Fruit wine occupies a defined place in U.S. wine regulation and has been measured in several government production reports. The available figures range from legal thresholds in the Code of Federal Regulations to Washington’s 2006 winery survey and monthly fruit-wine, cider, and juice entries in the IRS Commissioner’s Annual Report for 1948. Together, they show how fruit wine is classified, labeled, sweetened, and recorded across different periods and geographies.
Contents
- How U.S. rules define fruit wine
- Alcohol, acidity, and labeling thresholds
- Sweetening and permitted adjustments
- Washington fruit wine production in 2006
- Washington winery context and inventory
- Fruit categories in the 1948 IRS report
How U.S. rules define fruit wine
Under the U.S. wine standards of identity, fruit wine is Class 5. The definition is based on normal alcoholic fermentation of the juice of sound, ripe fruit other than grapes. The same rule allows fruit wine to contain restored or unrestored pure condensed fruit must and certain spirits authorized for natural wine. It also permits amelioration or sweetening before, during, or after fermentation within the limits that apply to natural fruit wine. These classifications are set out in 27 CFR 4.21.
The TTB industry terminology in 27 CFR 24.10 similarly describes fruit wine as wine made from the juice of sound, ripe fruit other than grapes. That definition includes berries and also includes blends of grapes with other fruit, including berries. The two regulatory references therefore cover both single-fruit expressions and blended products, while keeping fruit distinct from a wine made solely from grapes.
“Berry wine” is fruit wine produced from berries. The fruit source can also appear in the product name when the wine is made wholly from one kind of fruit. Examples permitted by the standard include peach wine and orange wine. Fruit wine made wholly from apples may be labeled cider, while fruit wine made wholly from pears may be labeled perry.
The rules also distinguish how bubbles are created. Fruit wine made effervescent by secondary fermentation in a closed container may be labeled sparkling. If the effervescence comes from otherwise derived carbon dioxide, the label must say carbonated. That distinction identifies the production method rather than treating all effervescent fruit wine as the same category.
Alcohol, acidity, and labeling thresholds
Alcohol content separates fruit table wine from fruit dessert wine. Fruit table wine and berry table wine are limited to 14 percent alcohol by volume. Fruit dessert wine and berry dessert wine are above 14 percent but not more than 24 percent alcohol by volume. The threshold is therefore a dividing line: 14 percent remains within the table-wine limit, while a product above that level enters the dessert-wine range up to 24 percent.
The “natural” label has its own condition. Fruit wine with no added grape brandy or alcohol may be labeled natural. This is a narrower labeling fact than the broader rules allowing certain authorized spirits in fruit wine, because the addition of grape brandy or alcohol affects whether the natural designation is available.
Volatile acidity is measured at 20 degrees Celsius and has two stated maximums. For fruit wine without added brandy or wine spirits, the maximum is 0.14 gram per 100 milliliters. For other fruit wine, the maximum is 0.12 gram per 100 milliliters. The lower figure applies to the broader “other fruit wine” category in the cited standard, while the no-added-spirit category has the separately stated 0.14-gram limit.
| Regulatory measure | Stated threshold or range |
|---|---|
| Fruit table or berry table wine | Up to 14% alcohol by volume |
| Fruit dessert or berry dessert wine | Above 14% and up to 24% alcohol by volume |
| Volatile acidity, no added brandy or wine spirits | Up to 0.14 g per 100 mL at 20°C |
| Volatile acidity, other fruit wine | Up to 0.12 g per 100 mL at 20°C |
These are regulatory thresholds, not estimates of the typical alcohol or acidity of fruit wines. They describe how products may be classified or evaluated under the cited U.S. standards.
Sweetening and permitted adjustments
The TTB production rules allow sugar, juice, or concentrated fruit juice of the same kind of fruit to be added after fermentation to sweeten natural wine. The permitted ingredient is therefore tied to the fruit identity of the wine rather than being an unrestricted sweetening category. These provisions appear in 27 CFR 24.179.
When juice or concentrated fruit juice is added, finished wine solids may not exceed 21 percent by weight. When liquid sugar or invert sugar syrup is used, the resulting volume may not exceed the volume that would result from maximum pure dry sugar use. Those limits quantify both the solids and volume consequences of sweetening.
Acids occurring in grapes or other fruit may be added to juice or wine to correct natural deficiencies, according to 27 CFR 24.182. This is a correction provision, not a general statement that any acid addition is unrestricted. The cited rule specifically concerns acids occurring in grapes or other fruit and their use to address natural deficiencies.
The standards also contain a separate class for wine of the agricultural-product class other than grape, citrus, or fruit wine. That class may be ameliorated so the volume increase does not exceed 35 percent. After amelioration, it may not exceed 14 percent alcohol by fermentation. If water has been added, its natural acid content may not fall below 5 parts per thousand, and total solids may not exceed 22 grams per 100 cubic centimeters.
Those measurements belong to the other-agricultural-products class rather than being a general set of limits for every fruit wine. Keeping the classes separate matters when interpreting statistics or comparing a product description with a regulatory category.
Washington fruit wine production in 2006
The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Washington Winery Survey for 2006 reported 22,500 gallons of fruit wine production in Washington. The reported total included 450 gallons of blackberry wine, 6,150 gallons of raspberry wine, and 15,900 gallons of other fruit wine.
| Washington fruit-wine category, 2006 | Gallons |
|---|---|
| Total fruit wine | 22,500 |
| Blackberry wine | 450 |
| Raspberry wine | 6,150 |
| Other fruit wine | 15,900 |
The survey’s “other fruit wine” description included apple, apricot, blackberry, blueberry, cherry, cranberry, honey, marionberry, peach, pear, plum, rhubarb, and strawberry. The category is consequently broad, and the reported 15,900 gallons should be read as the survey’s grouped remainder rather than as one single fruit type.
The same report’s named figures show that raspberry wine was measured at 6,150 gallons, while blackberry wine was measured at 450 gallons. The survey did not present those two entries as a complete list of the fruit types included in Washington’s fruit-wine production; its additional list demonstrates the wider range of products counted in the report.
Washington winery context and inventory
The 2006 Washington survey reported 427 wineries. Of those, 234 wineries were crushing grapes. The report recorded 120,500 tons of total grape crush and 37,631 thousand gallons of total cooperage.
The reported wine-grape crush covered 98 percent of an estimated 120,000 tons. Reported crush by variety covered 93 percent of that estimated total. These coverage figures describe the relationship between reported and estimated grape-crush quantities; they are not measures of the share of fruit wine represented by the survey.
Washington’s reported unfilled wine-grape needs totaled about 240 tons. Petit Verdot accounted for 30 tons of those needs, while Syrah accounted for about 40 tons. The use of “about” in the source is retained here because those quantities were not presented as exact totals.
For wine stocks, the survey reported 45.3 million gallons at December 2005 month-end from TTB data and 44.6 million gallons of inventory on January 1, 2007. Survey-indicated sales were 15.4 million gallons. A separate calculation in the report stated that a 110,000-ton average crush at 62.5 cases per ton implied 6.875 million cases or 16.4 million gallons. These Washington figures provide broader winery context around the much smaller 22,500-gallon fruit-wine total, but they are not fruit-wine totals themselves.
Fruit categories in the 1948 IRS report
The IRS Commissioner’s Annual Report for 1948 listed gallons of fruit wine, cider, and juice by fruit in a fruit-distillery table. The categories were combined in that report, so the figures below should not be interpreted as fruit wine alone.
| Fruit category | Gallons reported in 1948 |
|---|---|
| Plum | 45,578 |
| Orange | 43,374 |
| Cherry | 36,288 |
| Loganberry | 19,538 |
| Prune | 17,400 |
| Blackberry | 16,560 |
| Peach | 8,975 |
| Elderberry | 4,430 |
| Mixed fruit | 2,559 |
| Currant | 945 |
The largest listed category was plum at 45,578 gallons, followed by orange at 43,374 gallons and cherry at 36,288 gallons. Loganberry was listed at 19,538 gallons, prune at 17,400 gallons, and blackberry at 16,560 gallons. The remaining listed categories were peach at 8,975 gallons, elderberry at 4,430 gallons, mixed fruit at 2,559 gallons, and currant at 945 gallons.
The same IRS table recorded apple fruit wine, cider, and juice by month. July was 41,834 gallons; August was 770 gallons; September was 378,733 gallons; October was 311,100 gallons; November was 177,034 gallons; and December was 97,429 gallons. The later entries were January at 87,866 gallons, February at 134,735 gallons, March at 163,560 gallons, April at 82,657 gallons, and May at 55,763 gallons.
September was the highest of those monthly apple entries at 378,733 gallons, while August was the lowest at 770 gallons. The seasonal monthly pattern is reported exactly as presented in the 1948 table; it does not establish a modern production pattern or isolate wine from cider and juice.
The IRS report also listed a United States total of 191,933,514 gallons for fruit wine, cider, and juice in 1948. Because that total uses the combined category named by the report, it should be kept distinct from Washington’s 2006 fruit-wine production figure and from the individual fruit entries. The different years, geographies, and category definitions prevent a direct trend calculation from these figures alone.