Where I stand on the Natural Wine debate

Those in the wine business may have recently noticed that a controversy is coming to a head regarding the marketing of the term natural wine. Those not in the wine business probably have never heard of this; it's a term more used by wine wholesalers to define a wine when selling to a restaurateur or retailer, than it is used by a retailer or restaurateur to educate the general public.

So, in Issue 191 of his Wine Advocate, Mr Robert Parker Jr. wrote the following:

"About these “natural,” unmanipulated and pure wines: One of the major scams being foisted on wine consumers is the so-called “Natural’ wine movement. It is not subjected to any government regulations or any definition beyond that of the individual who has spawned the term. Over 95% of the wines written about in this publication are from producers who make under 5,000 cases and are “natural” wines by nearly any rational definition of the word. They are made without additives or enzymes, and usually have minimal sulphur, but they do contain sulphur as they should because otherwise they are unstable, potentially dangerous and impossible to transport because the wines will spoil. In the case of southern Rhône wines, they simply have no make-up whatsoever. There are no color enzymes, no color added, no artificial flavors, very little acidification, etc., etc. In short, they are grapes fermented into wine with 95% or more aged in neutral wood vessels, concrete vats, stainless steel, etc. A tiny percentage does see aging in new oak casks, or more typically in the southern Rhône, the larger 600-liter demimuids. These are natural wines – make no mistake about it. They are also wines that work wonders with an assortment of cuisines because of the absence of new oak and any makeup."

This position has set off a fire storm of debate about the use of the term natural wine to market wines; and more over whether natural wines even exist at all. Currently there is a 4 page thread (and growing) on the Wine Advocate's Bulletin Board which contains posts from major importer/distributor owners, collectors, wine drinkers, and even Mr Parker himself raking over the coals of this debate.

Where do I stand on this issue?

I do believe in natural wine as a term to describe the style in which one chooses to farm, make, and bottle his/her wines.

I do believe that a more pure, terroir expressive quality can be achieved by attempting to go this route in one's production.

I do believe that this route is incredibly risky in terms of a standardization of product; and I believe that as long as the consumer purchases the wine knowing that it was made in a natural way then the consumer takes this risk on their shoulders (I also believe it is the restaurateur's/retailer's job to make sure the consumer is made aware.)

I do not believe all natural wine is superior to wines made with corrections in the cellar. I believe that the quality I point to in point #2 is totally on a producer by producer, and in many times a wine by wine, basis.

And that's where I stand on the issue.

At the end of the day, it's a wonderful product that enhances the table, our food, and hopefully our lives. But, it's still just fermented grapes. If you like it- drink it. If you don't, drink something else.