Kevin:
It almost sounds as if you’re completely discounting any other possible benefits-- considerations of health for consumers and the environment, philosophical matters, etc.
Is that the case, or are these simply less important than “taste”?
Regards,
PS: I prefer wine with sulfur as well.
Rick-
Explaining why one had an opinion does not equal trolling. I’m simply trying to illustrate that painting oneself into a corner dogmatically doesn’t work with wine any more than food or other lifestyle choices. If the illustration is too tangential for your liking, then I apologize.
As far as attaching sustainability to the idea of natural winemaking, Mike adds that concept at the beginning of the thread. It is very difficult for me to really attach sustainable practices to a luxury item imported from the other side of the world.
If you still think I’m trolling here, I don’t really know what to say.
But you’re the one painting things in black and white - the poll’s not dogmatic at all. There are a couple of choices above that are very much grey - see my first post.
Fair enough, but when the first “requirement” is Biodynamic farming, that gets pretty black and white, Demeter certification means you are in or you’re out. They directly attach their philosophy to an environmental message.
http://demeter-usa.org/environmental-message/
Rick, we live in Seattle and the city and county are all in on recycling. How about parts of the country which don’t require a restaurant to recycle anything and hundreds or thousands of Chapoutier (Biodynamic, not necessarily “natural”) bottles end up in landfills- I really think that cancels out the well intentioned start of that bottle’s life. Does that mean that I immediately become cynical and thrown the baby out with the bathwater? No. Do I think it is a much more pragmatic and effective use of my time to focus on eating locally and seasonally as much as possible with daily staples and accept that luxury items like wine and expensive cheese are going to contradict that? For me, yes.
I would imagine that if we were sitting across a table with good wine and some food we would have a good engaging discussion about this. I generally enjoy your posts and you add a ton here. I am respectfully asking if next time you could just ask me to clarify without “clueless” and trolling" right out of the gate.
I vote for the last option. Taking down native forests to plant vines is hardly natural. That said, making wine as “gently” as possible does seem like a worthy goal.
Morning all,
I am all for minimal buggering about when it comes to making wine, but the term ‘Natural wine’ is a tad on the mendacious side. Wine is one of those things that is termed a semi-spoiled food product, half way between grape juice and vinegar, and it is in that state because someone made it like that. This is not quite the most natural of processes that would normally happen to grape juice.The term over-sells something that is nebulously defined at best.
Moreover, pragmatism is very important and perhaps one of the most laudable attributes of any really enlightened winemaker - I like people who say, “Sure, I’d rather minimise spraying but if I see rot taking hold in my vines I will not hold back one jot.” That is right thinking.
Finally, sulphur is bloody marvellous stuff. 
Cheers,
David.
PS. I’ve just noticed my number of posts is a quintuple Nelson. I’m worried, please no one bowl me out.
Bruce,
Those considerations are important to me but I realize that not everyone feels the same way. The ensuing debate often obscures the fact that organic viticulture and minimal winemaking interventions just produce wine that tastes better.
Point very clearly taken Kevin!
Tom, I couldn’t agree more about Jamie’s book. I reading though it like a Summer mystery. Maybe it’s just vineyard freaks like us that wallow in this stuff?
I’m a little surprised by the results so far.
It seems to me that as a consumer, the linkage between “natural wines” and a more interesting/satisfying/delicious product in the glass is very difficult to grasp unless you take the time to understand the processes utililzed by the various wineries you patronize?
I am all for minimal buggering about when it comes to making wine, but the term ‘Natural wine’ is a tad on the mendacious side. Wine is one of those things that is termed a semi-spoiled food product, half way between grape juice and vinegar, and it is in that state because someone made it like that. This is not quite the most natural of processes that would normally happen to grape juice.The term over-sells something that is nebulously defined at best.
That’s about right. It’s “natural” if we use “minimal” sulfur, but not if we use too much.
It’s “natural” if we use varietal clones that were developed on one continent and graft them onto rootstock from another continent but if we propagate yeast from the same continent as the ancestral grapes, it’s no longer natural. Grape propagation = natural, yeast propagation = unnatural. Rootstock propagation = let’s just ignore that.
So Mike, I think everyone likes the idea of “natural” but your definition doesn’t really equate to natural. I like cheese from small producers here and there. Just like wine, there is nothing about it that’s truly natural, as everything that happens in cheesemaking requires a human decision - milk doesn’t just come out of an animal and turn into cheese.
And yes, I understand that the single plastic-wrapped squares aren’t really cheese in the same way that the washed rind cheese is. But let’s assume you’re not looking for a homogenized, pasturized product. So let’s put the Yellow Tail or the Velveeta aside. There’s a lot of wine and a lot of cheese that isn’t “natural” by your definition but it’s not Yellow Tail either. Is a 225 liter barrel more natural than another size? Is an older one more natural than a newer one? Is picking at 26 brix more natural than picking at 29? Obviously refrigeration is completely unnatural so I’m surprised not to see ruling out the use of stainless steel refrigerated tanks as a requirement for natural wine.
The decisions that are made by the cheesemaker are in fact the very thing that makes the cheese distinctive and even interesting, just as the decisions that are made by the winemaker are what makes the wine distinctive. I don’t know why it’s necessary to negate the “unnatural” contributions of the producer. I will most certainly buy one producer over another because I prefer his or her decisions and I always hope that none of them are to allow things to proceed “naturally”. I hope that he’s managed his vineyard and taken care of his grapes and find the idea that sulfur and yeast are the lines in the sand between natural and unnatural to be just a load of Joe Dressner bullshit.
So if we’re defining natural as using “minimal” this or that, then the term “natural” becomes entirely meaningless; it’s then just a term to be used by marketers. Which is why I completely agree with David’s point that the term is a tad mendacious. And in spite of that, and in spite of his obnoxious self, Joe does have some pretty good wines. I just discount his sales rap.
with the current definition: not important at all for my personal purchases
Very poor poll as I cannot find an option worth responding to. Mixes too many poorly defined issues in the one question.
Very unsatisfactory answer Ray!
What definition would have importance to you?
Interesting. Name an option that would be worthy of your response.
What is wine?
It is something we intercept in the process of juice becoming vinegar.
As to minimal intervention, most great wines require little intervention.
The idea of “natural” winemaking has all the ingredients of a marketing gimmick.
Whomever claimed it first put all the others on the defensive. But it is a red herring.
Don’t we all love to line up behind a slogan?
I don’t know anyone who “loves” to line up behind the natural wine “slogan.” All I know are people who happen to enjoy the wines to which the term refers, and occasionally use the term to refer to them for lack of any other term.
Hey Mike
sorry to be brief earlier. To be more precise, I like the idea of having more information shared between producers and consumers. As it currently stands, there doesn’t seem to be a hard and fast set of standards that amount to much. There are too many variables. And, more to the point, there are always ways one can wiggle into labeling themselves one way while doing other mischievous things that have not been defined as disqualifying.
So, as a consumer, I ask a bunch of questions, and do my detective work to the best of my abilities. I don’t know what to think of ‘natural’ or anything along those lines. What I do know is that I like the idea of keeping things simple. This extends to what I do myself, naturally. But, not being ‘hands off’ (however this is defined) doesn’t mean that the wine would taste worse, different, or better. There is no way to know, so there is no way I can say that it is important.
Finally, as a consumer, I’m more concerned about what someone is doing or more importantly not doing than how they might label themselves or their commercially disclosed practices.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Thanks Ray. I think that you and Keith are correct - the “Natural Wine” sloganeering, terminology, etc. are clouding the primary question - which may be something more like “do you care about the additions and manipulation that goes into your wine?” [“or are you only concerned with the taste of the final product”]
Or, maybe another question would be, “do you believe that simple vineyard/winemaking processes lead to great wine?”
It is difficult for many of us (on the consumer side) to fully appreciate the linkage between “simple” vs. “complex” vineyard/winemaking processes and wine quality.
To Strange and Tatar: excellent, thoughtful, posts gentlemen. I think you have perfectly framed what the discussion should be, as well as defined the sane and reasoned position in the matter.
As like minded French winemakers call this view “lutte raisonée,” or the “reasoned struggle,” they too recognize that the bottom line is not what’s in the glass or mystical dogma, but rather the limitations of the human condition. We ought to have the loftiest ambitions and most noble values, and we ought to try to reach them, but we are not gods and not endowed to create perfection, only struggle with difficulty, sacrifice, and compromise, towards it.