AWRI What’s in a label? How science is helping winemakers to respond to new EU rules concerning allergens in

By Leanne Hoxey, Creina Stockley*, Eric Wilkes and Dan Johnson *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Mangaging director The Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia Dan Johnson

On 1 July 2012, new rules came into force regarding the labelling of potential allergens in wine exported to the European Union. The AWRI developed and validated a test for milk and egg residues to allow Australian producers to measure the levels of allergens in their and give consumers and policy- makers continued confidence in Australian wine. Through national and international collaborations, work is also under way to ensure that testing is equally robust overseas.

The new rules

rom 1 July 2012, all wine entering the European Union (EU) became subject to EU laws regarding the Flabelling of allergens. These allergens include compounds found in milk and egg, which is relevant to winemakers given that both ingredients can be used as fining agents. The rules apply even though there is no evidence of life-threatening adverse reactions when consumers with allergies to milk or egg consume wine that has been processed using those compounds. Until last July, wines entering the EU had been given an exemption from the rules. This ‘derogation’ had been extended twice to

AT A GLANCE give wine researchers more time to gather emergency department data had shown • EU laws on the inclusion of milk data. Studies have now analysed egg- and that anaphylactic reactions to egg and milk and egg allergens on wine package milk-fined wines in detail; they have also products were extremely rare. However, the labels have applied to all wines assessed whether there is any risk of OIV’s submissions requesting a permanent imported into the EU from 1 July adverse reactions among consumers who derogation for wine were unsuccessful. 2012 are allergic to egg or milk. • If tests for egg and milk residues Based on the evidence collected, the When labels are not required return a negative result, then Organisation Internationale de la Vigne allergen labels are not required – The good news for Australian wine et du Vin (OIV) – the intergovernmental producers is that allergen labelling is not but only certain tests can be used organisation concerned with the technical • AWRI Commercial Services required for wines exported to the EU if and scientific aspects of – residues of milk and egg remain below has worked with an Australian made two submissions to the European manufacturer to develop and certain prescribed levels. Commission (EC) and the European validate tests that deliver reliable The OIV Resolution OIV-OENO 427- Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asking for a results that meet EU specifications 2010 for the methods of quantification of permanent derogation. • Today, Australian wine producers potentially allergenic residues of fining The OIV argued that allergen labelling for are in a stronger position to comply agent proteins in wine as written into EU with EU rules. Work is also under milk and egg products was not necessary law, means that no labelling is required if way to ensure a level playing for wine, since research had shown no egg- or milk-fined wine has tested negative field through the adoption of best adverse reactions among consumers for egg and milk residues using an analysis practice guidelines and protocols. with confirmed allergies to egg or milk. technique with a limit of detection (LOD) Those consumers comprised 0.5-1.0 of 0.25mg/L. The suggested threshold percent of the population, and hospital for adverse reactions to pure egg white

38 www.winebiz.com.au Wine & Journal JULY/AUGUST 2013 V28N4 AWRI

and milk is generally much higher: Work intensified in 2010 when the AWRI Over a 15-month period, 74 samples from approximately 1-2mg/L. recognised the need for industry to test for across Australia (including five from New This resolution followed research by the egg and milk. Initially, the information was Zealand) were submitted for casein residue OIV taskforce on allergens: a collaboration required to satisfy certain vegan markets. It screening, and 56 samples from across including a researcher from the AWRI and was also necessary for exporters to Canada Australia (including five from New Zealand) representatives from France, Germany and to comply with guidelines from the Liquor were submitted for egg residue screening. Italy. The role of the taskforce continues: Control Board of Ontario, which imposed an Only one sample returned a positive it has coordinated additional research to LOD for egg/milk residue of < 1.0ppm (note result for milk residue (being > LOD of gain a better understanding of residual that mg/L and ppm are used as equivalent 1.0ppm). This was found in a juice sample protein in egg- and milk-fined wine and its units in this article). that received a milk addition of 707ppm. significance for human health. After consultation with several assay A total of six samples returned a positive It is significant that taskforce studies suppliers, enzyme-linked immunosorbent result for egg residue (being > LOD of have shown that no residues of ovalbumin assay (ELISA) kits (manufactured by the 1.0ppm); in these cases the fining regime (from egg) were detected in the wines they Australian company ELISA Systems) were was not known. tested, which were made in accordance with chosen to provide this analytical capability good manufacturing practices, such as post- to industry. Assay validation and development fining and filtration. Those wines had been At first, the assay was used as a To meet the requirements of Australian treated with egg- or milk-fining agents. qualitative screening test, with the wine producers and exporters, the AWRI Similar results were obtained in different capacity to develop the assay further worked closely with the assay manufacturer commercially-available white, red and to provide quantitative data. Two ELISA to further validate and develop the testing wines. This was regardless of the wine’s systems kits were chosen: Casein Residue kits. physical or chemical characteristics, and ESCASPRD-48 and Enhanced Egg Residue In 2012, the OIV agreed on an LOD for the type and dosage of fining agent used. ESEGG – 48. Casein is the protein most allergen assays of 0.25ppm and a limit of commonly associated with milk allergy. Finding the right test quantification (LOQ) of 0.5ppm for both Qualitative results casein and egg white. In response to this – In order to ensure that Australian and its impact on labelling and testing – the winemakers and consumers can have From February 2011, AWRI Commercial AWRI started work to validate ELISA assays confidence in the data supplied, the AWRI Services began offering the qualitative at the required LOD and LOQ levels. set out to find a reliable test (or assay) for ELISA assay to detect the presence or Since there was debate regarding which the detection of egg and milk residues. absence of casein and egg residues in wine. residue component the limits applied to Australian Products for Australian Wineries Spotlight on Innovative Efficient Products for the Wine Industry Incline Drainers Membrane Presses Four models -300, 500, 800, 1000mm 4,500 ltr to 66,000 ltr tank capaciy Both closed and slotted shell presses

Additionally we tailor-make Destemmers/Crushers • Marc removal systems There are six models in • Receiving bins our MC Series: • Stalk elevators · MC100 10–15 tonne/hr • Belt conveyors · MC250 25–30 tonne/hr • Whole bunch pressing conveyors · MC400 40–50 tonne/hr • Storage tanks · MC600 50–60 tonne/hr · MC800 60–80 tonne/hr · MC1000 80–100 tonne/hr

28-34 Neptune Terrace • Ottoway • South Australia 5013 Phone (08) 8447 3911 • Fax (08) 8447 1088 • Email [email protected] For more information on our wide range of products visit www.fmiller.com.au

V28N4 Wine & Viticulture Journal JULY/AUGUST 2013 www.winebiz.com.au 39 AWRI

Table 1.

Casein Residue ESCASPRD-48 LOD Enhanced Egg Residue ESEGG – 48 LOD Skim milk powder 0.108ppm Egg powder 0.268ppm Total milk protein 0.035ppm Total egg white protein 0.075ppm Casein 0.028ppm Ovalbumin 0.037ppm

Table 2.

Casein Residue ESCASPRD-48 LOQ Enhanced Egg Residue ESEGG – 48 LOQ Skim milk powder 1.0ppm Egg powder 0.9ppm Total milk protein 0.32ppm Total egg white protein 0.25ppm Casein 0.26ppm Ovalbumin 0.13ppm

Table 3.

Positive total egg white protein residue breakdown

Sample type Egg result ppm Fining addition Winery processing

2011 1.04 75ppm egg white Centrifuged only

2011 Cabernet/Shiraz/ 2.72 0.9ppm egg albumin Racked only

Unknown 1.05 Unknown Coarse only

Table 4.

Negative total milk protein residue breakdown Sample type Fining addition Winery processing < 1ppm – 30ppm milk < 1ppm – 200ppm casein Various wine processing (settling/racking/ Wine 16ppm – 300ppm skim milk powder centrifuging) followed by filtration No additions made (10 wines) Milk added to juice, then centrifuged to Juice 200 – 350ppm milk ferment

(‘milk products’ or ‘casein’; ‘egg products’ The LOQ was then determined by egg white protein residue. Of these, or ‘ovalbumin’ or ‘ovomucoid’), the AWRI spiking wines in triplicate at various 20 samples (5%) returned positive met with ELISA Systems and the parties levels over several assays, and assessing results (> LOQ of 0.25ppm) ranging agreed to refine the interpretation of data the lowest level at which the UOM of from 0.27-3.73ppm. The samples came generated using the kits. 0.1ppm could be met (see Table 2). predominantly from red wines. Table The milk residue kit was adapted to In summary, the qualitative assay 3 summarises the fining regime and report ‘total milk protein’, rather than met the OIV specifications of a LOD of processing techniques used in three ‘casein’. The egg residue kit was adapted to 0.25ppm and a LOQ of 0.5ppm for both of the wines that tested positive. This report ‘total egg white protein’, rather than ELISA kits. suggests that filtration (or lack of it) may ‘ovomucoid’. Both kits were then validated affect the result. Outcomes for industry using skim milk powder and egg powder. There were 374 samples that returned LODs were determined by averaging a From June 2012 to May 2013, further a negative result (< 0.25ppm). In these large number of blank replicates across details were obtained from wineries to cases, fining regime details were numerous assays, then adding three times evaluate the impact of fining regimes provided for 37 wines; of which 35 wines (3x) the standard deviation (SD), (See Table and processing techniques. Of the 521 had egg added. Two of the wines had 1). samples submitted for allergen testing no egg added at all and were tested to The uncertainty of measurement (UOM) in that period, processing details were confirm its absence. Significantly, none was calculated from the data of seven obtained in 90 cases. The results are of the 35 wines that were filtered (using replicates from several different assays on summarised below. various standard winery protocols after different days. From this, it was estimated egg fining) returned a positive result. that the uncertainty of measurement at two Egg residue times (2x) SD was equal to ± 0.1ppm for Of the 521 samples submitted, 394 Milk residue both kits. samples were tested only for total All samples (521) were tested for

40 www.winebiz.com.au Wine & Viticulture Journal JULY/AUGUST 2013 V28N4 AWRI

total milk protein residue, with just way that allergen-testing results are conduct further studies. Through a ‘ring three (0.6%) returning positive results interpreted and extrapolated. test’ involving 10 overseas laboratories, (> LOQ of 0.25ppm ranging from The European Food Safety Authority two commercially-available testing kits 0.27ppm – > 5ppm). Unfortunately, no (EFSA) has stated that there is no and wine producers, further data will be information was provided about the standard or uniform winemaking generated to supply even greater certainty fining regimes in these three samples. practice, no code of good manufacturing to laboratories, as well as wine exporters Of the 518 samples that returned a practice, and there are no best practice regarding the reliability of test results. negative result, fining regimes were guidelines. EFSA has also noted that The study will give confidence to provided for 59 wines and 14 ferment microfiltration and bentonite treatment regulatory authorities in the EU, Canada, samples that had milk added (Table 4). are not mandatory steps and that this may Australia and New Zealand that the Of those wines where processing significantly affect fining agent residues. legislation is valid and that consumers information was available, 10 had no As a result, the OIV has established a are not at risk. The samples under study milk added and were tested to confirm set of ‘good fining practice guidelines’. will have a full winemaking history. The its absence. None of the other 49 These apply to egg- and milk-fined wine study will also comply with the OIV’s new wines that were filtered (using various and may soon be adopted into EU law. The guidelines regarding microfiltration and standard winery protocols) after milk OIV has summarised the key issues in a bentonite treatment. fining returned a positive result. working document (available at http:// The study will continue work at the This research showed that filtered www.oiv.int/oiv/info/enguidesoiv) and, wines did not return a positive result AWRI, in collaboration with its partners, although it is not yet official, it serves as a to ensure that research informs (> 0.25ppm) for either egg or milk. useful resource for winemakers. It covers Furthermore, there were no false appropriate decision making, contributing the definition of good manufacturing positive results returned for the 12 constructively to debate, protecting and fining practices, criteria for analysis samples that were listed as being consumers and ensuring fairness for methods, and the scientific background. processed without adding egg or milk. Australian wine producers. This working document can also be Towards a level playing field used to work towards harmonisation of Acknowledgements international legislation. Further research has revealed In the short term, members of the The authors wish to acknowledge that manufacturing, processing and OIV taskforce are working collaboratively Sharon Mascall and Rae Blair for their filtration techniques can affect on the with industry and test manufacturers to editorial assistance. WVJ

Mealybug... gered

For more information contact your local Dow AgroSciences representative on TOLL FREE 1800 700 096 www.hortsolutions.com.au

®™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow. Applaud® is the registered trademark of Nihon Nohyaku.

V28N4 Wine & Viticulture Journal JULY/AUGUST 2013 www.winebiz.com.au 41