3 RD ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL WINE TECHNICAL FORUM WORKING GROUP UPDATE ON AUTHENTICITY DATABASE SPECIFICATIONS John Thorngate 7 th May, 2015

Background This working group was formed in response to discussions within the TTB/WI Technical Forum pertaining to the original authenticity working group These discussions clearly indicated the need to develop/determine criteria defining and underlying the construction of reliable authentication databases; e.g., » Central core of factors (always required for authenticity) plus factors specific to particular methods » Need to consider purpose of test—ID vs quantitation » How many samples needed to be representative? » What is failing with existing databases?

The 12 Principles Avoid establishing limits that stimulate costly and unnecessary analyses. Harmonize limits where there is no scientific justification for national or regional differences. Give due regard to intergovernmental agreements and work done by other authorities when establishing new regulatory limits. Adopt a common system of scientific units for expressing regulatory limits. Express regulatory limits on a “per unit volume of wine” basis rather than “per unit volume of alcohol” in the wine. Adopt a common way of expressing results where this is done in relation to a single wine constituent (e.g. for Total Acidity expressed in terms of one specific acid). Consider the establishment of analytical “de minimis” values for substances or classes of substances in wine – values below which they will be deemed to all intents and purposes not to be present in the wine. Allow suitable transition arrangements when limits are tightened, provided public health considerations so permit. Analyses of wine for compliance purposes should be undertaken by suitably accredited laboratories (or overseen by certified analysts) that perform acceptably for the specific test methods used. Analytical methods used for wine compliance purposes should be validated and/or have a demonstrably appropriate level of performance for wine. For wine authenticity analyses, the database of authentic samples with which the test samples will be compared must be sufficiently comprehensive to avoid the mis‐categorization of legitimate samples as fraudulent. Laboratories testing for compliance purposes should supply measurement uncertainty information with their analytical results and the competent authorities should take this into account in interpreting analytical data.

Authenticity Defined Authenticity may imply » Geographic Authenticity » Varietal Authenticity » Vintage Authenticity » Production Authenticity (e.g., as in the case of sparkling wines) » Freedom from Adulteration The specific authenticity type may in and of itself necessitate unique criteria beyond a common core

Criteria Considerations There are a number of possible viewpoints to consider when discussing those criteria essential to constructing a comprehensive database: » Enological » Viticultural » Chemical » Statistical, etc. In the end the criteria selected must satisfy both pragmatic as well as scientific concerns arising from these diverse viewpoints.

Criteria Considerations Finally, there exist multiple analytical techniques for assessing authenticity, including: » Fingerprinting e.g. Chemical, Spectroscopic » Targeted analysis e.g. LC-MS/MS » Non-targeted profiling e.g. HR-NMR, LC-qTOF » Stable Isotopes e.g. SNIF-NMR, IRMS » Omic Technologies e.g. DNA, proteomics, metabolomics

Summary The end goal of the working group is to infer from the specific to the general in defining criteria pertinent to the creation of robust and unbiased authenticity databases. As mentioned above, it is understood that specific approaches (i.e., anthocyanin profiling vs. stable isotope profiling) may necessitate additional criteria specific to those approaches.

Authenticity Criteria Matrix Database Considerations Authenticity MethodAuthenticity TypeAnalyte or TechniquePragmaticScientificStatistical Fingerprinting IdentitySpectroscopic Targeted AnalysisVarietalAnthocyanin Cultivar/Clone selection; Rootstock Selection; Trellising System; Irrigation Management; Crop Load; Sun Exposure; Heat Summation; Cold Soak; Skin Contact Time; Fermentation Temperature; Enzyme Additions; SO2 Concentation; pH; Yeast Strain; Malolactic; Fining Agents; Filtration; Lees Contact; Barrel Aging; Micro-ox; Closure OTR; Vintage; Region pH; clarification; specific compounds measured; detector total n; n per factor; calibration design; calibration model GeographicMetals Cultivar/Clone selection; Rootstock Selection; Irrigation Management; Cold Soak; Skin Contact Time; Fermentation Vessel; Fermentation Temperature; Additions; pH; Additions; Filtration; Lees Contact; Storage Vessel; Vintage; Region; Vineyard sample preparation; measurement instrument; specific metals total n; n per factor; calibration design; calibration model Non-targeted Profiling GeographicNMR VarietalLC-qTOF IsotopesGeographicStable GeographicRadiogenic OmicVarietalDNA

Expected Outcomes Authenticity databases constructed based upon defined, key performance criteria, providing confidence to all stakeholders Consistent, transparent mechanisms for the establishment of these criteria Mechanisms for International acceptance of the concepts/criteria underlying robust database construction

Action Items from 2014 Formalize the Working Group Continue efforts to populate the matrix Consider creation of a white paper to explain concepts and the need for robust databases

Where things stand Formalize the Working Group Have corresponded with variety of persons; need to secure commitments Believe the breadth and scope are such that WG would benefit from a more formal meeting than a conference call allows Capitalize on ASEV/Portland? ACS/Boston? SIMEI/Milan? Continue efforts to populate the matrix Place on hold pending formalization of WG and drafting of white paper Consider creation of a white paper to explain concepts and the need for robust databases Initiate drafting of the white paper this year Utilize this to formally frame issues and identify best path forward

QUESTIONS ?