|
The term "natural wine" remains a perpetual source of heated debate among wine enthusiasts. This phrase has become so ubiquitous that it jumps out at us from Tokyo's streets in combinations like "natural wine and yakitori" or "natural wine and oden," demonstrating its growing presence. But how well do we truly understand "natural wine"? This article delves into its truth, exploring everything from ambiguous definitions to the disconnect between producers and consumers, and the meaning behind the word "natural" itself.
The Undefined Ambiguity of "Natural Wine"
As has been discussed ad nauseam—to the point where many might feel they have "calluses on their ears" from hearing it—there is no clear definition for "natural wine", "Vin Nature" or "low-intervention or minimal-intervention wine". This absence of definition lies at the root of various problems we see today.
What exactly does this ambiguity look like? Wines commonly labeled as "natural wine" tend to share several characteristics:
- No sulfites (SO2, preservatives): One of the most prominent features
- Spontaneous fermentation with wild yeasts: Using indigenous yeasts naturally present on grapes or in the winery, rather than commercially cultivated strains
- Unfined and unfiltered: Bottling without filtration or using fining agents
However, these elements represent standards held by only some producers and enthusiasts, not universal rules. While France has organizations that certify "natural wine" with various criteria, these rules apply only to producers who join these organizations. In essence, anyone who doesn't join can freely claim their wine is "natural" regardless of production methods.
As a result, the definition has become so loose that "organic cultivation equals natural" has become an acceptable standard. A survey conducted in Germany revealed that among producers claiming to make "natural wine," some used commercial dry yeasts, added SO2, or even filtered their wines. While the survey allowed multiple responses, the fact that not 100% of producers answered that they fermented exclusively with wild yeasts and used no SO2 illustrates this ambiguity.
Recently, this ambiguity has intensified with the emergence of terms like "clean natural." This typically refers to wines without the "off-flavors" (unwanted aromas) such as reductive notes traditionally associated with "natural wine." However, from a winemaker's perspective, off-flavors are "flaws," so calling their absence "clean" opens another debate entirely.
Consequently, today's world has become completely "anything goes"—if you say it's natural, it's natural—and nobody can control this. When you see "natural wine" signs at Tokyo restaurants, it's difficult for consumers, and even importers, to determine the degree of "naturalness" in those wines.
The Certification Dilemma: Quality or Rules?
Given this ambiguity, some argue that we should rely on "certification" systems to make consumer judgment easier. Certainly, certification can serve as consumer protection policy, providing a degree of assurance.
However, from producers' perspectives, being bound by certification bodies' rules carries extremely high risks. This is because "natural wine" definitions focus solely on "production methods" and do not guarantee "taste." For producers, creating wine with "acceptable flavor" is a fundamental prerequisite, and this may require adjusting SO2 additions or implementing other treatments. Being constrained by certification rules could prevent these adjustments, potentially resulting in wines that cannot guarantee proper "taste."
For example, organic certification limits copper spray applications. When disease spreads through vineyards, producers face a binary choice: respect the rules and limit copper applications, or spray more copper to protect the grapes. Temporarily breaking certification means being unable to claim organic status for the subsequent five years. However, if disease destroys the entire vineyard, that year's revenue becomes zero, creating an even more serious business survival issue.
The same principle applies completely to "natural wine" certification bodies. The question of "prioritizing the product (taste) or certification rules" constantly torments producers. Since grape quality and disease prevalence vary annually, no producer can consistently guarantee top quality within certification frameworks. Eventually, they will face times when they must tell themselves "it's okay because it's natural," even when producing wine whose taste doesn't satisfy them.
The Disconnect Between Production Philosophy and Taste
Ultimately, "natural wine" guarantees production "methods," not taste or aroma. This philosophy holds that the "production method" matters most, even if off-flavors result from these methods.
Of course, many producers believe their "natural methods" produce the most delicious wines. However, there exists a dimension of "commitment" separate from whether wines actually "taste good."
The clearest example is choosing between "dry yeast" and "wild yeast." For purely clean flavors and stable quality, dry yeast typically achieves intended results with greater certainty. Yet many "natural" producers deliberately use wild yeast. This is because "avoiding additives" and "non-intervention" have become ends in themselves.
Originally, "natural wine" began because additives and winemaking techniques were deemed unnecessary—they weren't used because they weren't needed. Top-tier wineries achieve such perfect grape cultivation and winemaking management that intervention becomes unnecessary, naturally resulting in natural production methods. Technology and additives serve as "reactive treatments" for problems, not "prevention," so they're inherently unnecessary when problems don't arise.
However, most current producers claiming "natural" status make wine with "not using anything" as their primary objective. This could be seen as the ultimate form of "how easily can winemakers make wine." For instance, when damaged grapes are included, creating sound wine requires SO2, fining agents, sterilization treatments, and other interventions. However, using only 100% sound grapes while maintaining extremely clean winery conditions means minimal SO2 addition for oxidation prevention, with no need for fining. Similarly, settling lees to clarify wine requires either pre-bottling filtration or natural clarification through extended aging of about a year. Avoiding these "interventions" demands vast knowledge and skill spanning grape cultivation, pressing, and winery management.
Consumer Perception and Marketing Power
Taste has no absolute standards, and wine enjoyment is significantly influenced by relative evaluation and "storytelling." Consumers find appeal in producers' dedication and stories of natural production methods, which ultimately makes wines taste better. This can be understood as a form of "experience consumption"—consuming not just products but the experiences and stories behind them.
Many "natural wine" enthusiasts choose wines based on harmony with their lifestyles. For them, off-flavors aren't flaws but acceptable results of "natural production." One journalist expressed this as "people who drink natural wine are drinking the genre of natural wine." This suggests they find value in enjoying "being natural" itself, rather than focusing on individual wine quality details.
This perception closely relates to marketing. Words like "natural" or "natural" can become powerful tools for selling wine at higher prices. Cases exist where wines that failed European official testing—normally destined for inexpensive table wine status—trade at high values in overseas markets simply by being labeled "natural wine." From producers' perspectives, this creates extremely favorable conditions where they can "reduce production costs and technical intervention while consumers voluntarily assign value and purchase at high prices."
The "Health Benefits" Misconception and Japan's Unique Characteristics
The preconception that "natural wine is healthy" has also penetrated the market widely. The persistent belief that "no added SO2 means no headaches" is particularly entrenched. However, this is a misconception. Headaches are caused not by SO2 but by substances called "biogenic amines." Biogenic amines form through bacterial contamination in wine, and ironically, avoiding SO2 addition can actually increase bacterial proliferation, potentially raising biogenic amine formation and headache risks.
Furthermore, marketing "SO2-free as healthy" assigns a "healthy" image in a context different from "natural wine's" inherent quality. Wines with bacterial off-flavors may contain substances that human bodies naturally reject, making them hardly "healthy." Incidentally, people who avoid SO2 often enjoy dried fruits, which typically contain many times more SO2 than wine.
The Japanese market shows particular enthusiasm for the "natural wine" trend. Germany ranks among the world's top natural wine producers, but most production exports overseas with limited domestic consumption. Germany's top wineries (VDP members, etc.) effectively produce wine through "natural" methods, but rarely label them as "natural." For them, this represents the pursuit of the finest wine, not a special marketing claim. For example, prestigious wineries like DRC and Egon Müller employ near-natural methods but aren't consumed as "natural wine."
Japanese people's "love of novelty" and tendency to follow trends contribute to the natural wine boom. Additionally, Japanese food culture's emphasis on "bringing out natural ingredient flavors" and "light seasoning over heavy flavors" may increase affinity for natural wine. "Natural foods" like sushi exemplify this, and the national consciousness that "food should be this way" may connect to the instinctive feeling that "avoiding additives is better," even without clear reasoning.
The Winemaker's Perspective: Off-Flavors and SO2 Truth
For winemakers, off-flavors represent "flaws" subject to harsh judgment. For instance, aromas often described as "funky" may be recognized by winemakers as "Brett" (Brettanomyces-derived aromas resembling barnyard, horse sweat, or damp rags) or "mouse taint." While Japan has segments with higher Brett tolerance, particularly among Burgundy wine enthusiasts, this could indicate conditioning to wines where Brett appears relatively frequently.
SO2 (sulfites) comes in various forms. While potassium metabisulfite is commonly used in Japan, some winemakers deliberately choose different SO2 forms (like gas) because potassium can bind with acids and reduce acidity. SO2 added at EU regulatory levels has limited human impact and virtually no effect on taste. This is because SO2's role involves "sterilization" and "antioxidation," playing crucial roles in sound winemaking when used appropriately and in proper amounts.
Conclusion: Judge by What's in the Bottle
While "natural wine" discussions span many topics, what ultimately matters is whether the wine "tastes good."
- "Natural doesn't mean bad" any more than "natural means good."
- What matters is whether producers focus on "taste" as the ultimate quality measure, or whether they prioritize "production methods" (like avoiding additives) as ends in themselves.
- Certainly, many excellent wines exist made through natural methods.
- Wine sales professionals and sommeliers—professionals who should handle wine from neutral positions—should adopt the important principle of judging by what's in the bottle rather than being caught up in specific labels or designations.
- For general consumers, however, if "natural" labels help them enjoy wine more, that's perfectly fine. If this achieves the goal of wine enjoyment, it's wonderful.
While human fundamental longing for "nature" and nostalgic emotions certainly support the "natural wine" movement, these emotions should never interfere with scientific evidence or quality assessment. Perhaps we're called to develop our wine selection skills based on our own palate and knowledge, while enjoying the individual character and stories that each "natural wine" possesses.
