There was a time in the Wine Corner when we took pains to identify wines made with organically farmed grapes or via the method known as biodynamics. We eventually, did away with this system, and in a moment I’ll tell you why. But first I’d like to address a question we’re regularly confronted with: whether organic and biodynamic wines taste different from wines made with grapes not farmed according to these disciplines.
The short answer is … not really. While a vintner may detect subtle differences in wine after having adopted an organic or biodynamic approach, the way the grapes are grown — assuming a fundamentally responsible approach — is not going to make the kind of difference a consumer will readily notice. “But,” guests at the tasting table regularly tell me, “I had a natural wine at such and such a restaurant and it tasted dramatically different from conventional wine. The sommelier told us it was farmed organically.”
Here’s the disconnect: Natural wines begin with organic or biodynamic farming, but they go a step further. It’s not the grape farming that makes the difference so much as the work in the cellar, post-harvest.. Operating under the “nothing added, nothing taken way” rubric adopted by winemakers of the various naturalist schools, fruit will have been subjected to a minimal level of intervention as it makes its way from vine to wine. The result can be unfamiliar scents and flavors —some likeable and some less so. I’ve long resorted to the slightly clunky phrase natural wine affect to describe these characteristics.
So, back to the reasons we stopped identifying wine as organic or biodynamic on our shelves. First, singling out one kind of wine for special treatment suggests that other wines on the shelf are of a second, diminished order, when, in fact, a conscientious winemaker can make a sound, responsible wine without subscribing either.
Costs may be a factor, It’s not widely known that the largest organization offering certification for biodynamic practice charges a royalty calculated as a percentage of production. Coupled with the expenses associated with regular inspections, it’s easy to understand why this could be a disincentive.
Assuming certification has been achieved, one must then live with the limits on one’s freedom to respond to truly threatening situations. It doesn’t seem reasonable to us to expect a family to lose an entire vintage rather than resort, reluctantly, to an unauthorized treatment in a genuine emergency. In our view, decisions of this sort are best left to the folks who are there, on site, and have skin in the game. After all, it’s their livelihoods we’re talking about.
But beyond this, while transitioning toward, practicing, or becoming certified as organic or biodynamic provides some assurance of responsible behavior, it can’t absolutely guarantee it. Nor do natural approaches to farming and winemaking by themselves magically produce excellent wine. In light of this, a winemaker’s decision not to practice organic farming with perfect consistency shouldn’t lead one to conclude that the approach is irresponsible. These situations will rarely be so starkly binary.
Winemakers ought to, and ought to have the liberty to, respond responsibly and appropriately to the conditions and situations they encounter. For some this will mean practicing organic or biodynamic farming (with or without certification). For others it will mean taking a pragmatic and reasoned but less ideological approach, which may involve discretionary use of techniques common to one or both systems.
So, should you only drink wine made from certified organic or biodynamic fruit? It’s up to you, of course. But in the end, the only way to guarantee that our wine is both delicious and responsibly produced is to deal only with skilled, responsible producers.