For decades, there has been a wine trend that is fostered by some faulty assumptions about today’s commercial wines.
I would call this the “Natural Wine Movement,” but the word “movement” implies it is widespread. Fortunately, it isn’t. To me, the topic is more emotional than factual or meaningful.
I got the idea to write about it because a woman I had never met asserted that most of today’s California wines were made by people with evil intent. She said that unless a wine was “natural,” it was harmful. I replied, as politely as possible, that she was circulating fake news.
Any attempt to stress the alleged benefits of natural wines must start with the fact that there is no widely accepted definition of the phrase. Advocates of “natural wines” rarely agree about what it is. Some of these discussions end up being vitriolic.
Probably the most widely held notion by people who support natural wine is that it must not contain any sulfites. Or that to be really natural, sulfites may not be added.
Many wines are made this way. Some are sound. But unless a winemaker knows precisely how to do it, most wines made with no sulfites added will display odd aromas or tastes that wine scientists define as spoilage. Indeed, today’s best wines are not spoiled, but based on sound scientific principles that natural wine proponents might despise.
But even wines made with no sulfites added still contain them! Sulfites are naturally occurring by-products of fermentation, posing a dilemma for natural wine advocates.
It’s true that sulfites can be harmful to some people, but only under extremely rare conditions that rarely occur with wine. Such conditions occur so infrequently that scientists do not consider this to be an issue.
Advocates of natural wine often say they prefer wines made with minimal intervention. They often say that the U.S. government permits non-natural wines to have lots of additives. This is true.
What proponents don’t say are two things. First, almost no wineries use additives that can cause harm. And that virtually every additive has a purpose—to make unspoiled wine.
In addition, almost all additives are catalyst agents that help wine to be sound and tasty. And almost all such agents end up being removed from the wine before it is bottled. If any additive remains, it is in such tiny amounts that it is harmless.
I am not a chemist, so I avoid specifics, but I do recall my first year investigating wine thoroughly, about 1970. In the next decade, I found at least 30 percent of the wines I was testing were spoiled in one way or another.
I am now in my 52nd year of formally writing about wine. Of the commercial, non-natural wines I evaluate, far fewer than 1 percent are spoiled. But of the natural wines I have tasted, roughly 20 percent have some sort of technical flaw.
Those who stick by their beliefs in natural wines argue they are better for your health. Scientists who are experts in this area would disagree. All wine drunk in moderation has some healthful benefits and some drawbacks.
In all the decades I have consumed wine, I’d guess that I am about $1,200 poorer because I was willing to try unknown “natural” wines.
This includes one $250 loss on a fateful evening in an Australian natural wine bar that a few years later went out of business.
Wine of the Week
2023 Girasole Pinot Blanc, Mendocino County ($16)—this certified organic wine has a fresh tropical fruit aroma with hints of lemon peel and guava. It is slightly sweet but dry enough to serve with a wide variety of seafood dishes.
Dear Readers: We would love to hear from you. What topics would you like to read about? Please send your feedback and tips to features@epochtimes.nyc.
