In response to a Twitter debate about “natural wines”, instigated by @gabriellaopaz, @thirstforwine and @artisanandvine, after a post by Alice Feiring on her website...

Here is a first posterous experiment.

I’ll try to be as clear as I can. I think this is an important subject because consumer perception is at stake.

Let me start by saying that there is no disrespect to you Kathryn, since you’ve made such a success of artisan&vine, and deserve to continue to do so, using the concept of “natural wines” as an integral part of the artisan&vine proposition.

First of all, I think we all agree that all wines, given that (1) they are the product of human ingenuity, and (2) cannot occur in nature without human intervention and a highly sophisticated, year-long process, are by definition artificial. Therefore the expression “natural wines” is an oxymoron. I don’t think anyone can refute this point.

Secondly, to answer these three tweets:

@thirstforwine @ricard67 but surely you’d agree that there is a category of wines that are less artificial than others. What do you call them?

Yes, there are degrees of artificiality. At the extremes, high-volume, low quality industrial plonk at one end, and low-production high quality high cost hand-crafted artisanal organic vegan biodynamic wines at the other. But they are both artificial. I’ll come to what we call them in the third point.

@thirstforwine @ricard67 but organic is too generic and may not be biodynamic. “less interventionist” might be more accurate but less inspiring

“Organic is too generic and may not be biodynamic”. Of course - I wasn’t implying that natural wines are synonymous with these wines. Therefore replacing the broad (and itself generic) term “natural” with organic or biodynamic isn’t right, as you suggest. I agree with this - but I wasn’t suggesting they were the same thing in the first place. Sorry if I couldn’t make myself clear. I was on a train with a mobile phone. Inspiring - it’s valuable to be inspiring, but never at the expense of accuracy or truthfulness. “Natural” is potentially inspiring, but it is inapplicable and untruthful, as I think I have shown. It is also capable of giving the impression that other wines, whatever they are, aren’t attractive to drink, which is unhelpful.

@artisanandvine @ricard67 “minimal intervention” too broad, “biodynamic” much too narrow. I’ve become fond of the idea of “Place Wines”, but i think it’s [...too vague as a practical term]

Agree with these points too - but neither are synonymous with what you’re trying to say with the word “natural”, so they’re not an option for that reason, not because they’re too broad or narrow. And if I may say so, how is “place wines” vaguer than “natural wines”?! How can anything be vaguer than “natural wines”, which, for starters, is false and misleading, and appears to imply that “other” wines are artificial? As it happens, “place wines” is quite good, but all it does is bring us right back to terroir, which is what all good wine is about anyway! So no achievement there.

Thirdly, which brings me to the most important point: how do we find a word for wines that are (a) lowest possible intervention, (b) honest about and faithful to their origin, and (c) different in some basic way from “other” wines?

Frankly, and with all respect, I think this is impossible because I have a problem with the use of “natural” as a distinguishing term, as a truthful and accurate term, and certainly as a virtuous term (as in virtuous = good, artificial = bad). Really, I don’t think a successful case can be made for the expression, and it contributes to more consumer confusion. So I am entirely unconvinced by this expression.

However I appreciate the commercial need to focus on snappy concepts that communicate and condense simple ideas in a complex world.

Isn’t it enough to say good wine? “Terroir wine”? “Honest wine”? “Artisanal wine”? “Rare wine?” All “natural” wines are supposedly low-production, and therefore rare by definition. How many so-called natural wines are not honest, good, rare or artisanal? By good I mean interesting, and unique. Or conversely, how many industrial wines are honest? Their makers don’t care about origin or craftsmanship. They care only about money.

I go for rare. Rarity is a premium in the wine world, ordinarily associated with expensive old vintages. But rarity is just a numerical concept about relative scarcity. If this is true of so-called natural wines, then you have a better word right there.