For 1) the problem is not that the companies use industrial yeast, but that they take already perfectly good wine, and "reyeast" it to fake how and where it was made.
For 2) as well, surely people are allowed to enjoy wine made with oak flakes, but the producers should be honest about it.
More transparency and labels such as the suggested "wine drink" can only help consumers.
Is there really any evidence to suggest that is going on? It doesn't make a ton of sense as an (admittedly amateur) wine and beermaker. I mean, I suppose adding more yeast is possible, but it seems like it would work... very poorly, especially into finished wine. You'd have to use a much more alcohol-tolerant strain than the original fermentation, but not if the original wine contained sulfites (which stop fermentation -- that's the major reason why they're added)... It doesn't seem to make a ton of sense.
Rather, I think what is perhaps going on is a misunderstanding, or even a sort of mendaciously inaccurate description, of how modern winemaking works, where you -- just like beermaking has for centuries -- put in (aka: "pitch") yeast, selected to be consistent with the type and style of wine you want to make. The alternative would be to make the winemaker depend only on the randomly-occurring yeast in an area. (Which I suppose is a sort of 'terroir', but it's not the sort I think most people would appreciate.)
But I want to reply by saying that the evidence was provided mostly by one of the 10 wine distributors that the journalists requested the content declaration from. They asked the 10 largest distributors sold in Swedish alcohol stores and one replied.
Through that information they were able to track down the company that sells the flavored yeast and make the connection from the flavors listed in their marketing all the way to the actual wine on the shelf in the store.
The other distributors refused multiple times to give out any information and some said they would gladly await the EU regulations about content declaration that are in the works, and would follow them, but still refused to say anything about the content.
2.Oak flakes vs barrels is very obvious if you know what to look for. The rounding out of flavors via microoxygenation is apparent on a bottle that's seen barrel time.
This study was for beginning wine students. Of course they're going to try to pass the test with the information that had just been provided them (red==this, white==that).
Could it be that the producer take cheap wine and add additional sugar and yeast?
(2) It might be out there, but I've never seen cheap wine advertising that it's been put in this or that kind of barrel for a particular amount of time. At most, they might put a barrel on the label to evoke the idea, which is fairly innocuous as far as false advertising goes.
If your interpretation of the OP is closer to what he meant, then really what you both are talking about is fraud, not common practice nor legal and definitely not likely to be true of the majority of "generic wine from our national alcohol store".
And those waiting for legislation for ingredients on wine bottles might have to wait for a while more. It has been in the works for 35 years. The industry really dont want to dispell our beliefs in the traditional wine barrel.