Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/63248
END POST Natural Wines: Proof is in the Glass our carmenère ran over my dogma." Somehow, I always thought that would be a good wine country bumper sticker. It's apropos, since there has been a lot of dogma running around the wine world of late. Foremost is the discussion about "natural" wines. This hot- button issue recently received high-profile treatment in The New York Times, as wine columnist Eric Asimov decried the "vitriol" between natural wine "partisans" and those who critique them. The very term "natural" is inflamma- tory and polarizing, since any wine that's not included is, what, unnat- ural, ghoulish Frankenwine? Generally, there are two ways to judge standards: focus on the pro- cess, as organic and Biodynamic certification do, or focus on the final product, as wine scores do. Both organic and Biodynamic certification require filing fees, record keeping and an unbroken string of vintages without chemical treatments in the vineyard, no matter what the vintage conditions brought. Even if an observer of these two pro- grams finds reason to quibble with them, it's clear how a producer can achieve them. Not so with natural wine, as there is no codification of what it takes to produce one. The general concept revolves around the laud- able goal of minimal winemaker intervention, a maxim of "nothing added, nothing taken away," as it is sometimes stated. But being organ- ic is not sufficient, since organic protocols do not have any controls for winery practices beyond sulfites, nor is Biodynamic sufficient to be a "natural" wine for many. While acidulation disqualifies a wine from 98 VINEYARD & WINERY MANAGEMENT MAY - JUNE 2012 being natural, chaptalization doesn't necessarily disqualify a wine from the club. Without standards, some wines are not called natural when they might well qualify for the designa- tion. Paul Draper at Ridge Vineyards and Aubert de Villaine at Domaine de la Romanée-Conti leap to mind: Each makes superb wines with nothing added and nothing taken away, yet neither calls his wines natural, nor do naturalists welcome them under that banner. On the flip side, at least one Burgundian whose wines are embraced by natural- ists may, in fact, buy some grapes from non-organic vineyards. In the not-too-distant future, the lack of regulations may lead to produc- ers free-riding on "natural;" the Organic Consumers Association has accused Whole Foods of playing fast and loose with the term. There's also a lack of rigor among naturalists. Can aroma and taste alone reveal whether a wine is nat- ural, or does it necessitate a query to know if gum arabica was used? Similarly, could a blind tasting of old- school Barolo reveal that Mascarello used commercial yeasts, and Con- terno did not? If so, I doff my cap to those tasters. If not, isn't it clinging a tad too tight to an ideology of pro- cess which results in what's in the glass? I love many wines considered natural. I really like many wines from small estates, both in the glass and philosophically. But that's just it: If I wanted to make a list of wines that I like, which would be perfect- ly acceptable, I could call it "wines made with minimal intervention that I happen to adore." Such a list would be resolutely personal, and even if I didn't enumerate standards TYLER COLMAN Tyler Colman, author of the wine blog Dr. Vino, teaches wine classes at New York Uni- versity and the University of Chicago, and wrote the book "Wine Politics: How Gov- ernments, Environmentalists, Mobsters, and Critics Influence the Wines We Drink." for inclusion, it would be impossible to argue with what's on the list, because it's not objective. And that's what irks so many about the natural wine discus- sion. "Partisans" are taking what is essentially something subjective – wines they like in the glass made in a way deemed acceptable, while excluding others made in the same way – and giving them a polarizing name that implies a set of standards and objectivity, and sometimes even that they are healthier than non-natural wine. When pressed, naturalists lash out at the supposed "vitriol" of critics rather than engag- ing in debate. Several prominent figures in the wine world are coming around to calling a wine they like simply a wine they like, regardless of wheth- er sulfur was added or a commer- cial yeast was used. Robert Bohr, a longtime sommelier in New York City, has an "I heart SO2" T-shirt as his Twitter avatar. Jeremy Seysses, whose Domaine Dujac has been organic and/or Biodynamic for 10 years yet is not considered "natu- ral," dislikes the term and prefers to highlight wines he likes in the glass. While having standards and pref- erences in wine is, well, natural, the natural wine movement would benefit from having greater internal consistency and rigor, casting aside dogma and having a willingness to discuss. I raise a glass of pineau d'aunis to that. (Opinions expressed in this col- umn do not necessarily reflect those of Vineyard & Winery Man- agement.) Comments? Please e-mail us at feedback@vwm-online.com. WWW.VWM-ONLINE.COM