All “natural wine” marketing depends on consumers not really understanding how many technological choices are involved in winemaking and how much winemaking has been totally transformed by modern technology. Temperature control, stainless steel, modern mechanical crushers, automatic pumping over…the list goes on and on, you’d have to be an expert just to list all the technological choices made in winemaking from the selection and growing of the vines to maturation and bottling.
Just as in cooking it makes sense to distinguish processed fast food from great cuisine that respects and elevates the ingredients, but it doesn’t make much sense to talk about cooking and preparing of food as a “natural” as opposed to a craft process.
Pretty much this. The more I’ve learned about wine microbiology, the more I think that the distinction between destemming, throwing a cooling plate in a ferment, adding 1 g/L of acid or sprinkling a bit of SO2 at the crusher is arbitrary. It’s all manipulation of environmental conditions to encourage the growth of beneficial microorganisms and discourage the growth of spoilage organisms. That’s the job of a winemaker.
Natural wine marketing is elevating oneself up on a pedestal and distancing yourself as much as possible from the peasantry of “conventional”, and with the other, pulling the wool over the consumer’s eyes.
The amount of gatekeeping I see from prominent personalities in this industry seems to bake that into the ideology for me. Alice Feiring is one that immediately comes to mind; there was a row involving her on Twitter last year about Aldi releasing a natural, orange wine. It couldn’t possibly be natural, and if it is, move the goalposts back, because it couldn’t possibly be economical at that scale. Turns out it was machine-harvested.
And there you have it. The movement was never about transparency of site or any such notion, it was always anti-technology and anti-big business. Notions I don’t totally disagree with mind you, but not at the expense of absolutely everything else. Wine is for everyone. And while I like a lot of natural wine, there’s a strong, pervasive element of superiority and deception inherent in the movement at the moment (specifically in the marketing of it), that is keeping me from ever meaningfully participating in it, at either the consuming or producing end.
It seems like a straw man argument to criticize someone for using a microscope to monitor what’s in the wine. If your goal (i.e., your definition of natural) is to limit additions to the wine (including commercial yeasts, nutrients, sulfur), then a microscope to see what’s happening in fermentation is perfectly fair. Same thing with lowering the temperature to arrest bacteria.
The number of winemakers who profess to use no technology is probably close to nil. That’s just a caricature of what natural wine is about. (FYI, I’m no great fan of natural or low sulfur wines.)
Very interesting points (as always), Wes. Thanks. I’ve had too many great wines over 30+ years made with sulfur — and too many flawed low-sulfur wines in the last decade — to be sympathetic to the sulfur puritans. Just toss a little in to be safe, i want to say.
It’s even more ridiculous in the case of the microscope, because that does not affect the wine. The small samples examined will not even be consumed. You may as well criticise the winemaker for using spectacles to look at the wine, or a pen to make notes.
GUIDELINES
These guidelines were not written to praise or condemn organic practices, but rather to define the actions (or non-actions) that allow for wine to fully express itself. Wine should be a product of nature and not external influences intended to speed up or stabilize the winemaking process. We work to restore the harmonious balance between man and the land. In short, this is the goal of Viniveri.
It is our mission of our group:
to bring together people who work in accordance with these guidelines;
to encourage discussion between producers and the exchange of experiences and results;
to seek out the best balance between human intervention and nature in the winemaking process;
to communicate the Viniveri guidelines and promote the work of wineries that abide by it.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
All members of Viniveri and anyone interested in joining the group must follow the rules, listed below, throughout the entire production cycle, both in the vineyard and the winery.
IN THE VINEYARD
a) no herbicides and/or desiccant herbicides; b) no chemical fertilizers; c) no genetically modified vines; d) new vines planted in the vineyard must be sourced from pre-existing ones; e) cultivate indigenous grape varietials; f) disease may only be treated with products permitted by organic winegrowing standards and in no case are synthetic, local systemic or systemic products allowed; g) grapes must be harvested by hand.
IN THE CELLAR
a) only native yeasts present on the grapes or in the cellar can be used in fermentation; b) no nutrients or any other products can be added to modify the wine, such as vitamins, enzymes or bacteria; c) must concentration or forced-air drying methods are prohibited; d) the appassimento process of the grapes must occur naturally and not be forced; e) do not manipulate the natural development of the must or wine by trying to speed up or slow down the process; f) no temperature-controlled fermentation; g) no clarification or filtration of the wine because it alters the natural balance of the wine; h) sulfur dioxide levels can not exceed 80mg/l for dry wines and 100mg/l for sweet wines.
I’ve met some extreme, anti-sulfur folks (and tasted even more wines), and as John Morris says, put (at least) some in, to protect - seems a good/sound practice to me (and the successes, to me, far outweigh the failures in this regard - and I make Vinnatur, and ViniVeri every year).
Wine is the last big food group to be taken down the organic/natural/no additives/humane growing/no pesticides path (even junk food past that stage decades ago). It is inevitable. It was always the case that it would have to go down that route. You probably don’t buy potato chips with transfats anymore if you can avoid it, right? Millenials want to be clued in, they want to know the origins of things and they want disclosure. It’s pretty basic stuff, really. Not sure why it needs to be fought so hard.
“Narural” is supposed to sound like basic stuff but is used as a marketing term with different meanings in different situations. I don’t particularly mind the use of the term. I find it a worthwhile warning to look for more information about risk of spoilage before buying. There are those that place lower intervention above ageability and risk of spoilage. Nothing wrong with that but my priorities differ.
And are you sure all those no trans-fat products are produced with less intervention?
Because nobody buys potato chips thinking they’re having a gamble on getting a mouthful of spoilage organisms that make the chips taste like shit. People who make potato chips with minimal trans fats using organic potatoes etc. still have a grounding knowledge of food science and technology necessary to provide a product that’s consistent and what the customer expects. The potato chip industry isn’t riddled with tatted, bearded chaps with no formal training insisting that minimal intervention will yield a more authentic product, consistency be damned.
I take your point where transparency and responsible farming practices are concerned, but I really don’t think the analogy holds water.
You are correct in saying that the cornerstone of the movement is lower intervention. But there’s clearly a secondary motivation, to make as “authentic” a wine as possible, in order for it to reflect it’s environment and variety in the most transparent way possible.
My assertion is that these are conflicting goals, and in many cases, natural wine fails at ticking both boxes at the same time.
You’re talking about natural wines that have no SO2? Yes, I’ve had a lot of spoiled and stinky wines in that category myself (but far from all), just like you. Personally, I use native yeast, but I do add SO2. And would consider using a commercial strand of yeast if the fermentation went down the wrong path (in fact I just did on one of them). Does that make them natural? Low intervention?
There are numerous wines that follow pretty much all these same principles, Ridge being one of many. Most ITB board members here, probably.
So if the definition of a natural wine is simply native yeast, then we’ve all had consistently good natural wines for centuries with no spoilage organisms.
If the definition is no SO2, then it’s little trickier and I would say no, they probably can’t be consistent or avoid spoilage.
I think the ‘challenge’ here is your basic definition. How would one define ‘lower-intervention’? I understand that many ‘natural’ producers ‘always’ go native with their ferments, don’t ‘add’ acid or any other chemicals other than small amounts of SO2, tend to work with organic or biodynamic vineyards, and bottle unfiltered. Is that what you mean by ‘lower-intervention’? Or are there other ways that they are using ‘lower intervention’?
What about racking wines during aging? Is that part of ‘lower intervention’? What about destemming fruit? What about sorting fruit at the winery? What about temperature controlled ferments?
It seems to me that the wine press and ‘wine influencers’ (however you want to define these folks - from Somms to wine writers, etc) have created this ‘incorrect’ line that either you are ‘natural’ or you are ‘industrial’ or ‘conventional’ but there are so many folks doing things ‘in between’ these camps and yet not beating the drum.
I am just not a fan of ‘dogma’ in wine - or life in general - and that’s where I have issues here.
And as far as the use of a microscope - I don’t find that ‘interventionist’ at all. It is acknowledging that the winemaking process can and does involve actual ‘science’ - and one should understand cause/effect if one wants to better their craft.
They could all save a lot of time by just making sure their cellar is very clean, their equipment is sanitized every time they use it and minimize the use of very old barrels, which cannot be sanitized no matter what you do. Looking under a microscope just tells you what you “have”, not how to avoid bacterial issues. If someone wants to see if they have an STD, a microscope will tell you. It does not stop you from getting it. That comes from making smart decisions before, not after, the fact.
I agree, there is no definition and as such it’s hard to have a framework for it. And in fact, most smaller wineries are probably closer to “natural” than they are industrial.
I was just responding to this resistance in some wine circles towards more disclosure about what goes into wine and how they’re made, whilst at the same time bemoaning that the millenials aren’t buying their wines. They’re connected. It will become obvious that even though we might not do any of those industrial things/high SO2/glyphosate (whatever it is they think they don’t like), we need to start telling the consumer that. We’ve been really bad about that. The zeitgeist snuck up on the wine industry and now we’re looking dishonest, old and un-progressive. The battle for these new consumers will be won there.
It can all be summed up very easily: Millenial wine consumers want to minimize the hurt winemaking does to nature, animals and themselves. So if we just make sure we cover those concerns in a non-defensive way, I’m positive they will consume wine in great quantities.
Interesting points - but at the same time, they are buying White Claw by the gallon and are not asking how those are made, right? How can we explain that?
The vast majority of millennials will unfortunately never taste most wines - it’s what they are ‘exposed to’ that matters at this time. And who controls that? Gatekeepers are the wine buyer level for sure - they have a choice of what to offer them and are steering these conversations. Wine writers as well as social influencers, too. That’s the biggest challenge - to make sure that these folks know more about what they are bringing in and are not ‘taken in’ by dogma so to speak . . .
I wish it was as simple as that, but we both know it isn’t. You can have the cleanest facility out there but still produce wines that have ‘issues’, and vice versa, you can have a ‘dirty’ facility but still produce wines without issues.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}