So, I did a little surfing. I failed to find any recent conclusive science on the matter.

In Matt Kramer’s book, “Making Sense of Wine”, while stating that ultra-violet rays from the sun and super halogen bulbs right on top of bottles can damage wine, he claims that artificial light is hardly strong enough to affect a wine.

A study by N. M. Dozen (Campus Universitaire, Dijon, France) and A. C. Noble (U. C. Davis) published in a 1989 issue of the American Journal of Enology & Viticulture showed a measurable effect of fluorescent light on sparkling wine and the still wine from which it was made. The effect was a decrease in citrus aroma intensity and an increase in the intensity of the lightstruck aromas (goûts de lumière) of cooked cabbage, corn nuts, wet dog/wet wool, and soy/marmite.

The clear bottles showed significant differences after only about 3 ½ hours of exposure. The green-tinted bottles only afforded a modicum of protection, with significant differences produced after about 18 hours (still wine). The study suggested that uv-screening agents be used in clear glass bottles.

I have to respectfully disagree. I would prefer that all wine be packaged in clear bottles for the very reasons that you cite. I would also prefer them to be light in weight. Those producers that try to make their wine seem to have more gravitas by using half inch thick glass aren’t fooling anyone and they’re helping to ruin the lower backs of many a store clerk. But, that’s another topic.

I’ve often thought that putting a Sauvignon Blanc in a dark bottle is a little like selling bananas in an opaque box. I suspect that the producers that use colored glass for their white wines are more concerned about the consumer being able to see that a wine is old than they are about the ravages of exposure to light.

Many consumers don’t even look at vintages. Or, if they do, they don’t know to be careful about buying older whites. But, if all Sauvignon Blancs were in clear bottles and one looks like a Tokaji while all the others look normal, even the most uninitiated consumer is likely to stay away.

I’ve seen many old white vintages on store shelves that had no business being anywhere but in the discount bin. They are routinely purchased by unsuspecting consumers, who in all likelihood form an unfair, negative impression of those producers because the wine was at a less than optimal drinking age. Producers can better protect their reputations by using clear bottles.

Is there a risk that some perfectly good bottles will get passed over because their color is unusually dark? Sure. But, I think it’s worth the trade-off for full-disclosure. Besides, as a wine educator I’m always looking for ways for consumers to better identify wines that are highly likely to please them. Color adds one more criterion. For example, the person who prefers their Chardonnays unoaked may do well to look for those lighter in color – hard to do if all the bottles are light brown.

Regarding the protection of the wine from light; it is an issue, but one that is easily dealt with by conscientious retailers and informed consumers. Retailers should be protecting their wines from light damage by their choices of lighting and the positioning of their displays away from direct sunlight. Those that don’t; deserve to lose customers. Most consumers open wines the same day they purchase them. Those who do go to the trouble to store their wine usually know to keep light exposure to a minimum.

The vintage is a good indicator of a white wine’s health, but not always a fool-proof one. Varying production methods and sulfur regimens can make a huge difference. Many low sulfur, unfiltered whites are toast after one year, while other versions of the same grape may be fine for 4 or 5 years. The best way to tell is by the color.

I think you have it exactly backwards with your contrast of negative impressions. The old wine in the dark bottle left a negative impression of the producer. This is most likely unfair to the producer. The culprit is more likely to be a lazy or unscrupulous retailer. The negative impression is misplaced. Besides, aren’t they going to get a good look at the color as soon as they pour it into a glass?

On the other hand, creating a negative impression of a browning wine is precisely what will allow the consumer to make a more informed choice the next time. It’s not a pitfall, it’s an advantage. Sure, consumers need to learn that certain grapes are naturally darker than others. That fact would be more easily discerned if all whites were in clear bottles for all to see.

I also think red wines should be in clear glass. I often find myself saying to customers looking for a light red wine, “Trust me. It looks dark, but that’s just the color of the glass.” Why not allow the consumer to see for themselves that a Pinot Noir has a lighter body than a Cabernet Sauvignon, or that a $50 Pinot Noir is probably going to be fuller and richer than a $10 Pinot Noir?

Ultimately, as with everything; knowledge is power. The more the consumer knows about wine the better equipped they are to select a wine that will please them. With a little bit of knowledge and a clear, unobstructed view of the wines for sale, their chances are enhanced.