That's where our Wine Focus deliberations will take us in February, as we try to enjoy and learn the nuances of natural and organic wines, the motives of the creative people who choose to make them, and our reactions as wine lovers.
"Organic" is now generally recognized as a legal term in the U.S. and the European Economic Community, for wines produced in those regions and wines imported there, which covers a very large swath of the world's wines.
"Biodynamic" is a complicated sub-genre of organic, wine growing based on the principles set out by Rudolph Steiner, who brings a homeopathic sensibility to vine growing and makes decisions on such variables as phase of the moon and, perhaps most famously, odd tricks like burying a cow's horn filled with a mix of manure and other nostrums in a cow's horn buried in the vineyard at night. Frankly, this sounds totally woo-woo to me, and yet - perhaps because it represents a laser-like focus on the vines - I have to confess that most biodynamic wines I've tasted - like those of Marc Kreydenweiss in Alsace - are extellent.
"Natural," as mentioned, is loosely defined, and in some quarters controversial. If we accept the defniition offered by the forum's Joy Lindholm, though, it's a style of wine that I like very much:
When I think of "natural wine", I'm thinking more of the non-interventionist style of making wine commonly found in portfolios like Dressner, etc. No added chemicals, yeasts, very little messing with in general, rather than the way "natural" has been abused when regards to labeling food.
It's already February, and it's a short month, so bring on your organic, biodynamic and natural wines, and let's taste and talk!
.
). He however had great respect for his environment and it showed. Incidentally I often share negative opinions of Robert Parker but Gramenon was one of his discoveries and he scored a bullseye here.
.