Time to chill

It is always a good thing to exchange views and clarify positions and questions but it is equally important to give things the importance they deserve.

Recent DoctorWine editorials have sparked a great online debate and in some cases things have gotten out of hand. And yet, all I did was to advance simple considerations, expressing points of view on important, current topics with the intention of protecting the consumer and to explain certain scientific aspects of winemaking. The bio-chemical side of winemaking is complex and many elements are still unknown. For this reason, caution and competence are necessary to tackle certain questions. This opposed to personal convictions, often dictated by emotions, and a desire to take a stand or become passionate about a “georgic” vision of the world. All of which clarifies nothing and only demonstrates a refusal to discuss principles some consider to be non-negotiable and irrefutable. And these different outlooks are perhaps at the root of the heated online debate.

There are those, like myself, who believe that scientific research is a means to find solutions to problems and progress, as Pasolini observed. Then there are those who are convinced that only by going back to the past, to the healthy practices of “back in the day”, and respecting nature in an almost religious way will it be possible to live better. Now, with all the respect and passion I have for this world, what we are talking about is wine. Wine can be good or bad, winegrowing can be sustainable or less so, but certainly this has nothing to do with the fate of mankind.

While it is absolutely true that, no matter what the activity, eco-sustainability and consumer protection, also from a health point of view, are undoubtedly good things, it is equally true that winemaking will not save the planet. It can give a small contribution but it will never be decisive as long as we keep using fossil fuels and chemical pesticides around the world.

Maybe we should all “chill out” a bit, take a step back and see things as they really are. And this includes trying to depict yours truly and DoctorWine as being against “natural wine”. This is a category that is more theoretical than real, given that there exist many ways to define natural and there are no regulations to govern them, the way there are for “natural” beer, yogurt and mineral water.

In our guide this year there are many wines loved by the “naturalists” that received very high ratings. What’s more, Paolo Vodopivec even won the prize for Best White Wine of the Year and Marco Casolanetti for “sustainable winemaking”, while recognitions also went to Gravner, Valentini, Montisci, Dettori, Valgiano, Zidarich, Podversic, Passopisciaro, A’ Vita, Menti and Arpepe. These are all craft, artisanal winemakers who pay great attention to eco-sustainability. So cut us some slack.

We should all try to discuss things in a constructive way without feeling insulted just because we try to clarify certain aspects that are anything but clear. Government legislation to regulate the phenomenon of so-called “natural wines” would not only be a good thing, it is also a necessary thing. This because it would finally allow that term to mean something on the label and would contribute to protecting not only the consumer but also serious winemakers, for sure the majority, who have nothing to hide. The way things stand today, you can go to jail for putting sugar in a wine, while if you violate the regulations of a private association of “natural producers” you will at most be expelled. For me difference is obvious and makes no sense.

Mine is just a proposal, a topic for discussion and not an attack on supporters of natural wine and sustainable winegrowing, as some have suggested. It is always a good thing to exchange views and clarify positions and questions, even of a technical nature. And if one makes observations on the need for a common certification based on the level of oxidation and the formation of acetaldehydes, this does not mean that are fans of “plastic wines” or in cahoots with multinational chemical companies that, among other things, aside from pesticides also produces medicines and are, in any case, not always a priori the devil incarnate.

To maintain that biodynamics and historic materialism are not compatible does not mean to say that Rudolf Steiner was a fool, whereas those who do not understand the difference may be a little bit so. In the end those who want to understand, will understand. We have had some passionate arguments and some may have gone over the top, as “keyboard warriors” are prone to do. So once again, why don’t we all just chill out. It would be the best thing to do for everyone.