now go back to drinking my oranges juice – obviously it takes more than one orange to make a glass of juice – please never refer to it again as orange juice!