You Can Sit With Us

Decoding the term “Natural Wine”.

Words by Jillian Riley, Art by John Hatherly

We are going to cut to the chase here. What is required for a wine to call itself “natural?” 

a. use of organic grapes

b. no sulfites

c. focus on sustainable farming

d. a&b

e. a&b&c

f. nothing specific

Ding ding ding! F. That’s correct. “Natural wine” is a totally unregulated term. Most members of the “natural” wine community characterize the wine as “low-intervention.” Awesome! So. . . what qualifies as “low-intervention?” Most agree that it is primarily centered around influence of organic practices in the vineyard and a lack of additives in the wine.

That would suggest these are the sulfite-free wines, right? Well, no, not exactly. Many who consider themselves “natural” wine producers or do selection for “natural” wine bars or stores agree that sulfites are an acceptable additive for the wine they will adorn with the moniker “natural.” They just maybe use fewer sulfites. . . that’s good, right? According to an article last year in VOX, “natural” winemakers typically feel about 10-35 ppm sulfites are acceptable. The maximum legal amount is 350 ppm, though most boutique wineries (10,000 or less case production) use far less. This sounds like a lot until we look at common foods; dried fruits contain up to 2,000 ppm. Sulfur is also naturally occurring in a variety of foods, including strawberries. There is actually some sulfur dioxide NATURALLY created in the fermentation process of wine. In extreme cases, I’ve heard of “natural” winemakers actually removing the naturally occurring sulfites in their wines in an effort to make a truly natural wine. If you had to go back and read that sentence twice, you aren’t alone.

Another differentiator often used is fining and filtration. Natural wines are often (but not always) unfiltered, which is why some will appear cloudy in the glass. Egg whites are commonly used as a form of fining. Many feel there is an advantage to not fining because the wine will be vegan. There are, alternatively, vegan forms of fining and filtration. Again, this falls under the category of “sometimes, not always.” You’ll find a mix of filtered and unfiltered in a local “natural” wine shop or bar.

So, you may be wondering about now if the moral of this story is natural wine is bad, and we should all stop drinking it. No. Not at all. At its core the IDEA of “natural” wine is what the Yield team is all about. The marketplace has simply been muddled with misperceptions about what this category actually includes.

The “natural” wine movement started with small French countryside wineries farming organically and minimizing additives in their wine— a beautiful genesis. It wasn’t really a movement at that time, but simply a group of friendly vignerons doing what they thought was right for the earth, the consumer, and the expression of the wine in the glass.

As this idea gained support, the movement made its way to the US, more and more seemed to be added to the “natural” wine scene— funky hipster labels, criticism of those wines that employed the use of additives (even if the additives themselves were natural and not harmful), the idea that the wines not employing additives made them inherently good, even if they appeared to fall apart in the glass and in some cases be downright unpleasant. Some of those excluded from the “natural” community have begun to wonder if the cornerstone of the US movement has more and more developed into “pull grapes from the vineyard, let them ferment, and do nothing. . . except make sure to slap on a really cool avant-garde label.”

Do we, though, need to embrace that not everything about wine happens naturally? If we completely scoff at the idea of human intervention, the result is not wine, but shriveled grapes on the ground. In fact, without the human, agriculture to begin with doesn’t exist. The prime example of this is Champagne. I do not know one human, one person who does not love and embrace Champagne— for its cultural significance, flavors, textures. Champagne is by definition excluded from what has become the cornerstone of the “natural” wine movement. It requires the most human intervention of any wine. A human must instigate the wine’s secondary fermentation in bottle to produce bubbles, or the Champagne does not exist. Does anyone really want a world without Champagne?

Vignerons in Champagne are more and more embracing natural processes in the vineyard. Take, for example, Vincent Couche. Couche farms completely organically and biodynamically and uses low sulfur additions, but you wouldn’t normally find his wine in a natural wine bar. A similar story persists with former sommelier Cedric Bouchard. Bouchard never adds sugar to his wines (an extremely common and respected practice in Champagne), never fines or filters, makes only single-variety wines, and always vinifies in stainless steel, so the wines exemplify the purest form of terroir. Yet again, he is not allowed in the natural wine club.

We see a similar pattern with still wine. Take, for example, the wineries Peay, Littorai, Rhys, and Long Meadow Ranch of Anderson Valley. All these wineries farm using organic methods. Those that are not completely biodynamic use inspiration from the principles of the philosophy. They hand harvest their grapes and use low sulfur additions. They treat their workers well, and their case production is extremely low. However, they would not be considered part of the natural wine movement. Their distributors are repeatedly told by the buyers for “natural” wine bars and stores that the wines are not “natural enough,” though there are no specifics offered about what precludes them from being in the club.

Essentially a war has begun between “natural” wine and wine that is natural. What started as a movement to encourage a better, more ethical way of production has spiraled. All of the efforts to help educate the consumer and provide an alternative to big box wine have just confused the consumer even more. Further, wineries operating in ethical ways producing jaw-droopingly truthful, beautiful wines have been hurt. A movement that was founded on the idea of inclusion for those doing good has become more about exclusion. Suddenly, it feels like being in a high school cafeteria— you want to sit at the cool kids table, but you can’t, and they won’t tell you the standards by which they judge “cool.”

So, what’s the plan? We toss out the “natural” wine movement and start from scratch? Well, no. There are still some incredible wines that have been looped into that category, and loads of winemakers and buyers whose hearts are often in the right place have latched on. Further, this reaction would be responding to cancel culture with cancel culture. However, would it be too much to ask that the “natural” wine club publish a standard playbook— one available to both the consumer and the industry? If wines are going to be judged by certain criteria, it seems only fair to allow producers to know what that criteria is. The origin of the “natural” wine movement was to provide consumers with a more honest, ethical purchasing option. Pulling a veil over their eyes goes against the basic principles upon which the move was started. Let’s keep it transparent, open, and inclusive for all those producers doing right by the environment, their workers, and consumers. 

Continue Reading with more resources below:

https://vinepair.com/articles/food-probably-sulfites-wine/

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/10/18650601/natural-wine-sulfites-organic