An Argument for Natural Wine: Part 2

In my last post on this subject I raised the question whether the quality wines of today are by and large better than those of past times, before modern technology allowed us to control every facet of grape growing and wine making.  Sure, consistency, cleanness, and uniformity of style are the natural results of modern scientific wine production.  I can be reasonably sure that if I pick up a bottle of whatever the major international wine producers have inundated the shelves of retail outlets with, it won't be undrinkable.  But I also know that all of them will taste pretty much the same.  Very few of them will excite me or make me think, 'Now that's what I love, that's what wine should be all about!'  But am I alone in my indifference to today's vast sea of industrial wine?  My previously recorded experiences with casual wine drinkers has proven the opposite.  Invariably wine novices who taste an authentic, naturally produced wine for the first time are stunned by how interesting and good wine can be after their previous experience with the standardized, homogenized fruit and oak bombs.  I suppose I was lucky to have an innate sense of curiosity and adventure as I delved into the world of wine, that prodded me to explore wines made from every possible grape and from as many geographical locations as possible.  In this process I quickly learned that what I loved was variety, complexity, subtlety and charm.  I also learned with time that the stuff I really fell in love with came largely from small producers in lesser-known regions who grew their grapes labor-intensively and without the use of chemicals, and who gently guided rather than forced their wines into submission in the winery.

So then, if I and many others have had such eye-opening experiences when we first tasted truly authentic wine, how have we arrived at this place where the vast majority of us have accepted wine for what it is (or isn't) today?  That we have accepted this status quo is no surprise.  There is just too little of truly interesting wine out there in relation to the vast sea of industrial stuff.  People simply drink what is available and therefore begin to accept what they are familiar and comfortable with.  But what has actually gotten us to this place where we are drinkers of wine more than lovers of wine?  Is it that a sinister wine critic has malevolently tricked our palates into accepting homogeneous mediocrity?  Have multi-million dollar wine conglomerates found it impossible to produce wine on a mega scale without the use of modern wine-making technology that sucks the life and individuality out of wine?  Has the world just become too quality conscious to accept the occasional fault in its wines?  I believe that we have to look a little deeper to find the answer to this question.  Granted, wine critics can and have undoubtedly influenced wine styles, but initially they can only rate wines that are already being produced.  The chain of change had to start somewhere other than on the critic's palate.  Modern technology and science have certainly made it easier to produce wine economically and reliably on a large scale, but what caused technological manipulation in the winery to be accepted as necessary in the first place?  I suppose it is true that over the past few decades food and drink quality standards have vastly improved.  We do expect everything we ingest to be consistent and wholesome, and I will grant that due to this our tastes have become somewhat dumbed down.  But we do keep wanting to go back to what is true and authentic and original, and when we find it we want more of it.  As we re-discover pure, natural, authentically produced foods we are beginning to  reject the notion that quality has to mean homogeneity.  So are we really willing to sacrifice authenticity in our wines for the sake of perfection?  I don't believe that is human nature and I don't believe that is the answer to my question.

What was it then that started the chain of events that has led to the state of wine as we know it in our lifetime?  The brilliant and somewhat iconoclastic Loire winemaker Nicolas Joly, one of the early champions of today's natural wine movement, lays the case out quite concisely, and I believe accurately.  According to Joly's thinking, and this is ironically considered old-school thinking by much of the modern wine industry, great wine must start with great grapes, which must in turn come from healthy soil.  At one point in history grapevines had all they needed to thrive and produce great grapes in their native soils, but the work required in the vineyard to maintain their health was time and energy consuming.  In the early part of the last century agricultural advances allowed farmers to increase production significantly while saving time and energy.

• As part of this trend, in the 1950's herbicides began to be used in vineyards in order to save time and eliminate the need to intensively work the soil.  
• One unintended consequence of herbicide use was the destruction of beneficial microbes and bacteria in the soil.  In the absence of these microorganisms the roots could not feed themselves, and so within five years vine growth had drastically decreased.  
• The solution was application of massive doses of chemical fertilizers
• These chemical fertilizers consisted largely of salts, forcing vines to need more water to compensate for the greater salinity
• This additional intake of water in creased the vines' vulnerability to disease and negatively affected the taste of the grapes.
• The solution was the invention of disease fighting "systemics," products that pass directly into the vine's sap, further altering flavor and introducing new and greater chemical residues in wines.
• To deal with the loss of and the new unusual tastes in the chemically altered grapes, technologies were invented that turned wine cellars into factories.
• More and more wines had to be dressed up with cosmetics such as hundreds of aromatic yeasts, added enzymes, tannins, etc.  

To be continued . . .