The Court Rules Against Teaching Wine History

Court of Master Sommeliers Dumps "New World" and "Old World"

In a bold move that at once finally acknowledges the reality of international winemaking, yet simultaneously makes a mockery of reason, the Court of Master Sommeliers (CMS) has announced it “will no longer use the terms ‘Old World’ and ‘New World’ in our published educational courses and examination grids.”

First, we need to nail down what these two terms mean in order to understand the significance of what the CMS has done by sweeping them under the rug.

OLD WORLD / NEW WORLD DEFINITIONS
The best definition of “Old World” I’ve come across is from Jennifer Regan-Lefebvre’s book, “Imperial Wine: How the British Empire Made Wine’s New World”. In it she describes “Old World” this way:

“The Old World” generally refers to wine-maing countries of western continental Europe, which have been consistently producing wine for thousands of years. The major wine-producing and exporting countries of Euorpe—France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany—are indisputably Old World.”

This definition has the benefit of being fairly precise, historically accurate, and, most importantly, useful. Note, however, that this definition says nothing about the character of wines that have historically been produced in the Old World or that are produced today. It is a geographic description of where the art and craft and industry of winemaking were developed.

Regan-Lefebvre’s definition of New World is also the most useful I’ve come across. In the same book, she claims:

“There is one vital feature that unites all of the New World producers: They did not emerge to compete with Europe, they were created by Europe. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina and the United States were all established as European settler colonies. They also all began producing wine almost immediately. The New World of wine should therefore be understood as historically fixed: rather than shorthand for particular production models (or styles of wine), it refers to those wine-producing countries that were established between 1500 and 1850 as a project of European imperialism.”

Again, this definition discards any pretension of identifying a particular style or character of wine associated with New World bottlings. But more importantly, this definition identifies “New World” as winemaking regions established by colonial powers that are of the Old World. Additionally, this definition identifies the specific countries that fall under this definition: Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina and the United States. This short list of countries can be argued with in my view as I think Canada, Mexico, and Uruguay, at least, could also be placed in the New World category. What’s true about Ms. Regan-Lefebvre’s list of countries and my added three is that they all are off-springs of an Old World. Western Civilization origin; they all are derivative of a Western culture that incorporated wine into their lexicon of civilization.

With these definitions in place, let’s take a look at the CMS’s decision to remove “Old World” and “New World” from their educational lexicon.

IDENTIFYING WINE WITHOUT OLD AND NEW WORLD REFERENCE
Let’s start with the smart. Because in 2023 it is usually impossible to point to any stylistic characteristics that mark Old World wines as distinctive from New World wines, removing these two identifiers from the CMS’s Deductive Tasting Grid is really just a matter of getting rid of superfluous distinctions required during the evaluation of wine. Past CMS Deductive Tasting Grids used by students evaluating a wine blind asked them to conclude the climate type within which a wine’s grapes were grown, grape variety, country of origin, age range, and whether Old or New World origin. Going forward, students will no longer be asked to determine if a wine derives from the New or Old worlds.

In its short announcement explaining the change, the CMS wrote that the change was implemented to “acknowledge the growing challenge of distinguishing between "Old World" and "New World" wines. Our goal is to align our tasting process with the dynamic wine landscape and evolving styles.”

Smart.

But now let’s get to that part of the CMS’s decision to remove Old World and New World from their lexicon that makes a mockery of reason.

Besides removing “Old World” and “New World” from the CMS’s Deductive Tasting Grid, they also announced they will no longer use these terms in their published educational courses. Why? The short excuse is that the CMS wants “to uphold historical accuracy, eliminate cultural bias”.

DUMPING A USEFUL SET OF TERMS
No explanation is given in the CMS’s announcement as to how using these terms in their educational materials diminishes historical accuracy nor how their use would advance cultural bias. It doesn’t go without saying. And the omission of an explanation forces one to wonder if the reasoning behind this decision is less than rational.

As an educational institution, the CMS surely must deliver its students access to some sort of historical explanation of the wine industry. It must explain how wine was an integral element of Western Civilization. It must identify the places (Europe and the Near East) where winemaking developed into an industry and was primarily consumed). It must identify the regions where Western colonial powers exported winemaking and how it took hold in these NEW regions. These and other aspects of the history of wine and winemaking are intrinsically served by the terms “Old World” and “New World”.

Even without using “Old World” and “New World” in referring to styles and characteristics of wine, these terms remain highly useful. Moreover, to expand on Regan-Lefebvre’s definition of Old World and New World, it is useful to note that one general difference between the two worlds is that the former tends to impose significant rules and restrictions on how place names on wine labels can be used, usually requiring either certain grapes or certain production techniques to be employed in order to identify on the label where the wine sprang from.

Meanwhile, New World wines generally don’t suffer under these kinds of rules and regulations concerning place names. Beyond the requirement that a certain percentage of grapes from a recognized region be used in order to place that region or appellation on the label, winemakers in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, and the United States are not generally required to use specific grape varieties or production techniques.

This distinction between Old World and New World wine-producing regions is significant. Moreover, they speak to the history and culture of those regions that students of wine who participate in the CMS curriculum surely should grapple with and understand. And it turns out that using the terms Old World and New World are highly useful in exploring these kinds of differences.

Many of the criticisms of the continued use of the terms “Old World” and “New World” simply fail to grapple with the useful distinctions these terms identify. Instead, the critiques center primarily on the completely justified observation that it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to distinguish Old World and New World wines based on their style or characteristics.

In an article published early this year in Food & Wine written by the astute Emily Saldino on this subject, Ms. Saldino notes:

“The terms are primarily used to present a dichotomy. “Old World” wines hail from Western Europe and are believed to have lower alcohol levels as well as deeper ties to the places where their grapes are grown, also known as terroir. So-called New World wines are made anywhere other than Western Europe, and are described as having fruit-forward flavors due to the purportedly clinical ways they’re made…As tidy and tantalizingly simple as it sounds, the Old vs New World framework is increasingly inaccurate for anyone trying to understand modern wine.”

She’s absolutely correct.

And in a Wine Enthusiast article by Jason Wilson from 2020, the same issues of stylistic differences between Old and New World wines not being as relevant is also explored.

In an attempt to grapple with and dismiss the much more relevant historical and geographical distinctions between the Old World and New World, Saldino also relies on a red herring:

“One of the most glaring issues with the Old vs New dichotomy is historical inaccuracy. Even if we overlook the generally troublesome, colonialist implications of this framework (and why should we?), we’re still playing fast and loose with European history. For instance, let’s say we adopt the mindset of some European winemakers and define “Old World” as places where Ancient Romans planted vines: France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Portugal. Curiously absent from this list is Greece, which also produced wine during that time, but isn’t presently considered part of wine’s “Old World.” We’re also ignoring recent archeological evidence that the world’s first winemaking equipment was in what we now call Georgia, another country confusingly absent from the “Old World” umbrella.”

First, not all nor in fact most students of wine history would exclude Greece and Georgia from the Old World designation. Moreover, the “colonialist implications” of the Old and New World dichotomies are critical to understanding the history of wine, not a detriment. Argentina has a wine industry today because of Spain’s 16th-century colonization of the region and the planting of grapevines by Spanish colonists and missionaries in the middle of that century. In this important context, the Old World/New World distinction is not merely important but critical to understanding the development of Argentina’s wine history. Dispelling with the terms does nothing to advance this knowledge.

So, again, we ask why the CMS determined to jettison the “Old World" / “New World” terminology.

THE SEARCH FOR CULTURAL BIAS GOES ASTRAY
Writing about the change in Forbes, Colleen Myles, an outstanding writer and academic, notes, “This change in terminology reflects the organization’s recent efforts to embrace diversity and inclusion.” This observation ties into the CMS’s own declaration that the removal of the terms from their curriculum is an attempt to “eliminate cultural bias” in their educational efforts.

Ms. Myles, like CMS not expanding on their effort to eliminate cultural bias, doesn’t go on to explain how eliminating the use of the terms “Old World” and “New World” does anything to embrace or increase diversity and inclusion in the organization.

Meanwhile, in Meiningers’s International, an October 2023 article entitled The Changing Face of Wine: Re-evaluating "New World" and "Old World" surveys wine professionals to better understand the meaning of these terms. Among the conclusions drawn is that

“The overarching debate surrounding these terms extends beyond the confines of the wine industry. It reflects broader societal shifts towards cultural sensitivity, a re-evaluation of historical biases, and a desire for language that respects diverse perspectives….Their relevance is being questioned as the wine industry evolves and as society becomes more culturally aware. Experts anticipate a gradual decline in their significance, particularly among newer generations of wine enthusiasts who are more attuned to cultural sensitivities and the nuances of language.”

Interesting. Yet, again, we get no explanation of how these terms might inhibit cultural sensitivity or promote historical biases.

Adam Huss, owner of Centralas winery in Los Angeles and the producer of the Organic Wine Podcasts, begins to guide us toward one explanation of the growing disdain for the “Old World” / “New World” dichotomy. Huss is always thoughtful and articulate when it comes to approaching the meaning of wine. This approach is on display in a podcast he released earlier this year on the subject of “Is ‘New World’ a Problematic Term”.(You can listen to it or read the transcript). Hint: Yes it is.

I want to highlight one particular part of Huss’ argument that the term “New World” should be abandoned:

“Aside from the fact that everywhere else [from the Old World] is a pretty massive and diverse area belied by this homogenizing and, let’s be honest, pejorative term, the painting of most of the world with one brush brings up even deeper issues. The term “New World” reveals the true colonial nature of the global wine industry. Wine – the dominant culture’s take on it at least, as codified and disseminated by organizations like The Court of Master Sommeliers and The Wine and Spirits Education Trust – is a colonial ideology spread originally by the English (who started both of the aforementioned organizations), who fetishized French wines predominantly, with nods to Italy, Spain, Germany, and Hungary & Portugal to the extent that they were invested in wine ventures in these last two. “New World” means that the entire world of wine outside of these English-approved European wine cultures will always be referential and derivative….This wine-idea structure puts the majority of the world (the New World) always at a disadvantage: always imitating, always trying to be as good as the original.”

The chip that Huss places on his shoulder is so weighty that the only way he can bear the burden is to identify wine as a “colonial ideology”. However, while he correctly identifies winemaking and wine in every part of the New World as “derivative” and referential” of its Old World origin, I can’t see how he concludes that the majority of New World wines are “always imitating, always trying to be as good as the original.”

Even if this were true, it could not, for example, diminish the accomplishments or unique qualities of Napa Cabernet Sauvignon—a wine that for the past 30 years has departed significantly from Old World examples of Cabernet and been thoroughly lauded for it—or the Pinot Noirs of Oregon that have gained wide acclaim for their success in the unique climate of the Willamette Valley.

At its core, Huss is complaining that wine has European origins, as though this is a bad thing. His concern is the fact that the model for wine is derived from efforts located in Western Civilization. He complains that New World wine is good, yet is a product of a colonial history. “Good” and “Colonial” are an association that is frowned upon today. It’s a conundrum. Huss has a problem with a reality that can’t be changed. Moreover, ridding ourselves of the terms “Old World” and “New World” can’t change the realities that he so eloquently and earnestly rails against.

Huss’ commentary is a follow-on to an an article in Punch published in 2020 by James Sligh entitled, “The Myth of ‘Old World’ Wine”. This gallant effort attempts yet spectacularly fails to dislodge and disappear the importance of the “Old World” in developing and legitimizing the idea of wine and wine industry. In the article, Sligh concludes:

“Tradition can be, and has been, remade…The framework we use as a cornerstone of classical wine education doesn’t map onto a globe so nuanced as ours. It muddles a history of viticulture in the Americas that dates to the 1500s…and, more importantly, it enables a hierarchy that places European wines before everything else, effectively dividing the people who make and drink the wine into those to whom it belongs and those who are trespassing. If we can accept that there was never a hard border between the old world and the new, we can start telling ourselves a different story.”

But of course, there is a “hard border” between the Old World and New World. In fact, that border is made up precisely of real borders that can be seen on real maps. But where Sligh really starts to go far afield is at the same place where Huss departs from reality. Sligh asserts that there are winemakers and wine drinkers who belong and don’t below in the same way that Huss asserts that those not making wine in Europe are somehow disadvantaged. This is fantasy. This notion that identifying a spiritual and actual home of wine (the Old World) somehow diminishes or marginalizes those who are not European in origin nor making wine in wine’s ancestral home is a made-up sentiment that not only belies reality but also attempts to inject the non-sequitur of victim mentality into the mix. Chilean winemakers are not marginalized. Australian winemakers are not victims. They are both advancing and reveling in the craft and history of winemaking—one that just happens to be derived primarily from the effors of Europeans.

Finally, both these calls to remove “Old World” and “New World” from the wine lexicon are related to Miguel Deleon’s 2020 written announcement that “It’s Time to Decolonize Wine.” This call to make wine more accessible and rid it of its racist, homophobic and colonialist structures delivers this indictment of wine:

“Wine is rooted in Europe and its white adjacencies, themselves products of colonial and imperialist histories. From Chile to California, we feel the impact of how winemaking was affected by the conscious, hegemonic spread of Christianity. Even the word sommelier is deeply embedded in the servitude of someone charged with taking inventory of wine on pack animals. The wine world does not take into account current experiences of its BIPOC and LGBTQ+ members. It is steeped in a language that is coded and arcane, tied up with legal jargon and French techniques that only the privileged, monied few are able to decipher.”

Again, the problem is European in origin and the “white adjacencies” that come with those origins. The issue is with “Language that is coded and arcane.” And those “French techniques” that we read about are accessible only to the privileged and monied. It’s as though an argument is being made that learning the history and techniques of wine and winemaking is just too much of a burden and only serves to marginalize folks.

THE DUMBING DOWN OF WINE EDUCATION
This brings us back to the CMS’s desire to “uphold historical accuracy, eliminate cultural bias” and to do so by eliminating the terms “Old World” and “New World” from its educational materials.

While it’s true, as I mentioned above, that removing the “New World” / “Old World” dichotomy from CMS’s tasting grid makes perfect sense, there is no sense to be made of removing these terms from the CMS’s published educational sources.

Historical accuracy is compromised by deemphasizing the European and Western Civilization origins of wine that are accurately identified by the term “Old World”. This same historical accuracy is further compromised by attempting to shield students from wine’s colonial origins that describe the New World regions of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

Most importantly, there is no cultural bias implicated by noting that wine culture and the structure of the wine industry really did originate in Europe and as an integral element of Western Civilization. Nor is there any cultural bias in teaching the fact that New World wines are products of a colonial history that anyone inside or outside of wine hopes to see disappear due to that origin.

The Court of Master Sommeliers is dumbing down wine education and for no good reason. There just isn’t any other way to accurately describe their decision to eliminate two phrases that so accurately represent and distill critical facts about the history and circumstances of wine and the wine industry.

Perhaps the folks at the CMS will provide a more thorough explanation of their decision. I reached out to them via email as well as on their LinkedIn page asking for an explanation, but have not heard back.