2 Firms Halt Fortified Wine Sales in Test

Cases of wine and other products clogged the aisles of the Cadillac Market in San Francisco’s seedy Tenderloin District on Friday, but owner Rami Tamimi’s shipment lacked one item: cheap, fortified wine.

E & J Gallo Winery of Modesto made good on its promise to a local residents group Friday to temporarily stop selling certain fortified wines, often the drink of choice in this Skid Row section of the city. The ban is intended to see if it will ease the neighborhood’s evident alcohol-related social problems.

But even as Gallo’s decision was matched by one of its leading competitors, Canandaigua Wines of New York, local liquor store owners were as skeptical as Gallo about the program’s chance of success.

“You might clean up the winos with this, but they’re not doing anything about drugs,” said Kingston Jeung, owner of the Princess Grocery on the edge of the Tenderloin. “Besides, if they can’t buy it here, they will just go somewhere else.”

“There are too many loopholes in it to be effective,” said Tamimi, as he watched a busy parade of regular customers leave his store with pint bottles of inexpensive gin and vodka, quart bottles of malt liquor and large jugs of regular table wine.

Table wine is less than 14% alcohol. Fortified wines being test-banned by Gallo and Canandaigua have brandy or other spirits added to bring the alcohol level above 14%, and are often mixed with fruit juices to make them sweeter and more palatable.

Sometimes, however, the distinctions are not obvious. Gallo, for example, has withdrawn Thunderbird brand wine from Tenderloin shelves, but still sells Thunderbird Blue brand. Thunderbird has 18% alcohol, Thunderbird Blue 13.9%. Both sell for about 90 cents a bottle.

“I know that some will switch to liquor or beer or to other brands (of fortified wine),” Tamimi said. “If you don’t let people buy wine, two of them can pool their money and buy a pint of vodka. It gives them the same effect and is 20 cents less.”

Gallo itself expressed similar sentiments, even as it pulled its products from shelves.

Test Wisdom

“History shows that neither Prohibition nor restrictive legislation will deter alcoholics from seeking the alcohol they unfortunately seem to need,” said Gallo spokesman Dan Solomon, adding that the wine maker is nonetheless “eager” to test this conventional wisdom.

“We believe, and the evidence tends to support, that if alcoholics are deprived of one source--be it beer, wine or cheap distilled spirits--they will find another, regardless of difficulty or cost,” he added. “However, we are as anxious as anyone to find out if our beliefs and the evidence are correct.”

Skepticism failed to dampen the enthusiasm of Phil Faight, the Tenderloin saloon keeper who paradoxically heads Safe and Sober Streets, the group that asked Gallo for the wine ban.

Faight said retailers in San Francisco’s fabled Haight Ashbury District got together to voluntarily ban fortified wines last year and claimed a noticeable decline in the number of street drinkers, litter and loiterers.

“Look at Haight Street,” he said, brushing aside others’ doubts. “Haight Street looks a lot better now than last year. I don’t mean there isn’t anybody out there drinking, but it (the voluntary wine ban) has reduced the density of drinkers on the street.”

Courage Praised

Tenderloin merchants were not as cooperative, Faight added, and an attempt to organize a voluntary ban in that harder-hit neighborhood was unsuccessful. For that reason, Faight heartily praised Gallo for having the courage to put its convictions to the test and thanked Canandaigua for following suit.

Canandaigua did not say how long its ban will last. Gallo has said it will abide by its program for six months, after which it will assess the success of the program.

Faight said he believes that the temporary bans will at least have an effect by reducing the amount of shelf space local stores devote to the product--space that will be filled by other products in the meantime and be difficult to reopen for fortified wines.