Eater: Defining Natural Wines

Fairly interesting article today in Eater by Rachel Signer on defining "natural" wines:
DefiningNaturalWines

From what I can tell, from this article and other readings, is that those winemakers who are making "natural" (by whatever definition you choose) are not the least bit interested in having the AOC authorities define "natural" wines. They just go about doing what they do and are not the least bit concerned about putting "natural" on their label. Which, to me, makes perfect sense.
I think it would be an absolute waste of millions of $$'s for the TTB to attempt to define "natural" wines...hearings/testimonies by the wing nuts/etc....like trying to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We've seen what happens when the Feds define for us what a frankfurter is. I can see the likes of Gallo & Kendall-Jackson defining for us "natural" so they can put it on their labels.
As best I can tell, the agitation for officially defining natural wines, so it can be used on a label, is coming from the crowd of writers/bloggers/somms/etc who are ardent adherents of natural wines.
For me, my definition of natural wines, is if SweetAlice says its natural..then, by dammies, it's natural. Now there's an idea. SweetAlice needs to monetize her passion for natural wines and save the World from Parkerization some more. She can sell little stickies to wineries to tack on their labels that say "SweetAlice Natural". She could make a fortune, considering the millions of wine drinkers out there who read her every word.

In the FWIW category, I just ordered her new book on Georgian wines. I feel so...unclean & hypocritical. But...just like I used to subscribe to PlayBoy for the articles..I bought her book for the recipes!!!
Tom

As best I can tell, the agitation for officially defining natural wines, so it can be used on a label, is coming from the crowd of writers/bloggers/somms/etc who are ardent adherents of natural wines.

Where are you getting that from? No writers or somms in article that I saw pushing for it. Only the guy from a wine store in Chicago (that I've never heard of) seemed to think defining natural was a good thing. Maybe Alice F is pushing for it (I don't know, you're the one obsessed with her), but it's not in that article

As best I can tell, the agitation for officially defining natural wines, so it can be used on a label, is coming from the crowd of writers/bloggers/somms/etc who are ardent adherents of natural wines.

Where are you getting that from? No writers or somms in article that I saw pushing for it. Only the guy from a wine store in Chicago (that I've never heard of) seemed to think defining natural was a good thing. Maybe Alice F is pushing for it (I don't know, you're the one obsessed with her), but it's not in that article

That's just sort of my general impression of the scene, Dale. Certainly, in that article, the Chicago guy endorsed the idea.
And any number of bloggers I've read who show disdain for "natural" wines have dismissed the category because it's not defined and therefore, means nothing. And several people, wine shop owners I've chatted with, who endorse "natural" wines, have
complained to me that nobody has defined what a natural wine means. And certainly SweetAlice gets her knickers in a knot
when somebody calls their wine "natural" if they've used chemical/industrial SO2 rather than natural/volcanic SO2, or used
any SO2 at all.
I sense there's not much movement from folks in the wine industry here in the US to define "natural". But I believe people
like Legeron in France are pushing for a definition.
But I'm pretty sure if Gallo put "natural" on the label for one of their wines, the $hit would hit the fan.
Tom

*yawn*

[David M. Bueker]

That's just sort of my general impression of the scene

Not sure what scene you are observing. Haven't seen the kind of thing you are talking about at all.

And yes, yawn - we have done this debate 1000 times.

[Robin Garr]

And yes, yawn - we have done this debate 1000 times.

That, and if we ever do want to bring it up for another round, Eater is a mighty puny place to start.

for those with access (at least today) to a dead trees Chronicle, there is an amuses profile of ORDINAIRE, a "natural wine" bar in the Grand Lake District of Oakland. Discussions of funky, bretty natural wines and wine nerdery dominate the low key article.

Sorry, I'm old and in my dotage. so no longer favorably disposed to tolerate this kind of stuff.

I stood quietly and listened and tried to believe I wasn't tasting bad wine when Nicolas Joly tried (and is STILL trying) so ferociously to convince me it was really what I should be drinkiing.

I equivocated for a long while, mostly out of politness, when the Coturris were choking people with bacterial sludge.

I said nothing, just winced a bit and moved on, when true believers gave me glasses full of vinegar and called it nectar.

I even tried to read two pages at one sitting of Feiring with her weird combination of "natural" wine evangelicization, Parker-bashing, and bad love affairs.

Look, this whole "natural wine"---right from the start by appropriating the moniker of "natural wines', and therefore not-so-subtle suggesting that anything else...everything else...is un-natural wine---is a necessary reflection of basic human nature, opposition, revolution and egocentric anarchy. I understand that. But anarchy by its very nature can't be organized. You can't put it in a box;; you can't create a benevolent association; you can't draw up a set of pretty, neat, tidy little rules. It's anarchy. It's "I'll do what I want and call it what I want."

People will make these wines. Some of them will be good. Many of them will be absolute undrinkable swill. And you'll never know which one it'll be until you taste it. But give up on societies and organizations and public movements: the violent anarchist movement of the 1800s was a self-defeating proposition, because if you dedicate your life and actions to shooting yourself in the head to prove a point your movement has an essential flaw in it.

[Jenise]

"you can't draw up a set of pretty, neat, tidy little rules. It's anarchy. It's 'I'll do what I want and call it what I want.' "

Hoke, that sums it up better than just about anything I've heard yet. At least, it sums up the way friends of mine--who loved the vinegary wines I didn't get one little bit, and I do love my vinegar (on a salad)--tried to rationalize why we should embrace these things. I'll never get there.

Sorry, I'm old and in my dotage. so no longer favorably disposed to tolerate this kind of stuff.

Pretty good rant, Hoke. Nice that you can unleash your inner curmudgeon.
And totally agree.

Tom

I even tried to read two pages at one sitting of Feiring with her weird combination of "natural" wine evangelicization, Parker-bashing, and bad love affairs.

Reading SweetAlice can be a bit tedious. I find her rather amusing at times...as she raises the same ole
diatribes. But I think she's backed off a bit on the Parker-bashing. Maybe she realized that she didn't
"Save the World from Parkerization" after all.
Tom

Even as someone much more sympathetic to less-than-clean and acidic wines in this "school"....HOKE is the King of the Curmudgeonly Put Down!

I'm with Hoke...