Do We Need Another Debate about “Natural?”

I thought we were past worrying about how to define “natural wine” but apparently it’s still an issue.

In World of Fine Wine, Benjamin Lewin (MW)  argues that the terms “natural,”“low intervention” or “minimal interference” are meaningless because no wine is natural. All winemaking involves adding something to the wine, and these terms in any case have no precise definition.

In philosophy we call this a straw man argument. I have never heard anyone say you can make drinkable wine without adding something to it. The question is about what kind of additions are permissible given the kind of wine you want to make. He is of course correct that terms like “natural” have no precise definition. But it doesn’t follow that those terms, when applied to wine, are meaningless. The fact I cannot say exactly at what point a person becomes bald does not mean the word “bald” is meaningless—it draws a clear contrast with “full head of hair.”

This really isn’t about definitions but about practices. Natural winemakers are willing to be more restrained than conventional winemakers in what they do to their wine,  and thus they are more comfortable with the influence of contingencies like adverse weather conditions or the type of yeast that finds its way into their ferments. That is a real difference even if there are cases where its not clear which bucket a winemaker belongs in. Some winemakers who call themselves “natural” or “low intervention” get close to producing conventional wine. Some producers who call themselves conventional are really close to natural winemakers in their practice. This is true of any concept. There are clear cases and borderline cases and it’s useful to distinguish the clear cases even if the borderline cases are difficult.

Natural wine is not best understood in terms of relatively minor  details in the winemaking process. It’s a moral stance against a perceived drift toward industrial, or purely commercial winemaking, a concern many conventional producers share, though they express it differently.

You can quibble about whether a pre-fermentation cold soak counts as minimal intervention but what’s the point of that hair splitting? There is still a world of difference between that choice and the use of flash détente or the technology of aroma capture.

But Levin seems to have a more comprehensive target—wine regulations that he thinks are inconsistent and outdated. He writes:

Alcohol is a thorny issue in the world of adulteration. Increasing or decreasing alcohol levels is perhaps the most common manipulation in winemaking. But whether this is regarded as adulteration depends on where you are in the world. In the traditional cool-climate regions of Europe (at least before the era of climate change), increasing alcohol levels by adding sugar during fermentation (chaptalization) was routine. In hot regions, it is illegal and regarded as adulteration. Well, this is really unreasonable: Either a compound is natural in wine, or it is an artificial additive. Climate may affect practical considerations, but if adding sugar in hot climates is adulteration, we have to admit that it may be necessary to adulterate the wine in cool climates.

But this misses the point of regulations regarding practices such as chaptalization.  Some regions in Europe have permitted chaptalization because getting grapes ripe was a persistent problem in cool climates. In hot regions, where ripening is typically not a problem, chaptalization is forbidden. It’s a way of boosting sugar or alcohol levels in wines made from inferior grapes to give them a richer mouthfeel. Regulations are about preserving quality.

Restrictions on irrigation, another target of Lewin,  exist for similar reasons. Too much water can boost yields giving vineyards more tonnage to sell, but it makes poor wine grapes and leads to overproduction.  The French especially have long valued “terroir” and many of their regulations are about ensuring that grapes reflect their growing conditions. Rules against irrigation were an attempt to enforce quality standards and support prices.

The general concern that such regulations purportedly address is that sound, regional winemaking practices are followed. You can argue about whether they are effective or not but none of this turns on whether wine is “natural” or not.

He concludes:

But we should recognize at the same time that many current practices are accepted only because of historical precedent. In fact, it is all but impossible to make wine (at least if you want to have wine that persists long enough to be enjoyed by consumers) without interference, if not adulteration.

But whether historical precedents should be followed or discarded is about whether they are still needed to help ensure quality wine. The question about what is “natural” or “adulteration” is a side show.