IFOAM: European (non) Organic Wine

The much awaited report from IFOAM is out. Hold on, industrial organic is coming your way. (Certainly not mine.)

Seems to me it means the same thing as made from (industrially farmed) organic grapes. Most of the outraged press has focused on the allowance of sulfur while forgetting to look at the other details. So, have a look yourself.   

Prohibited: 

• partial concentration through cooling (they don't mention freezing) 

• elimination of sulphur dioxide by physical processes (cool!)

• electrodialysis treatment to ensure the tartaric stabilisation of the wine 

• partial dealcoholisation of wine

• treatment with cation exchangers to ensure the tartaric stabilisation of the wine.

• examples of prohibited additives: Sorbic acid, Di-methyl-di-carbonate, lysozyme, (af: MAKERS OF NATURAL WINE, LISTEN? WHAT DO YOU THINK?) ammoniumsulphate & ammonium-sulphite.

 

Permitted

• for heat treatments the temperature shall not exceed 70 ° C

• for centrifuging and filtration with or without an inert filtering agent the size of the pores shall be not smaller than 0.2 micrometer.re-examined

Re-examined:

• heat treatments as referred to in point 2 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009

• use of ion exchange resins as referred to in point 20 of Annex I A to Regulation (EC) No 606/2009;

• reverse osmosis according to point (b) of Section B.1 of Annex XVa  (af: cannot find Section B)

Sulfur allowed: 100 ppm for red. 150 ppm for white. 

Acid and deacidification: allowed.

Yeasts: allowed

Tannins: allowed

Acids (citric, L-Ascorbic acid, Lactic acid, Tartaric acid, Meta-tartaric acid)

 Acacia gum; allowed

Oak Chips: allowed

Pectolytic enzymes: allowed

Thermovinification: allowed (I believe, I'm not totally sure.)

Reverse Osmosis: allowed

MOX: allowed

Opinion: The EU is as hopeless as a printer with no ink. They are as reliable as Nixon was a truth teller.  Now that the United States accepts EU organics, we'll see a lot of cheap industrial 'organic' bypassing the domestic wines and  stacking up in to Wallmart and Whole Foods.  Just when I think my work is done and I need another cause,  there goes another wild fire.  I want people to drink what they want, I just bristle when I see this kind of crap. May I remind people that in the 50's frozen and canned was considered better and healthier than fresh? 

But this illustrates define and destroy, and is why I am no advocate for regulations for natural wine. However, it is also why some people are banding together for their own grouplets with their own values, and follow the next post..........

Comments

[Tom Wark]

I would argue that a lack of definition for what is "natural" in the wine world is helpful for this movement: It allows the promotion of the "idea" without having to adhere to anything in particular.

On the other hand, it means that anybody can righteously call their wine "natural" and have every legitimate reason to call it "natural" without any fear that their labeling of their wine natural being called into question.

[Alicefeiring]

Hello Tom, I really think the definition is impossible. And if people can't taste the difference themselves......But anyway, see my latest post on S.A.I.N.S. Thanks for stopping by.

[A Facebook User]

Lack of definition is not the advantage, lack of government regulation is. Why? Because business interests invariable capture the regulators and bend policy to their will. Look to any heavily regulated industry to prove my point: banking, insurance, energy, hell even slaughterhouses -- all regulated to discourage small competitors and to allow the giants to do an say as they please.

The alternative for natural winemakers is to state your aims and DISCLOSE YOUR INGREDIENTS AND PROCESSES. -michael, lospilareswine.com