Fosters to sell Wolf Blass wine in plastic bottles

Scanlon · Post by **Scanlon** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:35 pm

Fosters to sell Wolf Blass wine in plastic bottles
By Chris Snow
Herald Sun
May 04, 2009 12:00am

FOSTERS is going green and is shunning convention by bottling two wines from its Wolf Blass brand wine in plastic.

The first wine in 750ml recyclable plastic (PET) bottles goes on sale across Australia next Monday.

Branded as Wolf Blass, the wines will sell for $17 a bottle.

The wines - a crisp dry white blend and a shiraz cabernet sauvignon - will be called Green Label.

They will have a 12-month shelf life and are in a price category likely to attract environmentally-conscious consumers, Fosters says.

Fosters has set a $1 million budget for a three-month marketing campaign for the new brand which is aimed at educating consumers about the environmental benefits of the wine in plastic bottles.

Fosters says the wines will produce 29 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than wine packaged in traditional glass.

Fosters also says that laboratory trials and taste tests have shown no taste difference.

Several Australian wine companies produce wines in 187ml PET bottles. In Canada, wine is sold in 750ml and 1 litre plastic bottles.

But large size PETs have never been sold in Australia.

Oliver Horn, global brand director of Wolf Blass wines, said research showed more than 90 per cent of consumers wanted brands that enabled them to make "greener" choices.

Mr Horn said that apart from the recyclable PET bottles, the use of 100 per cent recycled and recyclable packaging materials and alcohol-free printing, had led to major emissions savings.

The main saving resulted from the filled plastic bottles being 36 per cent lighter than filled glass bottles. Unfilled bottles, which weigh 51 grams, were 90 per cent lighter than glass bottles.

"You save on a six-pack about 2.5 kg of weight," Mr Horn said.

"It's significantly easier to carry, the bottles are easier to pour and can be taken to places where glass (usually) can't because it doesn't shatter."

He said the taste of the wine had undergone rigorous testing for several years both in the laboratory and at wine tastings plus had been tested every month for the past 12 months.

Oxygen scavenging technology was incorporated in the PET manufacturing process.

"There's no difference between the glass product and the PET bottle," Mr Horn said.

Mr Horn said a Wolf Blass PET trial into Canada in 2006 had failed but claimed it was because the environmental benefits could not at the time be substantiated.

He said the wines had also met with consumer resistance at the time because the bottles were shorter.

The problem had been overcome by newer bottles produced by VIP Packaging in consultation with Uno Packaging, an Australian environmental packaging concept company.

Bick · Post by **Bick** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:46 pm

Economic meltdown, swine flu, wine in plastic bottles... I'm just waiting for the plague of locusts. We're doomed! (as Private Frazer would say).

Rawshack · Post by **Rawshack** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 pm

Plastic is more environmentally friendly than glass... you are kidding me

Scanlon · Post by **Scanlon** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:36 pm

recycling vs production of new
and then one material vs another.
it alway broke my brain trying to work out which of the options is actually better for the environment, considering how much it can take to recycle some things.
*sighs*

The only thing I can work out to any great certainty is use less/conume less = better for the environment.

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:38 pm

I am also very sceptical about the analysis done in these incidents.

Even more sceptical about the taste; I don't even like the taste of Pepsi Light in plastic bottles (vs cans.)

Attila · Post by **Attila** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:52 pm

...even worse than taste is the fact that plastic bottles will produce a chemical reaction under heat or direct sunlight that will affect the wine and those drinking it.
Wine delivery trucks park outside Coles and Woolworths loaded, for hours in summer...

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:54 pm

Fosters, long famous for one of the most ordinary of Australian beers, now lead some of Australia's proudest wine names down to the same level....

Unfortunately, they do not seem to know what they are doing when it comes to wine.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:34 pm

Scanlon wrote:recycling vs production of new
and then one material vs another.
it alway broke my brain trying to work out which of the options is actually better for the environment, considering how much it can take to recycle some things.
*sighs*

The only thing I can work out to any great certainty is use less/conume less = better for the environment.

Glass also is recycled
It is also envirmentally friendly when otherwise disposed of, unlike plastic.

The problem with PET is that it will flavour the wine and possibly before the 12 months is up. I have had several bad experiences with very plastic flavoured water that was in PET, and not long off the shelf.

Bloody idiots if you ask me.

GraemeG · Post by **GraemeG** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:05 am

Scanlon wrote:Fosters says the wines will produce 29 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than wine packaged in traditional glass.

How do they figure that? Something to do with the manufacturing process? Because, obviously, glass is even more recycleable than plastic. Yes, it's a bit lighter to carry, so perhaps the trucks might use less fuel. But there's no less space taken up. And the shorter shelf-life will result in much higher wastage, I suspect.
None of it makes sense to me. Smacks of some trendy marketing-driven agenda lacking any real thought or perception.
No surprise there....
cheers,
Graeme

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:44 pm

Also, Sirromet did it first I believe but didn't do their research and used a name already being used by Phil Sexton, "First Steps" :roll:

I think legal issues are being pursued (more trees cut down for endless paperwork). Not that Sexton's wine was in plastic bottles, I think his work is all class. My perception of Sirromet (other than that they make crap wine and give the Granite Belt Qld a bad name, as they are quite often the first Qld wine a consumer will taste :evil:

) is that their tosser entrepreneur/owner Terry Morris is just doing it for publicity, not the environment.

Not to mention Sirromet won't sell all of this wine anyways and will cause greater environmental impact by "recycling" the left over plastic and its undrunk contents. My advice to Mr Morris would be to use his ample money on making better wine and stop expecting meaningless show medals to further the state's (and his) wine future :!:

But he doesn't seem the sort to listen to anyone's advice let alone mine.

Sorry, I really have been holding that rant inside for too long.

Red Bigot · Post by **Red Bigot** » Tue May 05, 2009 2:37 pm

Maybe they should look at this option:
http://www.winebiz.com.au/dwn/details.asp?ID=2498

JG · Post by JG » Tue May 05, 2009 2:45 pm

Part of it would be that glass is heavier than plastic. So greater carbon footprint in tranporting. This is why I try to avoid imported Italian sparkling mineral water, as its always bottled in glass. Mad to transport water bottled in glass across the globe.
Wine is another matter though. Taste would be an issue.
Is the taste noticable on the little Qantas jobbies?

Loztralia · Post by **Loztralia** » Tue May 05, 2009 3:52 pm

To be fair, you've been able to buy wine in plastic bottles in France for decades. Shit wine, but still... if you're happy to buy shit wine then why not? I can't see this particular experiment having much impact on the more discerning consumer - it's not like any of us care what they put in boxes either, is it?

redstuff · Post by **redstuff** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:17 pm

did a quick search on plastic vs glass:

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-glass.php

not sure where they get all the figures, but still interesting.

bellabacchante · Post by **bellabacchante** » Tue May 12, 2009 6:43 pm

Fosters have been researching these special bottles for the last five or so years at least. Vigorous testing has been done to compare against wine bottled in glass. It has found to have no change to the wine inside until some time after that 12 month period. As such, the bottles are designed for use mainly at large events, festivals, etc, particularly for crowds where glass can be a problem and are ideal for when high turnover of stock is expected. Generally, it won't be available to the average punter in their local bottle shop. However, if the average punter were to ask, the same wine is currently available as Wolf Blass Yellow Label.

griff · Post by **griff** » Tue May 12, 2009 6:48 pm

bellabacchante wrote:Fosters have been researching these special bottles for the last five or so years at least. Vigorous testing has been done to compare against wine bottled in glass. It has found to have no change to the wine inside until some time after that 12 month period. As such, the bottles are designed for use mainly at large events, festivals, etc, particularly for crowds where glass can be a problem and are ideal for when high turnover of stock is expected. Generally, it won't be available to the average punter in their local bottle shop. However, if the average punter were to ask, the same wine is currently available as Wolf Blass Yellow Label.

Welcome!

Out of interest what testing was performed? Qualitative sensory testing and/or quantitative analytical i.e. chromatography, mass spectroscopy?

cheers

Carl

Michael McNally · Post by **Michael McNally** » Tue May 12, 2009 9:12 pm

bellabacchante wrote:Vigorous testing has been done to compare against wine bottled in glass. It has found to have no change to the wine inside until some time after that 12 month period.

How long is "some time"? Interesting for a Fosters rep to admit that there is a change which is observable, albeit after the magical 12 month "I can't believe it's not glass" period.

A little browsing would have revealed a tough crowd here bella. I would accuse you of the gross crime of stealing/perverting an existing forum member's username, but I have no evidence (only masculine intuition) so I won't.

Michael

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:19 pm

Micaheal wrote

I would accuse you of the gross crime of stealing/perverting an existing forum member's username, but I have no evidence (only masculine intuition) so I won't.

Well, you'd be wrong there Michael (and you have, of course, made the accusation- poor form to not just admit it). She has used the name for quite a long time and it's not copyrighted. As for "masculine intuition", well I think that's a poor representation of others of us who are male.

I didn't think there were any rules to browse the forum before using it, and if there are the maybe they should be spelt out REALLY CLEARLY.

Sure you can disagree and make a valid point, but maybe think about how you do it. Feel free to fire away at me now but I think this sort of vitriol is a large waste of energy.

Michael McNally · Post by **Michael McNally** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:39 pm

jeremy wrote:Michael wrote
I would accuse you of the gross crime of stealing/perverting an existing forum member's username, but I have no evidence (only masculine intuition) so I won't.

Well, you'd be wrong there Michael (and you have, of course, made the accusation- poor form to not just admit it). She has used the name for quite a long time and it's not copyrighted. As for "masculine intuition", well I think that's a poor representation of others of us who are male.

I didn't think there were any rules to browse the forum before using it, and if there are the maybe they should be spelt out REALLY CLEARLY.

Sure you can disagree and make a valid point, but maybe think about how you do it. Feel free to fire away at me now but I think this sort of vitriol is a large waste of energy.

No vitriol Jeremy. I agree it is a waste of time. But I think it might help to clarify where I was coming from.

The above appears to be "bellabacchante"'s first and to date only post. I was annoyed at the first-time poster's comments and their apparently commercial content, and I thought her handle was a little to close to "bacchaebabe" (a regular poster here to be sure), and said so. The masculine intuition thing was obviously a joke. If bellabachante is indeed a long time poster on some other forum I am unaware of and I am therefore wrong I will apologise. Please note there is truly no vitriol in this post. I can only state things as I see them.

Cheers

Michael

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » Wed May 13, 2009 4:51 pm

Ok Michael, I do appreciate the clarification. I thought, and still think it was very harsh on a first time poster to assume so much. But I've done things I've had to clarify or apologise for too, so I'm not about to commit to the pot, kettle, black paradigm.

n4sir · Post by **n4sir** » Wed May 13, 2009 5:03 pm

Michael McNally wrote:
jeremy wrote:Michael wrote
I would accuse you of the gross crime of stealing/perverting an existing forum member's username, but I have no evidence (only masculine intuition) so I won't.

Well, you'd be wrong there Michael (and you have, of course, made the accusation- poor form to not just admit it). She has used the name for quite a long time and it's not copyrighted. As for "masculine intuition", well I think that's a poor representation of others of us who are male.

I didn't think there were any rules to browse the forum before using it, and if there are the maybe they should be spelt out REALLY CLEARLY.

Sure you can disagree and make a valid point, but maybe think about how you do it. Feel free to fire away at me now but I think this sort of vitriol is a large waste of energy.

No vitriol Jeremy. I agree it is a waste of time. But I think it might help to clarify where I was coming from.

The above appears to be "bellabacchante"'s first and to date only post. I was annoyed at the first-time poster's comments and their apparently commercial content, and I thought her handle was a little to close to "bacchaebabe" (a regular poster here to be sure), and said so. The masculine intuition thing was obviously a joke. If bellabachante is indeed a long time poster on some other forum I am unaware of and I am therefore wrong I will apologise. Please note there is truly no vitriol in this post. I can only state things as I see them.

Cheers

Michael

A while ago I posted a link with some news/pics from the Victorian bushfires, and one of them was from a website:

http://www.bellabacchante.com/

If it is the same person, I think we can safely assume any similarity to Kris's handle (bacchaebabe) is just coincidence, and while she is clearly ITB I don't think we can exactly jump to the conclusion she's a Foster's rep either.

With that in mind, reading back over her post it doesn't read as a blatant plug for the product either (although I admit it can be taken that way). I suspect you may have jumped the gun a little Michael.

Cheers,
Ian

Ps. Looking at her twitter comment, it seems she wasn't too impressed with your reply Michael. I suggest you do owe her an apology.

http://twitter.com/bellabacchante

Wayno · Post by **Wayno** » Wed May 13, 2009 7:26 pm

Nothing like welcoming people with open arms

Michael McNally · Post by **Michael McNally** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:01 pm

Wow. She is really annoyed.

It appears I owe bella an apology for my totally unfounded and inaccurate (ie wrong) accusations about her handle. I shall not attempt to put two and two together in the future.

My apologies bella.

Michael

Loztralia · Post by **Loztralia** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:10 pm

I still won't be drinking no wine outta no plastic bottle, get me?

Sorry, have we moved on? :wink:

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:35 pm

MESSAGE

James Douglas Hook · Post by **James Douglas Hook** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:50 pm

Reported in the press today...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/enterta ... -cs6r.html

bacchaebabe · Post by **bacchaebabe** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:46 pm

Ha ha, only just read this thread for the very first time and am finding it most amusing.

I must admit that when I saw bellabacchante name, I thought it looked a tad familiar. I can guarantee that I've had my handle longer than her (much) but my thoughts are that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so it doesn't really irk me as long as people don't get us confused.

Reading through her twitter account, looks like we're not that dissimilar (although she looks a bit younger!). She likes wine, expensive shirts and tikis so she can't be all that bad.

As for this tweet though:

for the small-minded, chauvinistic troll who launched such a vicious personal attack on me on the auswine forum http://xkcd.com/386/

The link is funny but calling someone a small minded, chauvinistic troll makes me think there's a very black pot in there somewhere, particularly when it's in response to your first post by a long standing member of the forum and there is a striking similarity between the two handles. As for the attack being vicious, compared to most of the welcomes most first time posters get here, I thought it remarkably restrained under the circumstances. (And as an aside, why does everyone have to immediately jump on any new poster, whether it looks like spam or not. It does get very tiresome.)

Anyhoo, as for the content of her actual post, I tend to agree. I'm not entirely sure why so many people doubt Fosters research so much. If you don't like the idea of drinking out of plastic, don't buy it. If you think there is a taste imparted, do your own research and then post the results here once you have the empirical evidence. There's no doubt in my mind that there will be less greenhouse gases just from the transport alone (and possibly primarily) if the things weigh that much less. This isn't rocket science guys.

As for the market, if it's aimed at being sold at places where glass is banned such as outdoor events, then I'm all for it. Not sure how many people get to these types of large outdoor events where glass is banned but I go to a lot and it's a pain as it does mean taking or buying wine becomes limited to wine in a box. If there is wine available that is of the same quality as bottled wine but in a plastic bottle, that's fantastic. They already do it for beer at these sorts of events and it works well. These are clearly not designed for cellaring so I really fail to see what the problem, and all the agnst, is. Sounds like a good idea to me.

redstuff · Post by **redstuff** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:39 pm

I'm sure there are polymer chemists working on a non-permeable plastic coating or equivalent that will solve the oxygen problem.

Michael McNally · Post by **Michael McNally** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:28 am

Move along please, nothing to see here.

She was a Fosters rep though.

Michael

The Auswine Forum

Fosters to sell Wolf Blass wine in plastic bottles

Fosters to sell Wolf Blass wine in plastic bottles

Re: Fosters to sell Wolf Blass wine in plastic bottles