Help: Please define Organic Wines

3. With regard to the addition of sulfates, I believe a wine can still be considered organic if the addition does not raise the level of sulfates to one that is higher than the grape itself in fermentation is capable of producing.

I am not sure I do understand this.
Could you elaborate a bit?

Eric

Eric, Hi....

The winemaking process imparts all wines with sulfites, but not all wines will develop the level of natural sulfites required to preserve the wine. Because of this, I have no problem if sulfites are added but only to the level that the grape is capable of producing on its own.

I believe that several of the organic certifying agencies have even stipulated to what level sulfites can be added. I do not, however, have precise details at hand.

Hope that clarifies.

Best
Rogov

EU allows up to 100ppm sulfites (unless they've changed it recently). US allows 10ppm.

Hence the difficulty implicit in making definitions of things in the wine world.

Certain yeast strains can produce up to 130 ppm of sulfites during the process fermentation.

Salute

3. With regard to the addition of sulfates, I believe a wine can still be considered organic if the addition does not raise the level of sulfates to one that is higher than the grape itself in fermentation is capable of producing.

I am not sure I do understand this.
Could you elaborate a bit?

Eric

Eric, Hi....

The winemaking process imparts all wines with sulfites, but not all wines will develop the level of natural sulfites required to preserve the wine. Because of this, I have no problem if sulfites are added but only to the level that the grape is capable of producing on its own.

I believe that several of the organic certifying agencies have even stipulated to what level sulfites can be added. I do not, however, have precise details at hand.

Hope that clarifies.

Best
Rogov

Natural sulfites is a very complicated and mysterious matter.

Several studies (the reference one in France was made by ITV here , and showed that less than 10% of the commercial yeasts produce over 20ppm of total and less than 2% produce over 50ppm up to 95) has showed that for most selected commercial yeasts sulfites levels produced during fermentation is between 0 and 50 ppm of which FREE SO2, the only one that protect the wine, is usually low (0-5 ppm) and often non existent, since these sulfites are a by product of yeasts metabolism.
My personal experience over the years is that, with native yeasts, the level of "natural" TOTAL sulfites is rarely below 5 ppm and over 15 ppm. Free natural SO2 is usually around 2-3 ppm. That is far too low to protect a wine during its ageing or bottling, if there's nothing else to protect it.

This is why most of the "no sulfur" winemakers will use highly reductive environment during the fermentations (all the carbonic fermentations family) and during elevage-ageing (big vats, often stainless steel or resin, no racking, very high CO2 levels, cold temperatures...) to avoid oxydation. Protection against bacteriological or yeast deviation is another story...

So for the past 10 years I have made my wines without added SO2 and with native yeasts, I very rarely ended with TOTAL SO2 below 10ppm (in fact 6 times over more than 160 wines), the maximum level for not using the "contains sulfites" mention at least in Europe.
For most of my wine I will add 15 to 20 ppm at bottling, so I usually end around 25 to 40 ppm.
I did precisely 16 no sulfur added bottlings with total SO2 between 4 and 15 ppm.

Given these data, what would you consider the acceptable SO2 addition on these wines to call them organic?

EU allows up to 100ppm sulfites (unless they've changed it recently). US allows 10ppm.

I do not recognise these numbers, and was surprised to see such a huge difference between the US and the EU considering they have trading agreements in place and accept each others products. What is your source? A bit of googling suggested the following ....

In the EU, the absolute max varies with style of wine, but is about the same order of magnitude in the US, which is 350 ppm. In the EU the term organic wine is not recognised, and thus not regulated, but the organic wine limit for sulphites is 100ppm in the US. The allowable level before you need to put a warning on the bottle is 10ppm both places.

(I have been sloppy with the units, I have seen numbers quoted in ppm and mg/l and assumed they will be roughly the same.)

EU allows up to 100ppm sulfites (unless they've changed it recently). US allows 10ppm.

What is your source? A bit of googling suggested the following ....

This document suggests that 10 ppm is indeed the maximum allowed of naturally occuring sulfites for 100% organic or organic wines.
So if your yeasts produce naturally 10 ppm of SO2 on 1 batch and 9 ppm on a other one, both from organic grapes, one can be labeled organic and the other one no
Fabulous!!!!! What a precious help for the consumer!


In EU the limits for organic are the same than for non organic since organic only concern the grapes :

PDO Wines (ex AOC)
Rouge 150 mg/l
Blanc or rosé 210 mg/l
Blanc or rosé (RS > 5g/L) 250 mg/l
Liquoreux 300 mg/l
Sparkling 185 mg/l
Vin doux naturel/Vin de liqueur (RS> 5g/L) 200 mg/l


Table wines
Vin rouge 120 mg/l
Vin blanc or rosé 150 mg/l

Note that for the same wine the maximum sulfite allowed is higher for AOC than for table wine!!!

EU allows up to 100ppm sulfites (unless they've changed it recently). US allows 10ppm.

What is your source? A bit of googling suggested the following ....

This document suggests that 10 ppm is indeed the maximum allowed of naturally occuring sulfites for 100% organic or organic wines.

I don't want to get into an argument about this so I'll let people draw their own conclusions, but what the document actually says is :

“100% Organic” products cannot use added sulfites in production. Therefore, since no added sulfites are present in the finished product, the label may not require a sulfite statement. In these cases, a lab analysis is necessary to verify that the wine contains less than 10 ppm of sulfites.

Note that for the same wine the maximum sulfite allowed is higher for AOC than for table wine!!!

In the same vein, chaptalisation is not permitted for table wines (at least not in France), but it is for AOC wines. And rosé table wines could not be made by mixing red and white wines, while no such rule aplied to AOC wines and some (notably Champagne, but there were others) AOCs permitted it. Remember all the fuss when it was mooted to allow table wines to make rosés in that way?

I think the logic is that AOC wines should be given the freedom to set their own standards and be responsible for their own brands, while table wines are more of an standard industrial procduct that require tighter legislation to prevent exploitation.

But I agree it is weird.

“100% Organic” products cannot use added sulfites in production. Therefore, since no added sulfites are present in the finished product, the label may not require a sulfite statement. In these cases, a lab analysis is necessary to verify that the wine contains less than 10 ppm of sulfites.

Ok so in fact there is strictly no addition allowed and no maximum as soon as the sulfites are naturally produced during the fermentation?

The 10 ppm is just for the "contains sulfites" mention like in EU.

How would this be enforced?
As far as I know there is only one lab in the word that is able to test the difference between natural and added sulfites. Last year the price asked for such a test was several hundred of euros!!!

If the yeast naturally produces 10 ppm (or higher) of SO2 in the “finished” wine (no added sulfites) could one label the wine “contains naturally occurring sulfites”?

Salute

Welcome, M. Texier!

I have been trying to come up with some workable (as opposed to completely accurate!) descriptions for natural, biodynamic, and organic wines. I would like to give everyone here an opportunity to give them a serious roughing up, so that I might improve them:

Natural Wines are made from grapes farmed in biodynamic or organically cultivated vineyards. They are produced with minimum intervention, meaning natural fermentation with wild yeasts, little or no use of sulfites, and no other chemical or physical manipulation. The word “natural” is more a statement of intent than an inventory of specific practices—but the intent is clear: to create wines of complete transparency and purity that demonstrate a true sense of place.

Biodynamic Wine is the product of a rigorous subset of organic viticulture, employing the standard techniques of organic farming (no herbicides, insecticides, fungicides or chemical fertilizers). Biodynamic producers go beyond organic techniques, treating their vineyards as part of a larger natural living organism, using farm animals and planting cover crops to encourage a more diverse and productive environment. This approach contrasts with the more common large-scale operation of vineyards, where the sole focus is on grape production.

Organic Wine is made from grapes that are grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or fungicides. In the United States, “organic” applies only to grape-growing practices, not winemaking, with the exception of the addition of sulfites: to be labeled “organic” means sulfites may be present in concentrations of less that 20 parts per million.

Natural wines? This adds an extra level of complexity again! This is first time that I have heard of the term.

Biodynamic is a superset of organic. You can have organic wines without them being biodynamic, but you can not have a biodynamic wine without it being organic also.

Then you get into what constitutes a Sustainable wine. Some people in this country say that being sustainable means that you do not go out of business. However, several of our wine competitions are now excluding wines that are not sustainably produced.

What is the level of sulfites at which they act as a preservative?

Neil wrote;
What is the level of sulfites at which they act as a preservative?

That all depends on the pH of the wine (lower pH wines need less higher pH wines need more). (Remember what Eric said its the FREE SO2 (not "BOUND" SO2) that "protects").

Salute

Natural wines? This adds an extra level of complexity again! This is first time that I have heard of the term.

Biodynamic is a superset of organic. You can have organic wines without them being biodynamic, but you can not have a biodynamic wine without it being organic also.

Then you get into what constitutes a Sustainable wine. Some people in this country say that being sustainable means that you do not go out of business. However, several of our wine competitions are now excluding wines that are not sustainably produced.

What is the level of sulfites at which they act as a preservative?

So, the first response is from a guy who knows set theory. Yikes. I'll have to find another way to say it.

Regarding the "natural" designation, I have two words for you: Alice Feiring.

I'm not at all happy with the "Sustainable" category, because like "Natural" it is more about intention than specific procedures, and it really has nothing to do with wine quality. Besides, who says you're practicing "sustainable" agriculture? Do you have to have X number of successful harvests to call yourself that? And it sort of isn't a joke about staying in business. You're not "sustainable" if you go broke practicing "sustainable" agriculture.

I'm not at all happy with the "Sustainable" category, because like "Natural" it is more about intention than specific procedures, and it really has nothing to do with wine quality.

Dave, why would your definition (or description) of Sustainable "really (have) nothing to do with wine quality", but your definition of "natural wine" assumes a statement of wine quality? One or the other, but not both.

Also, 'sustainable' has to do with grape growing (viticulture), whereas 'natural wine' has to do with both viticulture and wine. So they are not equal terms.

Hoke, in this country 'sustainability' measures everything from the diesel they put in the tractor, the sprays and when or how often they are applied (they are only 'allowed' to spray 6 times before they need special permission to do another spray, even though the vineyard manager knows that it rained overnight and they need to spray NOW to stop the gray rot or botrytis happening), to how much water is used to clean the tanks, and how much waster water was flushed down the drain in the winery. It takes a person full time for two weeks to get it set up for the first year, then in subsequent years they just need to fill out all the forms and send them off to wherever they need to. And pay them money each year, of course!

There can be sustainable vineyards and sustainable wineries, and both must be sustainable before the wine in the bottle is also classed as 'sustainable'. Madness!

Hoke, in this country 'sustainability' measures everything from the diesel they put in the tractor, the sprays and when or how often they are applied (they are only 'allowed' to spray 6 times before they need special permission to do another spray, even though the vineyard manager knows that it rained overnight and they need to spray NOW to stop the gray rot or botrytis happening), to how much water is used to clean the tanks, and how much waster water was flushed down the drain in the winery. It takes a person full time for two weeks to get it set up for the first year, then in subsequent years they just need to fill out all the forms and send them off to wherever they need to. And pay them money each year, of course!

There can be sustainable vineyards and sustainable wineries, and both must be sustainable before the wine in the bottle is also classed as 'sustainable'. Madness!

In the US, the vineyard has to apply (and pay for) certification from one of the certifying bodies. They monitor, investigate, and decide whether to give cert. Generally takes about three years from scratch----assuming it takes that long to get rid of the pesticides, etc., and change the soil and vineyard conditions to certifiable organic. That's organic. Sustainable is still vague and tenuous...as Dave said, largely intention rather than specificities.

That open-ended nature of sustainability has essentially led the big corps to do a few things, often for visual or marketing appeal, and then claim the mantle of being "green" or sustainable...called 'greenwashing' commonly.

And now you have introduced the 'green' word! Another can of worms to investigate. It is just wrong where a company that can afford to pay someone else, who has a bunch of trees growing, some money, then say that they are Carbon Zero.

Natural Wines are made from grapes farmed in biodynamic or organically cultivated vineyards. They are produced with minimum intervention, meaning natural fermentation with wild yeasts, little or no use of sulfites, and no other chemical or physical manipulation. The word “natural” is more a statement of intent than an inventory of specific practices—but the intent is clear: to create wines of complete transparency and purity that demonstrate a true sense of place.

I tend to agree with the first part of your definition. Maybe it is important to precise that the addition of sulfur can't take place before the end of microbiological transformations.

Then, as I explain before, a lot of "natural" growers try to make their wines in an highly reductive environment in order to protect the wines against oxidation without the help of SO2.
At least in France, I would say that the majority of these wines are made in semi or pure carbonic maceration with no soutirage prior to bottling. And IMO, this is far from the best way to demonstrate the true sense of the place, except for gamay grown on granit and a few other examples. A syrah from northern rhone made in pure carbonic and bottled without any ageing taste like any carbonic syrah in the world. A least according to my (quite large?) experience...
I have been making this kind of wine on my very young vines of Brézème for 3 years now. Believe me the essence of terroir of Brézème cannot be demonstrate through this technique. Traditional winemaking (whole cluster open tank fermentation with light racking after malos and racking prior to bottling - here I can add 15-20 ppm of SO2 or not according to my perception of the strength of the wine) is much more adequate but really not considered as "nature" enough by the natural wine world.

Cheers

Eric

I must say I agree with what Eric is saying and that's my experience too.

Next lets just say that certified Organic viticulture is really about limiting the types of products that you use. It is incorrect to say no fungicides or pesticides are used.

Here is a list of what can be sprayed:
Terpene Alcohols
Petrol Oils
Parafin Oil
Pyrethrines and Rotenone as insecticides (not sure what these are)
Spinosad ( a bacteria)
Various other bacterial fungicides
Copper in various chemical forms
Calcium Sulphate
Sulphur
Iron Phosphate (kills snails)

In addition, fertilizers must be of organic origin and no herbicides (that I know of) can be used.

Sustainable Viticulture, especially the New Zealand definition, is about environmental and living-soil farming that does allow regulated use of certain synthetic sprays. It also focuses on things like disease forecasting and limiting broad-spectrum fungicides (like sulphur and copper).

Biodynamics is actullay more about the treatment of the composts with various herbal and animal preparations that the closed system of farming envisaged by Steiner.

We could discuss the rules, benefits, pitfalls and views for the next 20 years without drawing any real conclusions. For me the important thing is for producers to be truthful about what they do and don't do rather than trying to get certification to gain marketing advantage.

This is a very good summary Jon. Nice.

Biodynamics is actullay more about the treatment of the composts with various herbal and animal preparations that the closed system of farming envisaged by Steiner.

Now in terms of what biodynamics is, I can't totally agree with you.
The use of the biodynamic calendar for all the vineyard works is one of the most important part as important as the use of dynamized herb teas and 500 (500p in my case) and 501 preparations. At least as I am concern, all this is done in a preventive perspective that is totally absent from any organic growing program that I know.

Since the term came into fashion, I have had a major problem with the concept of "natural wines". From the moment an agronomist determines in which direction to plant his vines, what trellising system will be used, how much if at all to cut back on yields, whether the grapes and later the wine will be organic or not (by any definition) and from the moment the grapes enter the winery until the bottling, a great deal is decided by people and not by nature.

The only truly natural wine would be a cluster of grapes that grow somewhere on a wild vine, fall to the ground and ferment naturally. That wine would, of course, taste terrible, but that, my friends is the only truly natural wine. Is it not entirely possible that the search for "natural wine" is not merely an extension of the need of many to be politically and enviornmentally "correct"?

Is it not entirely possible that the search for "natural wine" is not merely an extension of the need of many to be politically and enviornmentally "correct"?

It's entirely possible in some instances, of course. But although I wholeheartedly agree with what you say re " natural wines", Daniel, I will be more lenient in my regards to the practitioners thereof and give them the benefit of the doubt, for I have universally found (in the universe I've been able to sample) a sense of true commitment and dedication amongst the producers (such as Eric Texier, folks I know in Cahors, Elisabetta Foradori, the Radikons and their brethren in Friuli/Slovenia, and on and on) that is not in the least pandering to public sentiment or political correctness.

Their intent, from what I've seen, is to attempt inasmuch as they can, to produce wine in as non-interventional a way as possible and to get to a point of----for lack of a better word, transparency, or a state showcasing the inherent elements of terroir/grape without imposing too many interventional techniques.

That they are doomed to constantly fail deters them not. Their hearts and minds are in the effort to achieve a vision they have (even though each producer's vision is different and unique to them).

I honor them for it. I occasionally deeply appreciate their wines (while saying some of them are execrable---but I say that about all wine and winemakers ).

I just wish to hell they could call it something other than "natural wine". I find that smarmy, condescending, officious, arrogant, and irritating all at once. It's not the intent, and not the results (well most of the results): it's solely the phrase "natural wine" that I find awkward, misleading, and downright wrong. As, I suspect, is what troubles you, my friend.

Since the term came into fashion, I have had a major problem with the concept of "natural wines". From the moment an agronomist determines in which direction to plant his vines, what trellising system will be used, how much if at all to cut back on yields, whether the grapes and later the wine will be organic or not (by any definition) and from the moment the grapes enter the winery until the bottling, a great deal is decided by people and not by nature.

The only truly natural wine would be a cluster of grapes that grow somewhere on a wild vine, fall to the ground and ferment naturally. That wine would, of course, taste terrible, but that, my friends is the only truly natural wine. Is it not entirely possible that the search for "natural wine" is not merely an extension of the need of many to be politically and enviornmentally "correct"?

Seriously, you don't see any difference between the wines from Pierre Overnoy and Henri Maire???? Between Lapierre wines and Duboeuf??? Between DRC's wine and Perse's???

I just don't want to be classified in the same category than Mr Perse or his buddies

1st because I work a lot in my vineyard and in my cellar which he doesn't do.

2nd because I grow my vines without the help of armful chemicals not only for the people who are drinking the wines, but also for my kids, my neighbors and my land and my neighbors land. Perse doesn't give a shit. He only wants the big points.

3rd because I try to accept my wines the way they are, not the way I (or any critic) want them to be like. Perse probably doesn't even drink his wines, since he can afford to buy DRC.

Your answer about the SO2 in organic wines clearly showed that you probably don't know really what you are talking about, as organic, natural, biodynamic wines are concerned. The confusion you make between grapes, yeasts, naturally produced and added sulfur,... shows clearly that you didn't work on the subject!
I can understand that you don't care and that only the result matters to you. Really I do.
But please stick with that statement and don't try demonstrate the whole natural agricultural movement is all about marketing and political correctness.
Unlike you, there are people who are working a lot to achieve something with their hands and sweat behind that. Not only with a keyboard.
Go in the vineyard, meet these people, read Jules Chauvet, try to understand what is really going on.
And then if your opinion is still the same and documented I will accept it.

In the meanwhile, I won't.

Eric Texier
Vigneron à Brézème