Category Archives: Food Science

The Myth of the Myth of Minerality

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Food Science

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, ,

rocks in the vineyardVicki Denig writes a balanced article on minerality despite an ambiguous headline and a misleading introduction. Entitled “Nailing the Myth of Minerality”, she introduces the post by asserting “Minerality is perhaps the wine industry’s most overused, underwhelming, and misunderstood descriptors of them all.”

What’s wrong with this? For starters, “minerality” isn’t a myth; it’s a metaphor. And it’s neither overused nor underwhelming. She gets the “misunderstood” right but it’s misunderstood in part because of headlines like this. Happily she interviews enough somms and winemakers who routinely use the term and find it useful, so in the end the post leaves the impression that minerality is “a thing” as she calls it.

“Minerality” is a general term we use to describe wines that exude aromas such as flint, crushed rock, wet stone, or sea breeze or that have textures of chalk, hard stone, gravel or a kind of electrical snap on the finish. Since it is clear from tasting notes that many, many wines have these features, and they are highly prized among some wine critics and winemakers,  I don’t see what is “overused” or “underwhelming” about the descriptor.

The whole controversy really comes from some scientists talking out of school. Scientists have definitively shown that minerals in the soil do not transfer to the vines or fruit, and many (although not all) scientists use that fact to berate wine writers who use the term to describe wine. But although the fact that soil characteristics are not transferred to the wine is an important and interesting scientific claim, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the term “minerality” is a useful or accurate descriptor.

We are not literally tasting rocks in the wine anymore than we are literally tasting cherry, peach, or barnyard soil in the wine. Most wine descriptors are metaphorical. Wine literally tastes like grapes; there are no cherries, peaches, or soil in your wine. These are all metaphors. But that fact has little to do with whether these descriptors are useful or accurate.

No doubt there isn’t a precisely established definition of “minerality”—it’s a metaphor!  (Sorry for screaming) While still “living”, a metaphor will not have a precise definition. That is why metaphors are useful—they flexibly and creatively pick out properties for which there is no literal description.

Denig quotes geologist Brenna Quigley who, to her credit, actually does seem to understand the usefulness of the term.

The science is quite clear that the vine is not literally picking up minerals from the soil and transferring them into the wine,” she explains, adding that this does not mean that experiences that tasters may have and describe as minerality do not exist.

This is exactly right.

This “controversy” would go away if a few more scientists had paid attention during English class. We should listen to scientists when they talk about science. When it comes to language we should listen to people who write and talk for a living.

(I suspect, by the way that Denig’s headline, is deliberately ambiguous. Is it the association of minerality with mythology that is being nailed or the allegedly inappropriate use of the term “minerality”? It is a clever headline. Apparently, Ms. Denig paid attention in English class.)

Advertisements

Confusion Over Reduction in Wines

28 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by in Food Science, Wine Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

confusedVicki Denig performs a valuable service by explaining one of the new wine buzzwords—reduction. Unfortunately, the winemakers she interviewed weren’t quite on the same page.

“Reduction” is not really a new term. Reduction refers to a wine that has been protected from oxygen exposure. The phenomenon has been around since winemakers have been adding sulfur or leaving wine on the lees without racking. (It’s called reduction because the wine or juice molecules in the absence of oxygen are gaining an election thus making the overall charge more negative.)

Winemakers now use the term frequently because more and more winemakers are practicing reductive winemaking as a way of preserving fresh fruit expression, and so it has crept into the wine lexicon as a way of explaining what is going on with a wine.

It had always been my assumption that wines in a reductive stage smell like garlic, matchsticks, or in extreme cases rotten eggs or burnt rubber. (Happily the effect usually goes away when oxygen is introduced so we typically don’t get rotten eggs in our Chardonnay)

Unfortunately, winemakers themselves (at least the ones quoted in the article) seem to be confused about which aromas indicate reduction.

Rajit Parr of Sandhi Wines says,

Reduction happens due to fermentation, it’s a byproduct. So minerals can make an affect on it, but it’s not a smell of minerals. When people say ‘Oh yeah, this wine has a lot of minerality’ because it has reduction, that’s an incorrect statement.”

But then:

In Central Otago, Francis Hutt, winemaker at Carrick Winery, also supports positive reduction. For him, great examples tend to show stone, flint, and “semi-industrial” flavors.

Hmm. Stone and flint are rather common descriptions of mineral aromas at least as that troubled term “minerality” has been used recently. [Most minerals don’t have an aroma; it’s a general term used to indicate anything rock or gravel-like in a wine]

And Abe Schoener winemaker at Red Hook Winery and founder of the Scholium Project reports:

On the positive side, for Schoener, notes of roasted coffee, chocolate, dark and savory notes, to notes of rocks, hot stony surfaces, ocean, and even notes of animal excrement, can bring positive, layered characteristics to a wine.

Coffee and chocolate I thought were oak derived aromas. Animal excrement, aka “barnyard,” is a “brett” derivative. Rocks and sea breeze, again, we’ve been classifying as minerality.

So is the take home point that we should be using the term “reduction” instead of “minerality”?  That won’t fly because lots of wines smell of rocks that are conventionally made, without reduction.

So after reading this article I am more confused than ever. It’s the job of philosophy to confuse readers; not journalism.

Coming Soon to a Future Near You

18 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Food Science

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

mosa meat

Mosa Meat Burger

The last time I checked into the progress of lab-grown meat, it was still expensive and didn’t taste so good. But times are a-changin’. Mosa Meats, makers of fine lab-grown meat, estimates the current cost to be just over $10 for a hamburger and expect it to be commercially available in 3 to 4 years.

Why lab-grown meat?

Farm-raised meat is a major contributor to climate change, resource depletion and other environmental ills. And it requires an enormous amount of land and is cruel to animals. Lab grown meat avoids all those moral and environmental harms which are increasingly a threat to the planet. We’ve been trying to make plant-based burgers that taste like meat for decades with no success so that doesn’t seem to be a viable option. Demand for meat is expected to grow exponentially, to unsustainable levels, and since it doesn’t appear we are inclined to give up meat, the only option is to make it via a process that won’t harm the environment.

Of course the big question about lab grown meat is does it taste good. According to Mosa Meats, thanks to refinements in their technology, cultured meat now tastes like ordinary meat. Of course, they might be a wee bit biased so some independent taste tests would be welcome. But they are right that the molecular structure of cultured meat is the same as meat from cows. There is no reason why it should not taste like meat, since it is indeed meat. Muscle-specific stem cells are taken from a cow and are encouraged to self-organize into muscle tissue, which is then grown in the lab, eventually finding its way to your plate. It is biologically identical to meat that comes from a cow, pig or chicken.

The biggest hurdle will undoubtedly be the “yuk” factor. A room full of oozing, bulging “flesh plants” is anything but appetizing. But have you been to a slaughterhouse recently? The “Yuk” factor objection is not really a serious obstacle. Test-tube babies are real persons, cars manufactured by robots are real cars, seedless fruits are propagated using a culturing process, so why the “yuk” factor with manufactured beef? If it’s affordable and tasty plenty of people will buy it cutting the demand for livestock generated meat and eventually sending commodity livestock farming into a death spiral.

Predictions about the timing of technological advances are always dicey. But if I were looking for long-tern investment opportunities, it wouldn’t be looking at livestock.

How Many Simultaneous Aromas Can We Detect in a Wine?

20 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Food Science, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

person smelling wineIn Gordon Shepherd’s fascinating book Neuroenology: How the Brain Creates the Taste of Wine, he reports on some research that raises obvious difficulties for wine tasting notes that mention seven or eight aroma descriptors.

In 1989, Laing and G.W. Francis were interested in how many components a person can identify in an odor mixture…. They trained subjects to identify seven individual odors and then tested them with various mixtures of the odors. Sounds easy? …. The subjects could identify each odor separately 82% of the time, but when present in a binary mixture with one other odor, the identification fell to 35%.  With three odors, recall fell to only 14% and with four odors it fell to only 4%….

Laing and others have pursued this question in a number of studies since then—for example testing panels of expert flavorists and perfumers. The results have been similar. [151]

Shepherd suggests that the maximum number of distinct aromas we can identify in a wine is three and for most people, apparently, it’s only one or two. This obviously does not square with wine tasting practices where it’s common to identify multiple aromas in several aroma categories.

Shepherd does address this by noting that many of the properties identified by wine critics involve taste and tactile sensations along with gestalt judgments that have to do with pleasure. But that response doesn’t address the problem of wine tasters reporting more aromas than the science indicates we can sense.

I haven’t looked more closely at the methodology of these studies but Shepherd’s account of them seems misleading in at least one sense.

Shepherd seems to be overlooking the fact that wine tasters seldom form conclusions about aroma notes from one sniff of the wine. I can only speak for myself but, when I write wine tasting notes, it’s only through several well-spaced inhalations that I gain a comprehensive understanding of aroma structure. I begin by identifying one or two prominent aroma notes, then sip the wine to check retronasal impressions, and then put the wine aside for a few minutes and come back to it, checking it several times in an evening. Each time I smell I’m looking for aromas in different categories so my attentional focus shifts away from aromas categories that have already been idenfitied. The fact that only 2 or 3 aromas can be identified at one time is relevant only if the taster is in a big hurry (which they are in some contexts like wine competitions.)

In fact some of the research Shepherd reports suggests how a tasting procedure of multiple, spaced inhalations is implemented in the brain.

…when mixtures are familiar, cortical neurons treat them as synthetic objects, different from their components …After experience, the cortex has learned to treat the combinations of features constituting the mixture as a unique, complete, synthetic object distinct from the patterns of features constituting their components.

I take this to mean that once the dominant aromas are familiar, the brain treats them as a single synthetic aroma, thereby freeing up “processing capacity” to identify additional aromas. We then use memory and language to put together the holistic image of the wine. I may be able to distinguish one or two aromas in a single inhalation but subsequent inhalations provide more and more information that is synthesized via memory.

This is an argument for spending time with a wine to gain that familiarity instead of writing notes on the fly.

Lies and Moral Panic About Food and Health

18 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by in Contemporary Food Culture, Food Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

scary headlinesWho’s trying to mislead us and why?

Here is a recent story from the NY Times about the dangers of processed meat. (Thanks to Michael O’Hare for pointing this out)

We see a 4 percent increase in the risk of cancer even at 15 grams a day, which is a single slice of ham on a sandwich,” said Dr. Nigel Brockton, director of research for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
Eating a more typical serving of 50 grams of processed meat a day would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent, a 2011 review of studies found.

From what I understand, the background rate of colorectal cancer is roughly 4%. So one natural way of reading this passage is that if you eat one slice of ham per day your risk increases to 8%. And if you eat 3-4 slices per day, a more typical serving for ham lovers, your risk would increase 18% which, when added to the 4% background rate, brings your risk to 22%. In other words, according to this literal reading, over 20% of people who eat ham, bacon, pastrami, sausage, etc. every day get colorectal cancer.

This of course is nonsense. The incidence of colorectal cancer is no where near that high. The passage is systematically misleading.

What’s going on here is that the good doctor and the reporter for the Times are failing to describe how we should understand this data. It’s about relative risk not absolute risk, as the underlying research report makes very clear.

Let me explain:

If the background rate of colorectal cancer is 4%, an increase of 4% from one slice of processed meat per day is an increase of 4% relative to the background rate. 1.04 X 4=4.16. Your risk increases by less than a quarter of a percent. If you’re in that group that has a bologna sandwich packed with 4 slices everyday, your risk increases to 18% over the background rate. 1.18 x 4=4.72. Round it up to 5%. A really nasty habit of eating 50 grams, almost 3/4 lb. of deli meat per day, increases your risk of getting colorectal cancer about 1% over the background rate of 4%.

If you really love deli meats, isn’t that worth the risk?

I’m not suggesting that people eat as much processed meat as they want or that we should ignore health warnings. The cumulative effect of too many indulgences would indeed add up to an unhealthy diet. But if processed meat is one of your few guilty pleasures, surely a 1% increase in risk is not worth worrying about.

Yet, the headline says:

Is Eating Deli Meats Really That Bad for You?

Even small amounts of processed meat increase the risk of colorectal cancer.

The story goes on to point out all the chemicals that go into processed meats and the health warnings associated with them. Nowhere in the article is the small risk effect mentioned.

One would expect that reporters and editors who work for the NY Times would be aware of the difference between relative and absolute risk. Surely doctors and researchers know the difference. They also are quite aware that most readers are not sophisticated when it comes to statistics. Yet they make no attempt to correct the potential misreading.

Rather than worrying about eating that piece of salami that is beckoning, perhaps we should worry about why the NY Times is unnecessarily scaring people. Could it be because it’s click bait and sells advertising? They wouldn’t do that would they?

The Study on Emotion and Wine Revisited

11 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by in Food Science, Wine Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

emotional wineLast month I discussed a report of a new study  that showed  correlations between wine and emotions. At the time I didn’t have access to the complete study, and was relying on a helpful synopsis by Becca Yeomans. I have since been able to view the original study, which is not yet available on line. The study is fascinating because it shows that we respond emotionally to wines which potentially opens a whole new arena for wine appreciation. Yet there are some very odd results that are hard to explain as I noted in my earlier post. Now that I’ve had a chance to read the study, I wanted to revisit the conclusions to be drawn from it, although it turns out that the puzzling results remain puzzling.

The study, conducted by the School of Agricultural, Food and Biosystems Engineering at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in Spain, consisted of a sensory evaluation of several wines by a trained panel in order to identify the organoleptic properties of the wine and a  consumer evaluation of the same wines accompanied by an emotion response analysis. The wines evaluated were a Verdejo, Chardonnay, a rosé made from Garnacha, two Rioja Reserva level wines, one from 2012, the other 2013, and a Ribero del Duero Reserva from 2012.

The consumer panel consisted of 208 students of various ages, and roughly equal cohorts of men and women, whose only qualification was that they consumed wine at least once a month. After a warm-up flight, they were given wines in a random order to be judged according to how much they liked the wine and then were given a list of 26 emotion words from which to choose the emotions elicited by the wine.

Here is a summary of the results

  • 22 of the 26 emotion terms showed a significant correlation with the wines.
  • “good”, “happy”, “joyful”, “mild”, and “pleasant” were associated with fruity and floral aromas
  • aromas/flavors of vanilla, clove, and licorice were associated with “aggressive” and “guilty”.
  • Astringency, the drying sensations caused by tannin, was associated with “aggressive”.
  • Subjects grouped wines differently based on sensory analysis vs. the emotion analysis.
  • Men and older adults scored the emotion words higher than women or younger adults but women were more discriminating regarded the emotions elicited.
  • Young adults scored the two white wines and the rosé higher for the emotions “good”, “happy”, and “pleasant”; the 2013 Rioja Tempranillo scored lowest on these emotions for this cohort.
  • Older adults identified “mild” as the distinguish characteristic between the white wines, rose and the 2013 Tempranillo.
  • Negative terms such as “guilty” or “worried” were more prominent for younger adults.

The gender and age differences are interesting but I have no idea how to explain the results so I will ignore them.

I have no training in reading statistical analyses so I’m not sure I have a sophisticated understanding of the paper. But here is what I find puzzling.

If I’m reading the charts correctly, liking a wine was positively correlated with the positive emotions. But the negative emotion terms such as “aggressive” or “guilty”  were associated with aromas of vanilla, clove, and licorice, and with astringency. These are all descriptors associated with big, red wines such as at least some Tempranillo. The positive emotions were associated with white wines.

But surely we can’t conclude from this that tannic, red wines with vanilla and clove notes are unpopular because they evoke negative emotions. I looked up data for wine sales in Spain and they show a decided preference for red wine especially Tempranillo which is the signature grape of Spain.

The consumers were asked to assess their degree of liking a wine before identifying the emotions so these results can’t be easily explained by the emotion biasing the judgment about the wine’s likeability. The only explanation I can come up with is that consumers outside the laboratory don’t make the connection between likeability and emotion. Only in the laboratory when the test subjects know they’re expected to make the connection is the association salient thus leading the subjects to have an experience unlike that of ordinary consumers.

But there is one more hypothesis that is worth mentioning. The authors of the study state,“If a wine conjures up negative emotions for an individual, that person is probably not going to buy that bottle of wine in the future.” Whatever the relationship is between wine and emotion, I doubt that wines “conjure up” emotions. As I have argued elsewhere the association between wine and emotion is typically metaphorical. We associate astringent wines with aggressive emotions but they don’t make us feel angry or afraid. It’s an association, not a direct causal relationship between the wine and an emotion. “Conjuring up” may be the wrong way to describe this relationship. Similarly, a piece of music may express anger or fear, but we don’t feel angry or afraid when listening, and it’s that expression that we find enjoyable despite the fact the emotion may be classified as “negative”.

If in conducting the test, the experimenters were encouraging  the study participants to think of wines as causing emotions rather than metaphorically expressing them, their experience of the wines might be quite atypical. A wine that causes one to feel aggressive or guilty might indeed be unpleasant; a wine that expresses aggression or guilt might be interesting.

I have no idea how much plausibility to assign either of these explanations.

On the surface, the study seems well done and the results are certainly interesting. But the fact that the results of the study seem to contradict what we know about wine preferences means that much more work will have to be done to tease out the factors that explain this relationship between emotion and wine.

Emotions and Wine: Finally Some Empirical Data

15 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by in Art and Wine, Food Science, Philosophy of Food and Wine, Wine Culture

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

wine and emotionAs dedicated readers of this blog are likely aware, I’ve been arguing that we respond to wines not just with our senses but with emotions as well. (See articles here and here for example) In some cases a particular wine may directly induce an emotional response in us. In other cases, we make metaphorical associations with a wine that has emotional connotations.

Thus far I’ve been relying primarily on my own experiences and the experiences of others who report such experiences. My thesis is not that associating wine with emotions is a common activity. I don’t know how widespread it is. Rather I claim that such associations are available to us if we pay attention to them and that they enhance the aesthetic experience of wine in just the way paying attention to emotional expression in music enhances the experience of music.

Now there is some empirical data to support my thesis. The Academic Wino is reporting on a study, apparently the first of its kind, to be published in the journal Food Quality and Preference entitled “The Relationship Between Sensory Characteristics and Emotion in Wine Preferences”. The study shows that consumers do in fact make these associations between wine and emotions. Unfortunately, the study is behind a paywall and I don’t yet have access to it. But The Academic Wino helpfully summarizes it for us.

This study had two parts:  a sensory evaluation of the wines by a trained panel (11 total: 5 women, 6 men; faculty and researchers from the School of Agricultural, Food and Biosystems Engineering at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in Spain), and a consumer evaluation of the wines with an additional emotional response analysis…

The sensory evaluation by the trained panel used standard tasting methodology. The consumer evaluation is the interesting part.

For the consumer evaluation, participants were first asked to complete questionnaires on demographics and wine consumption habits. Next, they participated in a “warm-up” or “practice” tasting session with 7 wines presented [blind] at the same time.  Finally, after the warm-up, they were presented with the sample of 6 test wines briefly mentioned above.

After tasting the wines (which were presented in random order), participants were asked to rate their liking of each wine (using a 9-point hedonic scale), and what emotions were elicited by each wine (using the EsSense 25 software). Emotions were rated using a 10-cm line scale with the labels “very low” and “very high” at the ends (and everything in between).

The 208 participants were recruited from the School of Agricultural, Food and Biosystems Engineering at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, consumed wine at least once a month, and included young adults, middle aged adults and older adults. Here are some of the results:

  • “Most of the emotion terms evaluated were found to be significantly different between the wines.
  • Only 4 out of 26 terms did not show significant association with the wines (“adventurous”, “free”, “wild”, and “worried”).
  • The emotion terms “good”, “happy”, “joyful”, “mild”, and “pleasant”, were positively associated with fruity and floral aromas/flavors in the wines.
  • The emotion terms “aggressive” and “guilty” were associated with the aromas/flavors of vanilla, clove, and licorice.
  • “Aggressive” was also found to be associated with astringent characteristics.
  • Using cluster analysis, wines were found to be grouped differently when looking at sensory characteristics alone versus when looking at emotional variables alone. (NOTE:  cluster analysis shows which wines are most similar to each other.)
    • Sensory analysis grouped the wines as: 1) the verdejo white in one group; 2) the chardonnay and rosé wine in another group; 3) a Rioja Tempranillo (2012) and a Ribera del Duero Tempranillo in another group; and 4) a different Rioja Tempranillo (2013) in the last group.
    • Emotion analysis grouped the wines as: 1) the verdejo and chardonnay wines in one group; 2) the rose wine in another group; 3) the two Rioja Tempranillos (2012, 2013) in another group; and 4) the Ribera del Duero Tempranillo in the last group.”

There were some differences depending on gender and age which I will ignore for now.

The conclusions however are a bit puzzling. I’m not sure if these are conclusions drawn by the authors of the study or by The Academic Wino. She writes:

Out of 26 different emotions of focus in this study, only 4 were found to be insignificant (“adventurous”, “free”, “wild”, and “worried”), providing evidence that emotions are important in the overall enjoyment of a wine and thus preference.

It is certainly evidence that such associations are intelligible and meaningful to consumers. However, it’s not clear to me how emotional response figured into overall enjoyment. Participants were asked to rate their liking of each wine so perhaps the study correlated preferences with various emotional responses. But the conclusion has some odd implications.

If a wine conjures up negative emotions for an individual, that person is probably not going to buy that bottle of wine in the future.

This doesn’t sound right to me. The summary states that emotion terms “aggressive” and “guilty” were associated with the aromas/flavors of vanilla, clove, and licorice. And that “aggressive” was associated with astringency, meaning the coarseness of the tannins. These are all descriptors associated with big, red wines such as at least some Tempranillo. But surely we can’t conclude from this that tannic, red wines with vanilla and clove notes are unpopular because they evoke negative emotions.

In terms of relationships between emotions and specific wine styles, the study found that white wine characteristics were often associated with more positive emotions, while aged wine characteristics were associated more often with negative emotions.

It is true that aged wines are not to everyone’s taste. But among wine lovers, connoisseurs, etc. aged wines are esteemed. And in the general wine drinking public big red wines, dubbed aggressive in this study, are also much admired. So I’m a bit suspicious of the claim that wines associated with negative emotions are therefore not enjoyable. Again, as I’ve been arguing, the association is often metaphorical. We associate astringent wines with aggressive emotions but they don’t make us feel angry or afraid. It’s an association, not a direct causal relationship between the wine and an emotion. Similarly, a piece of music may express anger or fear, but we don’t feel angry or afraid when listening, and it’s that expression that we find enjoyable despite the fact the emotion may be classified as “negative”.

So we need more studies that can tease out this relationship between what is expressed, what is felt, and how these factors influence preferences.

At any rate, this is a fascinating area of research and thanks to the Academic Wino for summarizing it.

Bugs in the Vineyard May be the Key to Wine Quality

21 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by in Food Science, Wine Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

soil bacteriaComplexity and differentiation are the drivers of the wine world. If we cared about neither wine would be a commodity like orange juice, a homogeneous product with 2 or 3 mega-producers battling for competitive position via marketing and price.

We know that complexity and differentiation in wine are a function in part of geographical location with climate and weather playing the most significant role. But we also know that grapes harvested from regions with similar weather can produce vastly different wines even when we hold winemaking techniques constant. It seems like the soil matters a great deal in explaining why wines have their unique characteristics.

Yet when I ask winemakers what it is about the soil that explains the differences in wine aromas and flavors the answer I usually get is “water and heat retention characteristics”.  Soil types differ in their capacity to retain water and hold heat. The problem is lots of soil types share water and heat retention characteristics but produce different wines. The mineral composition of the soils  probably plays a role but the the science on this is controversial.

In short, we still don’t know how wine creates the magical diversity we all love.

The newest theory attracting lots of attention is that it’s the bugs in the soil that are influencing the character of the wine. Deborah Parker Wong in SommJournal reports on a research project conducted by Spanish biochemist and wine importer Paco Cifuentes and the U.S./Spanish company Biome Makers. They use DNA sequencing to evaluate the microorganisms in various vineyards and then show correlations with the flavor and texture of the finished product.  Dr. Ignacio Belda of Biome Makers reports:

…microorganisms exist that act along the fermentation cycle, modifying existing compounds in juice and must; they can also add other characteristics, some of which could include expressions of minerality.

Cifuentes claims,

The more bugs you have to begin with, the more potential you’ll have for diverse chemical compounds in the finished wine…

This is exciting research, perhaps inching us closer to unlocking the mystery of wine. Winemakers may soon be competing to see who can create the most robust bacterial soup in their vineyards.

Smoke influence and the 2017 Vintage

07 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by in Food Science, Philosophy of Food and Wine, The Art of Wine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

smoke in vineyardsAlthough most of the grapes for the 2017 vintage in Napa/Sonoma were harvested before the devastating fires began, there was still a significant amount on vine and will be affected by smoke taint. The elimination of smoke taint was the main topic at the Postmodern Winemaking Symposium that I’ve attending this week. We tasted through several smoke-damaged wines (along with some Islay Scotch and Mezcal to gain a sensory understnding of smoke influence). And then heard presentations about what is known about the elimination of smoke taint. My quick summary of what is known is that there are some methods  of removal such as flash détente  that seem to work in some situations but they all carry risks and none have been proven broadly effective.

But from an aesthetic point of view, smoke taint poses an interesting question.

The engine of wine aesthetics is difference, differentiation. That is why we have AVAs, vineyard expression, varietals, origin stories and all the rest—its about distinguishing your products from your competitor’s products. This is not surprising because the aim of aesthetic winemaking, is to create something of beauty, and almost all philosophical conceptions of beauty include the idea that what distinguishes beautiful objects from merely pretty or attractive objects is that there is something deviant about them, something uncanny and unfamiliar. Beautiful objects have an individuality about them that the artist or winemaker succeeds in harmonizing, making all the parts of the object work together.

Isn’t 2017 vintage an opportunity to create something quite distinctive with wines influence by smoke? As a consumer I’m always looking for what’s distinctive about a wine, what sets it apart from others. How winemakers go about handling smoke will be one of the fascinating things to look for in this 2017 vintage, especially because the influence of smoke will not be tied to the presence of oak.

Thus, if the smoke influence is handled in such a way that it doesn’t overwhelm the other virtues of the wine, and can be made to harmonize with them, it’s not obvious why we should call it a taint. It may be a mark of distinction.

This issue of smoke taint is related to the whole idea of a flaw. When you go down the list of wine flaws that are taught by the various certification organizations almost all of them have aesthetic value in some contexts. Where would traditional French Syrah be without brett, or Barolo without VA, or Sherry without oxidation?

Perhaps the 2017 vintage will encourage us to be more careful about the language we use—smoke influence is not taint if it produces something of beauty.

How to Eat Sinfully

22 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by in Contemporary Food Culture, Food Science, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

thanksgiving gluttonyJust in time to guarantee a guilt-free feast on Thanksgiving,  Dr. Aaron Carroll’s book The Bad Food Bible:  How and Why to Eat Sinfully has arrived at your favorite bookseller. Among the gems that Carroll hurls at the nutrition Nazis are that most fats are not bad for you; unless you already have high blood pressure, the amount of salt in your diet is probably fine; your chances of getting severe Salmonella poisoning from raw eggs are miniscule; and processed meats eaten in moderation will not increase your susceptibility to cancer.

As for his advice to Thanksgiving revelers from a recent interview:

Your health and your eating habits are not established by one day a year. It’s perfectly fine to enjoy yourself and to live! You need to weigh — in all your health decisions — the benefits and the harms. And too often we only focus on the latter. And included in benefits are joy, and quality of life and happiness. There are times when it’s a perfectly rational decision to allow yourself to be happy and to enjoy yourself. I’m not sort of giving a license for people to eat whatever they want, anytime they want. Yes, the Diet Coke, the pie, these are all processed foods. So you should think about how much you’re eating them in relation to everything else. But on the other hand, a piece of pie on Thanksgiving is not going to erase everything else you’ve done the rest of the year.

This is good advice, even without Carroll’s analysis of the lack of evidence for much nutritional advice. Unless you have health issues, choosing Thanksgiving Day to make a stand against poor nutrition is just a form of asceticism.

But Carroll’s book does more than give us all an excuse to indulge on occasion. He provides a careful analysis of the data supporting various nutritional guidelines in easy-to-understand prose. In fact, his book would be a good primer to use in a critical thinking class on statistics. Most of the nutritional guidelines we’re encouraged to follow are not well supported by the underlying studies. The problem isn’t that nutrition scientists are dishonest or careless—the problem is that nutritional science is very hard to do well and very expensive, so must studies are too limited and equivocal to allow definitive conclusions. Yet, the public, regulatory agencies, and the press want definitive conclusions so we end up with advice that outstrips evidence.

According to Carroll, not all nutritional advice is bad. Studies supporting the harmful effects of excessive sugar and refined carbohydrates are persuasive, and if you’re among the minority whose dietary cholesterol effects blood cholesterol then dietary modifications may be appropriate. Obviously, excessive calories and the resulting weight gain are not good; healthy eating requires moderation. But generally speaking trying to regulate health by making particular foods off limits is ineffective and unnecessary.

And surely Carroll is right that an occasional indulgence for reasonably healthy people will have no ill effects.

So this Thanksgiving put away the guilt and put away the turkey and stuffing. And think of that food coma as a well-deserved nap.