Sulfites--Natural Wine.

Am I misreading something in the Wine labeling regulations about sulfur?

A wine can make the claim:

“Sulfite Free”

or

“ No Added Sulfites - Contains Naturally Occurring Sulfites”.

But if sulfites are added and the total sulfites in the wine are above 10 parts per million, it must make the statement,

“Contains Sulfites.”

Yet, it seems that some people are marketing some wines as not having added sulfur, when the labels actually say “contains sulfites” NOT “ No Added Sulfites - Contains Naturally Occurring Sulfites”.

What’s going on here, if you read between the lines, what are some(?) “Natural Wine” MARKETERS really saying about their opinion of American wine consumers?

Also, I can’t find any documented literature that sulfites in wine cause headaches? None.

Also, it appears that less than 1% of the population has a sulfite sensitivity, not one third of the population, (Lyle.)

“I can only drink italian wines because they contain less sulphites. They don’t give me a headache like California wines do.”

And I do believe it’s more than 1% of the population who are stupid and ignorant enough to believe what they read and what they are told.



But then again, I hang out with you, so what do I know?

Speaking of sulfites . . . . I’ve been on about the whole natural wine experts codifying sulfites in wine making as less natural, yet accepting the user of sulfur not to mention copper sulfate and other supposedly ‘natural chemicals’ in vineyards. (While these occur in nature, who wants to take bets that supposed ‘natural chemicals’ are produced in an industrial manner to meet the market demands? )

Now, this is just preference, not a rule, but it seems odd folks worry about innocuous preservatives in the winemaking but not potentially dangerous preservatives in the field. BUT then I go and find out CCOF has precisely this rule! Grapes can be organically farmed with a variety of chemicals (including sulfur and copper sulfate), but if a wine has SO2 added, it cannot be labeled organic. WTF???

In principle I favor the idea of minimizing chemical farming and focusing on the health of the vineyard not to mention consumers. But are ‘natural chemical’ really safer just because they’re natural? Doesn’t it make a difference how intelligently they’re used? And why can’t there be self consistent rules that allow a traditional winemaking tool, SO2, when traditional and toxic chemicals are allowed for farming?

I recently read an blog post where “loose puppy-breath type of reduction” was blamed on sulfites. This just doesn’t add up to me as it sounds like these are volatile sulfur-based compounds. Mercaptans and sulfides usually come from fermentation, right? I suppose sulfites would buffer against against some potentially beneficial oxidation, though I’ve read that once you have mercaptans and sulfides they’re very hard to get rid of. In fact, Jamie Goode writes that adding lots of oxygen to a mercaptan-ridden wine will just result in an oxidized mercaptan-ridden wine. At any rate, sulfites wouldn’t cause the smell. More likely a stressed fermentation with too little intervention would. It seems that everyone just wants to blame sulfites for whatever problem they encounter. It’s a scapegoat.

The issue is simple. If you can label a wine as not having added sulfites, why wouldn’t you state that on the label, unless the wine actually contained added sulfites?

Who do you believe, the marketer who says the wine does not contain sulfites, or the Winemaker who is unwilling to label the wine as not containing added sulfites, because the wine actually does contain added sulfites?

Who do you believe, the marketer, or the Winemaker labeling the wine under the legal requirements of the TTB?

Read the label, not the marketing bullshit.

I think the “natural wine” movement needs to move away from the “no sulfur” thing entirely.

Why not just focus on organic grapes, no additions (other than sulfur) and low oak?

I have a few wines that I could label as a single vineyard that I have as an AVA. I also have a wine that could carry the SF Bay or SCV AVA’s and I put ‘California’ on it. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you will, and just because you don’t doesn’t mean you’re hiding anything. That’s a huge jump in logic.

For one of the single vineyard wines I don’t put the vineyard name on it because I hate the vineyard owners. On the other one I don’t because I love the vineyard owners. So there, go figure that out.

But do you then market those wines as single vineyard or as AVA wines if it doesn’t’ say that on the label?

Maybe some wine makers leave the label there because they don’t wish to become part of the debate. My wines are not commercial (and may never be at this rate) but I can say, if they were, I would not want to become part of this circular argument. No disrespect to those having the discussion, it may yet lead to some useful conclusion. I believe there may be a few wineries out there that may capture some small amount of attention but going the “none added” route but I doubt this will sustain their business. Ultimately the customer must enjoy the wine or it doesn’t have much of a future.
As a consumer, I dislike dried apricots from Trader Joe’s with a heavy aroma of SO2 because it detracts from the good taste of apricots. Occasionally I run into a wine like that also so perhaps my sensory threshold is lower than some. So I avoid those wines simply because I don’t like the taste. Shouldn’t taste be the decision point for both apricots and wine?

I market one as being a ‘Monkey Butt’. It has no actual monkey butts in it.

My labels say basically nothing. Wells Guthrie is my objective there, Wells has nothing on his labels. I typically go a single line about where the grapes were grown, a case count and a drinking window. So yeah there’s lots of other things in my marketing I tell people that are not on the label.

My marketing on the Haut Tubee includes a breakdown of each individual vineyard, how it was processed, the varieties used from each source, oak used, final breakdown ect. The label says “RED WINE - CALIFORNIA”. Part of my reasoning when I first did that was to stick my tongue out at ‘the rules’. TTB tells me I have to do this, that and the other thing. I need a line here, 2mm there, a percentage of this and that. Fine, I’m putting nothing on there but ‘Red Wine - California’’, so take that TTB.

Then that is false advertising. If I read “Monkey Butt” on the label, I want to taste Monkey Butt.

Agree on which nutcase is in the padded room at the TTB that day for label approval. Funny what gets axed and what gets approved.

Now go find me some monkey butt and bottle it up for me! Carg and I will Q up some Panda to pair it with!

Firstly, there is a big confusion about sulfur (sprayed in the vineyard), copper sulfate (sprayed in the vineyard), sulfates (reductive characters resulting from various winemaking paths) and sulfites (the addition of potassium metabisulfte to produce sulphur dioxide which is an anti-oxidant and anti-microbial agent.

When journalists (and that includes bloggers, critics and PR people) write about these these four things in strong terms without really understanding the chemistry, they make themselves look stupid to those who understand. Unfortunately the public don’t understand and prefer to trust the journalists. It is all just Bad Science.

Secondly, there is a virtue for winemakers, especially in the “hand-crafted” sector, to reduce the levels of chemicals used in the vineyard and the winery. I’m almost bored with saying that we don’t need zealots and idealists laying down laws. We need to differentiate between spoofulated (or whatever you want to call it) wine and wine that is made with minimal intervention. We don’t need Natural Wine Inspectors or little clubs who are holier-than-the-rest. That just alienates and confuses people. We need to educate the wine-buying public and clarify the difference. There is no line, there is a twighlight zone.

Tonight I’m drinking Chateau Gaudou Cahors Les Pigeonniers 2004. It is not a brilliant wine but I can tell immediately that it has not been f*%$ed about with. It’s not as impressive and award-winning as numerous Argentitan Malbecs. It’s a bit lean. It has noticeable tannins. But on the nose it has character. I like that.

Never said a third. Guess my robot was not clear. I said as a joke if you work in a wine store every fucking third customer is allergic.

I hope I’m not mashing things up too badly on my end. I like to juxtapose these various sulfur compounds because if one is opposed to one thing, then he or she might as well be opposed to all of them. At which point it gets kind of arbitrary in my mind. Either the vintner is allowed to make educated choices, or we don’t get to have wine.

Lately I especially like to throw copper sulfate/Bdx mixture out there since it probably will be more damaging to nature if abused than having too much SO2 added to wine. And guess which one is permitted by CCOF and which one isn’t? And which one is the focal point of criticism and which one isn’t?

I don’t see the logic in that at all. It’s a silly statement. In fact it’s a contradiction. I’m opposed to using copper sulfide because it’s a harsh chemical that has lots of better alternatives to achieve the same results (JMS Stylet Oil, Oxidate, Kaligreen). I’m in favor of potassium metabisulfite because there are no better alternatives.

At the same time, I’m not going to take my opposition to some farmer in France spraying copper sulfide. If that’s his best alternative that works in his environment, who the F am I to tell him he’s ‘wrong’. If he’s doing it out of habit or lazyness then shame on him, that I could be critical of, but if he’s doing it to get a crop in and feed his family because he knows that will work and the alternative won’t? I’m keeping my mouth shut.

Just about every serious n-word winemaker I know worries quite a bit about what is being sprayed in the vyd. Are you speaking of someone in particular when you write what you wrote above?

The reason why copper and sulfur are allowed in the organically-farmed vyd is really pretty simple: without it, harvesting an economically viable amount of ripe grapes becomes pretty near impossible in many regions.

I’m speaking of critics/journalists, not winemakers. Some more specifically than others. I’m definitely not questioning the use of various treatments because I understand they are necessary in most wine regions. I’m more questioning why all the focus of critics/journalists is on what happens in the winery and why certain chemicals are essentially grandfathered in as OK.

It seems like winemakers are aware of the issues best, so I trust them to make the hard decisions that balance viable grapes and yields with environmental questions. I suppose what I’m saying is I’d like for the issues to be discussed critically as opposed to ideologically. The critical approach means allowing winemakers to have use of various tools and decision making at their discretion.

I agree, it isn’t logical. My point is primarily that critics/journalists (not winemakers, which is how you read it) look at winery practice and say it is a manipulation. They don’t look at vineyard practice as a manipulation. Either it is all manipulation or none of it is manipulation. I like the latter interpretation, that there are choices and the winemaker weighs them based on all the variables. Which is what you do.

If someone wants to make a box around what is manipulation and what isn’t, the only self-consistent way to do so in terms of all practices results in an empty box.

Just wanted to read this sentence again.

Understood.
Thanks for the response.

Re…

I suppose what I’m saying is I’d like for the issues to be discussed critically as opposed to ideologically. The critic approach means allowing winemakers to have use of various tools and decision making at their discretion.

Not sure that I understand the distinctions being drawn here. Nor do I necessarily agree with the idea (I think it’s implied, but correct me if I’m wrong) that a non-ideological approch to the subject will lead us away from a desire to support n@***@! winemaking.