"Natural wines" vs. French appellation system

An article in the LA Times this morning:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-wine-battle-20111229,0,7662018,full.story

Bruce

Jeez . . . I guess this new (mostly) annoying religious sect isn’t going away. neener

Misinformation, bandwagons, ignorance, “natural” dogma, & consumer trends make strange (to me) bedfellows.

Speaking for myself, I don’t see anything wrong with using any tool, in the Vineyard, or the winery, if it will help make a better wine.

The overall consumers (including a substantial chunk of wine “knowledgeable”) understanding of the process of growing & making wines is quite poor.

I can see the attraction of “Natural” to P.R. people, & to operations who have no problem lying/misleading the public.

Don’t get me wrong - there are certainly lots of very good things in what some of the producers are doing, but the term “Natural” can, does, & will have way too much B.S. around it.
That’s not my favorite aroma for fine wine. hitsfan

Just my 2 cents . . .

[head-bang.gif] pileon [popcorn.gif]

Cheers!

[cheers.gif]

[popcorn.gif]

I suggest they establish the French Coast AOC

Great wine writing for a newspaper, in fact really good article anywhere. The whole concept of protecting the AOC with standards make sense, but it is interesting to see the unintended effects in these cases. Here, the winemakers are trying to make a really good product, completely opposite from the industrial one the system seems to want to protect against, yet the rules prohibit them. It will be interesting to see which way this thread goes. Thanks for posting it.

Natural wines are generally considered more fruity, and a lot riskier (and more expensive) to produce. They can easily turn to vinegar, and no chemical pesticides or fertilizers are permitted to save struggling crops from disease or bad weather.

I feel sorry for writers who have to listen to this drivel and then repeat it with good intention. Wow!


This one got quite the show.

Standing by the wood-burning oven in their kitchen, Claire Cousin rips apart the frame around a photo of her husband, Olivier, kneeling beside Romeo, the lazy draft horse he uses to plow his small vineyard in France’s Anjou region.

Preoccupied, his hand on his beard, the real Olivier sits at the large kitchen table musing over several open bottles of wine. “Yeah, get rid of the frame,” he says, without looking.

Claire hangs the unbound portrait back on the cluttered wall. They both approve.

[cheers.gif]

The tourists eat this shit up.

But, but, but, Peter–it’s a metaphor with a subtle philosophical message! :slight_smile: Perhaps if you started ripping up your photo frames, you too could receive this sort of adulatory story…

Bruce (TFIC)

Very, very interesting article!
The author clearly chooses his side, but it still is very interesting to see how subjective the concept of AOC is.
Nowadays, we are arriving at a point when there are more and more differences between the different type of producers. Industrial wines have never been as standardised by all these “internationnal style” process, and wines from some small growers have never has as much personality, and have never been as “natural” as they are now. So it will be a big issue for the INAO, and for us, young growers, to find the way to manage this. Should we find a system where every type of producers-and wine can find its place? Or should we take a clear orientation for one or the other style, and forbide the other ones? Or should we allow the big differences, but clearly identify these?
The actual way of thinking of the INAO is to choose one direction, and forbide the others, as you have understood by reading the article. This is the concept of typicity, but this is subjective… The positive point, is that is preserves a certain style, which the customer can clearly be waiting for when reading a lable. But for me is has the big backdraw to erase the personality and the creativity of the producers: and this is IMO the much interesting thing in the wine world! So I would prefer the orientation which would allow all the styles, which all have the right to exist -as long as the quality is there!- but which would clearly identify the wines styles: “classic” wines, made in big volumes, and with no big personality but nice regularity, and wines with higher personnality, which represent the style of the grower and the terroir, and could be surprising for the taster and also provoke curiosity and emotion.
Florian

The problem is that INAO has confused quality with style, probably because there was, in earlier times, virtually no pressure to produce wines with any agenda other than quality concerns.

As this article points out, some producers today, like Cousins, have a cultural agenda, and want to imbue their wines with other expressions than quality. Quoting the author on Cousins, “he says he cares more about the process, a way of life, and preserving the planet, than about how the wine tastes.”

I think the solution is for the INAO to set up a review process for Natural wines, so that the AOC system’s mandate to ensure quality can be maintained without comparing the style of adulterated wines (or Wine, which would be my preferred nomenclature). The other obligation of an AOC is to guarantee the wine comes from the designated location, but this part of regular enforcement operations, so that can continue as it has been.

Style changes over time anyway, so I see no problem, or essential requirement of the AOC system, to preserve style, so having two categories for the tasting requirement of each AOC should be a good settlement.

After this, with two types of wines in the market, the vendors can choose which they want to sell, consumers can decide which they want to buy, and everything will settle out according to market demands.

I think. rolleyes

It seems the fundamental issue, or battle, is over the extent to which appellation systems and rules should regulate winemaking practices other than the geographic origin of the wine grapes. Almost inevitably, the more the appellation systems regulate winemaking practices and such, the more you have individual winemakers who want the freedom to make wine as they see fit while still being able to call their wine “Anjou” or whatever the AOC might be.

As you say, perhaps a dual track system could solve the conflict. Track 1 is a “guarantee” of geographic origin and winemaking practices/style. Track 2 is simply a “guarantee” of geographic origin. Practically, though, I doubt anyone would adopt a dual track solution.

Bruce

Maybe I’m missing something, but where in the article does it say that Cousin was denied the use of the term “Anjou” due to his winemaking practices? The only thing I can find is that he’s being sued for the use of the term because he dropped out of the certification system and doesn’t pay the associated dues. I get that as an issue - hell, I wouldn’t want to have to pay to use the AVA designations we have here in the US. Nor would I want to have to go through a review process of every wine. What a PITA that would be.

I guess if you assume that his winemaking practices are such that they are inexorably tied to the taste of the wine, then maybe a case could be made. But I’m not sure I buy into the idea that “natural wines” in and of themselves are necessarily that radically different tasting. Or so much so that they’d be excluded from getting approval via the review process. Especially since I find it hard to believe that there’s a black and white division between full natural and full industrial winemaking in the region. Like most areas, I would assume it spans the entire range of interventional practices. Maybe at the radical fringe, the wines could show flaws due to the lack of SO2 - which in my mind would be a valid reason for not allowing the use of the term in question, since it reflects on everyone within the region.

And please don’t misinterpret my comments - I’m not saying that Cousin’s wines are flawed. Or that they aren’t amazing. But no where in the article did I see that he’d actually been denied the use of the term “Anjou” for how his wines taste or how they are made. To me, it just sounds like he doesn’t want to pay the fee.

Chaad,

I don’t disagree at all with having natural wines regulated. To me it seems to be as much B.S. as reason & rationality regarding the wine right now.

I think there would first have to be a consensus, rational definition for natural wines.

Others questions could be - How narrow a category will “natural” be?

No manipulation at all?

No SO2? Really? Based on what?
No cultured yeast? No pH adjustment? Chaptalization? Percentage of new oak regulated? Are all of these smart, & more importantly, going to lead to better wine quality?

Do some actually mean no manipulation in the Vineyard except maybe astrology . . . oops, I mean BD . . . ? Don’t even get me started what that would mean.

I guess I just haven’t heard a definition that makes sense to me, and would also necessarily result in overall better quality, & less flawed, poor wine.

Cheers & good luck to the “believers”

[cheers.gif]

They did in Tuscany, for those who found the rules in Chianti too restrictive, and with evident economic success for many “Super-Tuscan” producers.

I’m glad M. Cousin has found an agreeable lifestyle and I wish him all the best, but I’d rather choose wines from a winemaker who really cares how his wines taste to others. But not to this point, however: “I don’t see anything wrong with using any tool, in the vineyard, or the winery, if it will help make a better wine.” Better is of course subjective, and to my mind, that attitude leaves the door open for anything goes. All the people I drink with grow wine grapes and/or make wine, so I know that there are complications and methods necessary to make wine, but if I have a choice I’ll always choose less technique (additives, etc.).

I’m glad you brought this up, because I was struggling with the same thing. I thought the premise was severely weakened because of this. If they had denied the Anjou label because he didn’t do this or that, I would have a lot more sympathy. As it is, you can’t tell if his motivation is really winemaking practice or skipping out on a fee that his peers are paying.

Brian Loring nailed it IMO. The article is shallow and vague and no real discussion of the specifics can follow from it.

If I am an artisan producer of Anjou, I certainly am harmed by having that appellation name applied to unstable, flawed products. And that is one of the fundamental tenants of the AOC system.

If I am a consumer of Anjou, I certainly deserve a fighting chance of buying a bottle that reflects what Anjou is. And that is the other fundamental tenant of the AOC system.

The assertion, swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the author, that AOC wines are industrially manufactured by chemical processes is pure hogwash.

Bingo. An assumption’s made that colors the entire article. The very first thing the author should have done is to check that hypothesis out with some people who were knowledgeable about the appellation. If the premise is inaccurate the rest of the article makes no sense.

The entire point of the AOC system is to establish some criteria for being able to claim your wine as an AOC wine. If you want to opt out of it, fine. Dageneau did in the Loire. But don’t decide to go your own way, opt out of paying the fees your neighbors pay and then expect to get the benefit of the AOC.