An enemy of the people

Requesting precise regulations to establish what constitutes a “natural wine”, arguing that modern winemaking methods should not be demonized and that there is more than one way to achieve environmentally sustainable winemaking has led a number of people to consider us to be “enemies of the people”.

I take my cue here from the delightful comedy of Henrik Ibsen, which dealt with what can happen when one tells an uncomfortable or inconvenient truth, because for some weeks now there are those who apparently consider me to be “an enemy of the people”. Fortunately, I am I good company because for them so are Umberto Trombelli, a leading enologist, and Luigi Moio, a professor of enology at the Federico II University in Naples. We have been crucified on the web because, each in our own way, we sought to argue that certain winemaking practices in the name of so-called “naturalness” could be worse than other practices like the use of sulfur, for example.

None of us ever claimed that this was always the case with “natural” wines, only that it was important take steps to avoid the formation of acetaldehydes, biogenic ammines and toxic ochres, which under certain circumstances can form easier. On my part, I have also and often underscored how I have nothing against those who are committed to sustainable winemaking, respecting nature and protecting the health of consumers.  

In fact, I have great respect and appreciation for these peope. However, it is in regard to safeguarding the health of consumers, something which I think we can all agree upon, that I believe precise laws and definitions are needed to govern the production of “natural wines”. I also believe that it is wrong and counterproductive to demonize any and all modern winemaking methods and that there is more than just one way to achieve the environmental sustainability that we all desire.

Despite our objective and certainly not offensive reasoning, a slew of people, some using aliases or pen names, have broadsided us with insults and sought to delegitimize our reasoning, accusing us of who-knows-what collusion and ulterior motives. What’s more, they sought to defend, in a frankly most inopportune way, positions and theories that are undefendable and not backed up by any scientific evidence. No one apparently bothered to even consider the merits of our arguments, preferring to criticize us “as a matter of principle” only because we dared to question certain convictions they considered sacrosanct and a world they believe cannot and should not ever be questioned.

Perhaps all this is a sign of the times and science and rational thought are no longer “trendy”.

Perhaps it was not clear to them that we were talking about wine and that by itself winemaking will not save the planet and those who talk about it are not out to discover the next penicillin.

Perhaps these people have an insatiable desire to categorize anyone who clouds their views to the point that they do not understand exactly what is written and what the argument is about.

If all this makes us “enemies of the people” then so be it.