I’ve been reading a lot of posts and articles on natural wines. In fact, there is a tasting of natural wines being held in Los Angeles possibly this weekend.
But what is a natural wine? And what wines are natural? Do most people agree on what constitutes natural wines? Is this a fact, or an opinion? Are all natural wines produced in the same manner?
This is a serious question. I’m looking forward to any responses. Thanks in advance.
Jeff,
As you probably realized the use of the term “natural” in wine is controversial (and probably raises some people’s blood pressure).
The problem in my mind is that technique (which could be traditional or modern) often gets confused with “natural”. My best definition of “natural” wine would be wine that has no additions in the winery and no chemicals in the vineyard. At the extreme limit, this is rather impractical and most “natural” wineries use a little sulphur etc. (and if they don’t you should drink the wines quickly!!).
You might (though I doubt it) get people to agree on a few things that would not make for “natural” wine. These could be:
Wines with added tannins, acid, enzymes, yeast, extracts, water etc.
Wines made from grapes produced with pesticides, herbicides or other compounds not certified “organic”.
Philosophically “natural” wine should be about making wine that reflects the natural biodiversity of a site and should stand in contrast to approaching wine with a goal of “control”.
good to see you here, Jeff!
I’ve wondered, too, if there’s a “legal” definition of natural for wine.
alan
I’ve not heard of any legal definition. It appears to be subject to interpretation; just a more “natural” philosophy of wine growing/making – which probably employs some organics, Biodynamics, and some measure of non-interventionist methods.
I could also imagine that growers/wine makers sharing similar philosophies about the “movement” would want to band together in a larger group to present their wines to interested parties.
Natural is grapes are left on the vine and eventually rot and spontaneously ferment while using no chemicals. Anti-natural is wine is made using every intervention: spinning cones, RO, oak chips, oak dust, Mega Purple, acid addition, water addition, micro-ox, enzymes, etc.
What clear to me, though, is the lines are drawn rather arbitrary. For example, IIRC, copper sulfate is still allowed in Bio-dynamic viticulture because, well, it’s just so damn useful as a fungicide. Basically what self-proclaimed natural producers do is natural, and what they don’t do isn’t natural.
The real answer in my mind is disclosure of the type Randall Grahm is pursuing with Bonny Doon. Whatever is involved with the winemaking goes on the label. Then let the consumer decide what is OK and not OK. It bet it would be surprising what kind of intervention takes place in Napa and Bordeaux at the highest levels to produce consistent wines. But leave it up to the consumer. If some Bdx classified growth uses high levels of pesticides and re-concentrates the wine with RO in a weak vintage, the buyer should know the wine is not really an agricultural product but a manufactured good at that point. If it tastes good, though, perhaps the ends justify the means.
On the flip side, I also want to know if a producer eschews sulfites or uses low amounts. Natural wine at its extreme is oxidized, unstable and prone to bacteria and yeast blooms. I don’t want that either, and it annoys me that many wines that would be perfectly stable with minimal intervention (i.e. SO2) are made unstable based on ideological grounds.
Put simply ‘natural wines’ are those made without any additions, especially sulphur dioxide. If you want the wackiest & most extreme version of one of these wines try the Magma series from Frank Cornelissen. His top cuvee is the Magma Roso No 5R costs a fortune and can be very fragile, especially if stored too warm.
Can you say…“Coturri”??? I oftentimes like Tony’s wines when they’re young. But…man…can they turn into some pretty nasty stuff w/ bottle age.
Tom
My biggest issue is trying to redefine the word “natural”. The implication is that anything that doesn’t fall under the set of guidelines proposed is somehow unnatural or artificial. Is adding a bit of water unnatural? How can it be? It may be non-traditional, or possibly unusual, but unnatural? Same with tartaric acid additions.
Come up with a new term. Redefining words leads to confusion and often misleading information. If you mean traditional, say traditional. Or non-interventionist.
Good question, Jeff. It’s sorta like “beauty” or “pornography”…it’s mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Brian raises some good points, I think.
I would recommend PatrickMatthew’s book “Natural Wine” as a good framework to start the discussion.
The LATimes/Food has a short comment by PatrickComiskey that has a link to the Site w/ the activities schedule.
I believe AliceF*****g herself is in town for the event.
Tom
No official definition right now.
At the very beginning of the movement (end of the 80s, early 90s), the credo was :
No addition, no subtraction. Only fermented grape juice. And of course no preservatives like SO2.
These days it would more like : no addition or substraction that could affect any of the biological or chemical transformations BEFORE bottling.
Most of the “natural wine” winemakers are using light SO2 addition (10 - 40 ppm total addition) and sometimes fining or filtration at bottling, especially for export markets.
Of course no watering, chaptalization, commercial yeasts, enzymes, tannins, lisozymes, lactic bacterias, organic acids, not speaking of potassium ferrocyanides…
There are still some purists that are bottling totally natural.
Organic growing is very often factually related to natural wines but not automatically.
Some self-named natural wines are not made from organically grown grapes.
Most of the wines produced from organically grown grapes are not natural : mostly due to the use of SO2 prior to fermentation and therefore the use of commercial yeasts.
But not using commercial yeasts on grapes treated with synthesis fongicides can be tricky…
No value judgment here.
I won’t say that my wines are better because they are made “naturally”.
I just feel better doing it this way.
Very selfish in fact…
We had this discussion on an other board about acidification with verjus.
The means that I use for growing grapes and making wines are very important to me.
Probably totally useless for anyone else.
Eric Texier
Vigneron à Brézème
I think you have the answer from Greg and others.
There is no definition. It’s a marketing term like “Home Made”. I like the idea of saying exactly what you’ve done to the wine but unfortunately I think the people who fall for these things like the idea not the details.
I say I make my wines “as naturally as possible”. What I mean is that I use nature and my vineyard sites to determine acidity, alcohol content, and (for the most part) flavour. I don’t muck around with technical winemaking products like enzymes, powdered tannins, ion-exchange collumns, micro-oxigentaion equipment, oak chips and clarifying agents - all of which are very useful in getting wines onto the shelves quickly and to suit the immortal words of Paul Masson “We sell no wine before its time”.
However, it is total negligence to make wines with no SO2, protection from oxidation or filtration. It is outrageous to market a “wine” that is very faulty and has no ageing potential at a high price but I suppose if people can be parted from their money for such things, who is the fool?
If anyone would like some “natural” wine, I have 10hl of lees that I can sell them. It tastes like silage but I can guarantee I’ve never done anything to it.
I am always very happy to spend €75 in a Cornas sans souffre bottling from Thierry Allemand or any wine from Stanko Radikon. I can’t afford to drink this all year long but these wines are part of my pantheon.
I know plenty of faulty wines. Natural or not.
A few glorious wines. Some are definitely natural.
Eric,
I’m glad to read you here.
Your postings over on disorder last year with regards to Chauvet and related subjects were terrific.
Very insightful, though I struggled to keep up with some of the more technical discussion.
OK, I’ll play a bit… 
How about oak? Can a natural wine be made with oak barrels?
How about stems? Are whole cluster wines “natural”? IMHO stems are definitely an addition since they aren’t necessary for making wine.
How about temperature control? That affects biological and chemical transformations.
How about saignee - is that process allowed for natural wines?
What’s allowed (or mandated) when it comes to pressing? Afterall, pressing harder extracts more tannin and acid - so what’s the “standard” used to make sure the wines truely reflect the vineyard and vintage (i.e. removing or adding more than is suppossed to be there)
Serge - Eric isn’t in Burgundy. He makes Rhone wines mostly from the Southern section.
My apologies to the technocrats and craft specialists while I put on my philosophers cap, but to me, a natural wine is one that engages in a frank discussion about origin and terroir with the imbiber. The vigneron must have a methodological approach to achieving this and often can utilize unnatural elements as a means of said achievment.
Brian,
These are very good points.
As I and others said, there is no official definition.
I gave mine.
Feel free to give yours.
Cheers
Eric
PS I don’t do saignée, don’t temp control, don’t do any punch down or pumping over anymore.
I definitely don’t destem.
Again feel free to see any wine as more natural than mines, according to your standards.
I still produce a few barrels of Macon wines from purchased grapes.
Most of my vineyards are in the NORTHERN Rhone (Brézème and Saint Julien en Saint Alban).
Hi Brian - These are all great questions and I don’t think there is a clear answer. As touched on above, there is no real regulation or definition. I think wineries will decide to what extent they go natural.
Within the movement, one thing we all agree on, is natural wines should first and foremost express terrior. Obviously, the methods employed will be/have been debated over and over. Many agree that the use of indigenous yeasts (non inoculated), practicing responsible (organic methods) and sustainable farming, low use of SO2 (at bottling) are all common to natural wines. Low alcohols, little use of new oak, no fining/filtration are also desirable qualities.
I am a fan of these wines. I enjoy them and hope to see greater exposure for the movement. There should be no absolutes. There is room for all styles of winemaking and I embrace them.
I suggest those that are interested, seek out and explore.
more information:
My bad.