(The below is the unedited version of an opinion piece I wrote for the trade magazine Wines & Vines, July 2006. It is not available on line and I've been asked to make it available. So..here goes.)

Analysis: Biodynamics..... Marketing Ploy?

One night, not too long ago I crawled between my sheets with some exciting reading material-- the new wine regulations for United States branch of Demeter Association. Demeter is the organization that, on these American shores, owns the trademark for the word “biodynamic”. So, unless your winery is Demeter certified, “biodynamic “cannot appear on a US wine label. I sat up hooked-- reading, underlining and then got out of bed finally getting out of bed and blogged.

Here’s the deal:
According to Demeter, there will be two certified categories for the 2006 vintage.

* “Wine Made From Biodynamic Grapes”, “Wine Made From Demeter Certified Grapes” [Pinot Noir ;”made from Biodynamic grapes” This is a wine made from biodynamic grapes but with few limitations on how it can be made.

* Biodynamic Wine”, “Demeter Wine”, “Demeter Certified Wine” [i.e. Biodynamic Pinot Noir]. This is a fairly naturally made wine.

Both sectors are allowed to add up to 100 ppm of sulfites, which by the way, are not allowed in organic winemaking. Now the organic Californian wineries, Coturri and Frey wineries who also follow biodynamics, do not add sulfites to their wines, have feelings about the sulfite allowance in biodynamic wines. While Jim Fullmer, Demeter’s director, loves several sulfite-free wines and is in favor of them, he is concerned un-filted wines would be too unstable to garner critical acclaim. I suggested a third category for no- sulfite biodynamic wines, the gold star version. He, jokingly, agreed.

Something else is wrong in that two-part system. My cynic within can see the future--biodynamics as a marketing device. Biodynamic! The new organic! What could be sexier than advertisements showing off figures burying dung filled-cow horns under the moonlight? The many large wineries with experimental biodynamic vineyards could bottle those experiments, and plunk a Demeter trademark on their bottle even though it was processed conventionally. Then, ala Benziger, the world would confuse their entire production with biodynamic wine.

I don’t care how vehemently a winemaker asserts that their wine is made in their biodynamic vineyard. If they yeast, enzyme, cold soak, etc., then their wines is made in the winery. To me, these wines have as much to do with terroir as canned fruit drinks have with fresh squeezed juice. I think Demeter must think three times before risking their biodynamic trademark on a bottle that is filled with mucked up wine.

The issue with Demeter and this two-tier system is bigger one than those persnickety sulfites. It seems to me that the issue is one of naturally made wine vs. industrial wines and a certification that could mislead the consumer. And then there is the issue of preserving the ideal biodynamic, the word that Demeter now owns, stands for.

I see two philosophical concerns to Demeter’s trademark in the area of wine. First, as the champion of Rudolf Steiner’s theory of biodynamics, Demeter’s primary mission is to heal the earth through biodynamic farming. So, farming is more important than the wine.

To wine people, the farming is inextricably linked to the wine but the wine is first priority.

The other concern was raised by Philippe Pacalet, a burgundy producer whose uncle Marcel Lapierre pioneered the ‘sans soufre’—no-sulfite movement in France. Pacalet, like a lot of winemakers is virtually biodynamic and extremely non-interventionist and makes great wine, but he says, “Why don’t I want Demeter approval? Because the trouble with Steiner is that he didn’t drink. I am not deferring my wine making philosophy to someone who didn’t drink.”

And that is indeed a conundrum.

But perhaps there is a way around all of this. After all, all you have to do is to taste Grgich Hill wines to appreciate the dramatic difference when both farming biodynamically as well as working more naturally in the cellar has made. It even made me think (me, a profound Franco-oenophile) that California can again make great wine. So, to start, I (and Demeter) should forgive Steiner for being a tea totaler. Then I’d hope Demeter that their trademark on a bottle of conventionally made wine just because its grapes are biodynamic, threatens to dumb down the good name of biodynamics. You see, if the good name of biodynamic gets plunked on a wine that tastes like cherry vanilla and has the terroir obliterated, Demeter risks biodynamics integrity. I am not a wine maker, and so this is thin ice for me, but from my travels, tastes, conversations and debate, I have concluded that most New World winemakers do things to biodynamic grapes that few French wine maker would conceive of doing.

Defining natural winemaking and biodynamic winemaking is a complex debate, but a necessary one. Above the discussion about wine additives the discussion should included the Demeter position on irrigation, reverse osmosis as well as clones. After those standards are set, it would be terrific to have two biodynamic wine certifications, biodynamic wines gold star-- sulfite-free biodynamic wines. And save the biodynamically farmed grapes……for the table.