Actually, there have been studies where they put red food coloring in white wine and given it to self-styled experts who could not tell that what they were drinking was not red wine.

I'm sure you could find just as many studies proving the opposite. The human nose is not as bad as many people think. I've conducted a little experiments myself together with four or five roommates. We first sampled four different red wines, then going at them 'blind' (not knowing the label) again. Me and a colleague got all four right, the others had two of them mixed up (always the same as I remember). All of us were completely untrained in wine testing. At least we could find good evidence that we were better than random agents, even though to do it conclusively the sample size would have to be larger.

I think when you try to trick somebody into thinking a wine is something different from what it is, that's very much different from saying we can't tell apart wines at all.

There's no question that people can tell one wine from another. But the point is that people's perceptions of wine are as much a function of their expectations as the actual chemistry of the wine. The same thing can be said about insects or veggie-burgers. Yes, veggie burgers don't taste like real burgers. But if people claim that veggie burgers taste worse (or better) than real burgers, that could be as much a function of their expectations as it is the actual flavor.

I hate this example. It's not blind, it's deceptive. It's funny, but it proves nothing.

I agree with the general inability of wine tasters to discern nearly as much as they believe, just not this particular example.

I went back and looked up the details. It turns out that the protocol was that they were served two glasses of wine, one red, one white. They were actually the same (white) wine. The red wine had (flavorless) food coloring added. Yes, it's deceptive, but this sort of deception is common is psychological studies. I'd say it's fair game in this case.

No it's really unfair and a stunt.

Expecting to taste a red wine and getting a disguised white wine means you're not ready to appreciate a white wine. It's a whole different world so no wonder they found it off.

It would have actually been a better call to stick to white wine, no coloring added, and differentiate only with the label.

> differentiate only with the label

They've done studies like that too, with similar results.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tas...

> I may tell you this bordeaux is cheap and acidic, but at no point was I mistaking it for a bottle of Rose.

Oh really?

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/does-all-wine-t...

There have been tests that show people can't tell the difference between 7up and cola - especially when the drinks are served at traditional cold US serving temperatures.

Were these tests blind or double-blind?

Frasier is a television show, I was trying to draw out the story. I know literally nothing about wine having had maybe 6 sips in my lifetime.

A similar argument can be made about confusing two types of potato vs a potato and a parsnip. Yes pleasure is subjective, and taste is to some extent. In general there are limits to this effect.

Yes, I could effectively overcook the taste out of both things, mush them into a texture-less paste, and then stuff them full of enough herbs and spices to mask any semblance of their original flavour. At that point perhaps I've won - but then I'm not sure it meets the claim.