What went wrong with the EU organic wine certification?

Posted by Anna Krzywoszynska on Jul 12, 2010 in Features

We are back to square one with regards to a European organic wine certification. While it was hoped that this year organic winemakers will be able to label their wines organic, the negotiations over the acceptable levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2) use fell through, and the draft legislation was withdrawn. The reason behind it is the EU Commissions insistence on enforcing the same SO2 reduction (50 mg/l vs current country-specific limits) across all wine-producing countries, in spite of continuous resistance from the northern-most producers.

While it was recognized that SO2 restriction may be lifted in bad vintages, the commission kept pushing for a geographically uniform regulation. Why this obsessions with a single rule for all geographical regions? If it can be accepted that higher SO2 levels may be needed when the weather is not favorable, why not accept that in certain geographical areas the weather is not favorable most of the time?

This insistence on uniformity is surprising, considering that the problems the new legislation would pose to northern organic winemakers were flagged from the very beginning of the research and negotiation process. Already in the research report by ORWINE, submitted to the EU Commission, it was noted that all organic wine producers in Germany were against any limitation of SO2. The fear was that limiting SO2 in absence of alternatives could lead to a deterioration of sensorial qualities of organic wines, and a further loss of consumer confidence. Furthermore, ORWINE noted that reducing SO2 levels would have to result in trade-offs with other oenological practices for some winemakers; for example some may be constrained to use selected yeast strains, or control fermentation temperatures.

As shown by ORWINE tastings, using such techniques resulted in wines which tasted different to those obtained following usual protocols of organic winemakers which participated in the experiment. In other words, while SO2 limiting was found to be possible in organic wines, it could a) change their sensorial characteristics, as it would have to be coupled with a change in winemaking practices and b) was not accepted by organic winemakers in all countries, specifically those who practice organic viticulture in harsher climatic conditions, and whose grapes are therefore more prone to fungal and bacterial contaminations which can be counter-acted successfully only using SO2. These objections were, however, downplayed.

Further worries were clearly communicated by the members of IFOAM (International Foundation for Organic Agriculture). Throughout the legislation drafting processes the EU Commission was in correspondence with IFOAM, which in turn conducted internal consultations with its members and internal wine experts as well as the IFOAM EU Group board. From the outset the issue of SO2 reduction was the most controversial one for IFOAM members. In the position on the organic wine processing from 25th September 2009 IFOAM stated:

“The issue of sulfite reduction remains the most controversial for the organic sector and the discussion needs more time (some countries favors strong reduction of up to 50% while other countries are in favor of no reduction at all). We urge the EU Commission to recognize the sensitivity of the issue and to carefully consider the different options.”

IFOAM stressed that the proposed 50% reduction in SO2 levels (vs current country-specific levels) was not acceptable, as it would not allow organic wine production in all EU wine regions. In the IFOAM EU position paper of 28th October 2009 they reiterated this point, expressing a concern that “this [proposed reduction] would force organic wine producers out of business.” In a revised draft the EU Commission reduced the proposed SO2 limit to current country-specific limit minus 50 mg/l. This, however, continued to be unacceptable to German, Austrian and Dutch organic wine producers. In spite of this, the EU commission draft from April 2010 continued to require a 50 mg/l reduction, and suggested those producers who could not meet this standard continued using the ‘wine from organically made grapes’ label for the time being. This solution proved unacceptable to the IFOAM members, and finally on June 16th the EU Commissioner for Agriculture & Rural Development Dacian Ciolos withdrew the draft proposal to introduce rules for the production of organic wine.

The negotiations have now re-started, and organic winemakers still hope that in 2011 their wines will be able to carry the ‘Organic Wine’ label. It seems, however, that unless geographical differences between organic winemaking areas are seriously taken into consideration, 2011 will see a replay of the current scenario.

Italian Organic Wine and Sulfites – Three Different Approaches

Posted by Anna Krzywoszynska on Mar 30, 2010 in Features

It is impossible to talk to organic winemakers without breaching the subject of sulfur dioxide. Each winemaker has their own opinion, theory and practice. How sulfur dioxide can be limited depends on the wine type, the company set-up and many other factors. In turn, making low-sulfite wines will influence production and sales, meaning the whole company has to adapt to its chosen policy. Producing low-sulfite wines is not a case of doing less, but of doing much, much more. Here are three winemakers, with three different stories, I spoke with while doing my research in Italy.

Valli Unite, Piemonte

Ottavio Rube of Valli Unite

Ottavio is one of the founders of the organic cooperative Valli Unite in the North-Western region of Piemonte. While the cooperative produces various organic foodstuffs, wine sales have always been the backbone of its economy; a natural choice considering the long winemaking traditions of the region. Having consolidated family vineyards of the founding members, the cooperative begun wine production in the early eighties. In contrast to the post-war generation of their parents, the founding members rejected ‘chemical’ agriculture, and went back to pre-industrial traditions of vine cultivation and winemaking, producing organic wines before this category became recognised either by consumers or by regulators. Concerned about their own health and that of the environment, they sought to limit to the use of chemicals, including sulfur dioxide. Those early days were not easy, however, and Ottavio recalls a decision he had to make regarding his vinification methods:

Ottavio: You need some compromise with the idea of completely “natural.” I can say that I made wines without sulfites until ’91, without added yeast until ’98; and then I had a whole series of problems, and I understood that I was putting the economy of the cooperative at risk. I was not able to sell, so all this was on my shoulders.

At a certain point I asked myself if I was not risking too much, so I took some steps back which was something “ugly” for me. Something that made me disenchanted a bit with the work of the cantiniere. I was not able to make wines without sulfites, but at the same time they became calibrated, exactly like they should be. So I started to say, what I guarantee is a wine that is within organic norms and we do not add anything that is not allowed by organic rules. But things, yeast, and so on, we put in.

The problems Ottavio alludes to could be secondary fermentations in the bottle, unpleasant odors in the wine and high quantities of sediment. All of these are officially recognised as faults in wine certification and control, and are also potentially off-putting to consumers. Uncontrolled microbial activity impact what is generally recognised as ‘quality’ in wines. Many of these unwanted developments can be avoided by the simple addition of sulfur dioxide – thus ‘giving in’ and compromising the idea of completely natural; a move which made Ottavio disenchanted with his work. However, the presence of sulfur dioxide assures the economic survival of the company, and the market place has the upper hand in the end. Sulphur dioxide gives Valli Unite the possibility to take part in the international wine market.

Terra D’Arcoiris, Tuscany

Walter Loesch of Terra D'Arcoiris

There are consequences of not ‘giving in’ to sulfur dioxide. You must organize your sales network in a different way. In the early 80s, Paola Leonardi and her partner Walter Loesch set up a biodynamic wine and fruit producing company Terra D’Arcoiris in Tuscany. Today their company is used as a shining example of biodynamic agriculture by its international certifying body Demeter. “It’s me who should be certifying them, not they who should be certifying me”, laughs Paola, and there certainly is a truth in this. Paola and Walter are on what many consider to be the extreme end of organic production. They not only avoid pesticides, herbicides or fertilisers, but they also use no manufactured yeast, and limit the use of sulfur dioxide. This approach is not without its burdens.

Paola: The only thing that we put into the wine, and this is in extremely small doses, is sulfur dioxide. As far as the rest is concerned, we don’t do anything. Every month we take samples of our wines and send them to France to be analyzed. We only add sulfur dioxide if it is necessary, while keeping the wine all the time under control. Nonetheless, some wines have a problem of brettanomyces, exactly for this reason. By keeping the wine for so long in wood, the risk of brettanomyces is very high, especially if you don’t protect them with sulfur dioxide. And we work this way, always within the limits of risk.

In 2001 our red label had brettanomyces. We did not sell it to the distributors, we sold it all in direct sales. The strange thing about brettanomyces is that it occurs in some bottles and not in others not. So, not being able to guarantee the absolute cleanness of this wine , we work in this way, having the direct sales mechanism. Our clients do not risk anything: they always try our wines, and there are those who do not note the taste of brettanomyces. Direct sales allows us to figure out the taste of the consumer and understand that you can educate people about a different taste; which is a natural taste.

Using low levels of sulfur dioxide runs a considerable risk for Paola. Brettanomyces is a wine spoilage yeast, and its presence in wine is considered a fault. It is known to produce an unpleasant ‘stable’ smell and is generally an unwelcome microorganism. It is impossible to sell this kind of wine to a distributor. Wines with low amounts of sulfur dioxide are more vulnerable, and have trouble surviving long journeys on the back of a truck, where they are exposed to changing temperatures.

International export is even more problematic, and even locally no one wants to find themselves with a stock of undrinkable bottles. Terra D’Arcoiris, however, has found another path. The direct sales network they have been building up for years allows them to sell the risky, problematic wines face to face. Paola takes it upon herself to educate her clients about the wines she’s selling, and she accommodates the risk of low sulfur wines by opting out of the impersonal marketplace where stability is much more of an issue.

Perlage, Veneto

Ivo Nardi of Perlage

The Animae Prosecco is considered by Ivo Nardi, owner of Perlage, the culmination of the scientific and product development of his company. It is a unique product: the first sparkling white wine in the world to be produced without any addition of sulfur dioxide. This additive-free wine could be considered the epitome of organic production. Indeed, this is how Ivo, the originator of the idea, sees this unusual product.

Ivo: Perlage did the first organic Prosecco, then we did the first biodynamic Prosecco. The natural evolution was that this biodynamic Prosecco should also be a Prosecco without sulfites. A product that would be as complete as possible, without chemical interventions. This has been a great personal satisfaction. On a scientific level it was a real victory, a sparkling wine which is as natural as possible.

While being “as natural as possible,” this wine has little to do with tradition and breaks a number of conventions. It came into being through a series of complex cooperation involving laboratories, machines and microorganisms.

The first challenge was with the yeast strain used for fermenting this wine. Yeast is one of the key agents responsible for the aromas and tastes of Prosecco, and not just any will do. In Prosecco, yeast carries out two fermentations – the first converts sugars into alcohol, and the second produces carbon dioxide and makes the wine sparkling. The double fermentation produces double the sulfur dioxide levels of regular wines; bringing the levels above 10 mg/l, and preventing it from being labelled “without added sulfites” under current regulations.

The company enologist had to invent a yeast strain that would allow them to avoid this problem. They collaborated with a biotechnology company, performed experimental fermentations, and a yeast strain which produced low levels of SO2 was identified. This particular strain was normally used for fermenting red wines; certainly not white wines or Prosecco.

The second break with tradition was with the taste. Prosecco, the most typical wine of the Veneto region, owes its characteristic sweetness to the high levels of residual sugars, which in the absence of SO2 can attract bacteria or cause the wine to undergo uncontrolled yeast fermentations in the bottle. Once again a non-traditional course was taken, keeping the fermentation going in heated vats until an extremely dry wine was obtained.

Finally, avoiding sulfur dioxide and still obtaining a microbially-stable Prosecco required the use of highly advanced vinifying and bottling machinery. In the absence of sulfur dioxide, the light white wine was especially prone to oxidation. The entire process had to be performed in absence of oxygen, and they substituted it with nitrogen in the vats. Lastly, a new bottling machine was bought, which added protection with a set of micro-filters to prevent a microbial infection, should any air come into contact with the wine. Even in sales, the wine continues to be protected; it is the only Perlage wine to be sold in a cardboard box, with storage instructions spelled out on the side.

A Case Of Ethics – EU Organic Wine And Sulphur Dioxide

Posted by Anna Krzywoszynska on Mar 25, 2010 in Features

New Organic Wine Legislation for the European Union

The need for new, pan-European organic wine legislation has been recognised for some time now. ORWINE, a three-year research program which consulted and co-operated with organic winemakers in most European wine-producing countries, has just recently presented the European Commission with its final recommendations. Currently, no certification exists in Europe which would valorise the unique vinification methods used in organic winemaking; only the organic provenance of the grapes is recognised on the label. This is seen as a serious problem by most producers in Europe, as it makes them more vulnerable to competition from countries such as United States, where wines can be labelled ‘organic’, not just ‘from organically grown grapes’. One of the key areas of interest for the regulators looking at the new pan-European organic winemaking legislation is the limiting of SO2 use in the organic wine production.

As far as the SO2 use is concerned, ORWINE concluded in its report that while “it is not possible to produce ‘good’ organic wine without any addition of sulphites in a significant range of areas, wine types and years” (ORWINE 2009 p. 62), most producers support a reduction of sulphur dioxide use in organic wines. It will be interesting to see if the SO2 levels indeed get slashed in the new legislation. On the whole, I don’t think that we’re in for a major change, and I suspect the new regulation will have a very small impact on how the majority of organic producers make their wines. In Europe producers already strive to minimise sulfite levels, and most use SO2 in quantities well below the legal thresholds.

Organic wine in the EU: the current state of affairs

Currently, there is a width of substances, processes and additives allowed under the European organic winemaking certifications – in fact, many winemakers in Italy told me that as far as the work in the cantina is concerned, for all practical purposes there is no difference between an organic winery and a conventional one (in fact it is easy for a conventional wine company to have an organic production line along a conventional one, in the same building and largely using the same equipment). While a clear distinction on the level of rules and prohibitions can be made between organic and conventional practices in the vineyards, the distinction between the two production methods becomes more blurred once we cross the threshold of the winery.

There is a great diversity of production methods in organic vinification, from the least to the most technology dependent. Organic winemaking is not necessarily neither traditional nor low-tech, as producers are not obliged to stick to a strict production protocol, and can make use of modern developments. A hand-picked, hand-musted, oak barrel-aged Montepulciano D’Abruzzo can bear the same ‘organic’ stamp as a machine-harvested, cold-macerated, multi-filtered Prosecco – and yet the production regimes of those wines, and personal ideologies of their producers, could not be more different. Add to this self-certifying producers, or those who do not acknowledge certification all together, and the organic wine landscape becomes even more complex. In a nutshell, it is up to the individual organic winemaker how they work with their wine – and it is up to the consumer to find out about the production method.

The expense of eliminating SO2

In an article in Harpers in 2005 Jamie Goode suggests there are four different approaches when it comes to using additives in wine: ‘anything goes’ (within the bounds of health), ‘add nothing’, ‘add as little as possible’, and ‘the in-between’ (additives are just tools that can be used well or badly). His categories describe well the attitudes I have come across when interviewing Italian organic winemakers about sulphur dioxide use. Most producers would agree with the ‘in-between position’ – sulphur dioxide is not bad per se, it is a helpful oenological tool and, used in moderation, can only bring positive results. Many producers I have spoken with, however, strive to limit or even eliminate sulphites from their wines, regardless of the risks.

While, especially in the North, it is very difficult to make wine without any SO2 at all, for many organic winemakers sulphur dioxide is linked with the industrial, homogenising, additive-heavy winemaking they want to distance themselves from. For some, limiting SO2 use is another way of being more ‘natural’ and ‘authentic’, a logical extension of their already existing production ethics. For those producers who already seek to differentiate themselves from the main-stream, homogenising wine market by producing ‘particular’, ‘natural’ wines, avoiding SO2 fits with the existing production ethics of the company. However, this kind of production strategy is not for everyone – it is much more difficult for an industrial-scale organic producer to make low sulfite wines than it is for a small family winery, mainly due to the risk involved if spoilage should occur.

Why use SO2 at all?

Sulphur dioxide is a substance much talked about, but rarely seen. Used either in the form of gas, liquid or powder, it is the most common preservative used in winemaking, and in food production more generally (known to us from food labels as E220). Its popularity is due its unique characteristics: even in minimal doses, it prevents both microbial activity and oxidation, and it is toxic to only a small percentage of the human population. The characteristics of sulphur have been known since antiquity, however the use of SO2 at all stages of vinification and wine keeping has become popular only in the 20th century.

SO2 and consumers.

In their focus group study with European consumers of organic and quality wines, ORWINE researchers found that in general consumers have very little knowledge of either the production methods or the additives used in organic winemaking – even if they are coneisseurs of organic food or wine. There was a general consensus that SO2 is ‘bad for you’, and should be limited, if not eliminated, from organic wines. In an interview with the Organic Wine Journal in 2008, Adam Morganstern sheds some light on the unfortunate series of events which led to the consumer perception of sulphites as ‘baddies’, without any knowledge of their positive qualities. This has led to the emergence of sulphite-free wines, which have created a market niche for themselves. It has to be said though that this kind of production strategy is not for everyone – and not for all the wines. Making ‘no sulphies added’ wines on an industrial scale is a complex and expensive process, which bears on the final price of the bottle. In short, if all wines were to be made sulphite-free, we would have to get used to spending much more on them.

It’s not about sales, it’s about the ethics.

Low sulphite wines are more prone to bacterial spoilage and oxidation, and it is more difficult for those wines to ‘sell themselves’ on the face-less international wine market. As a result companies that sell low-sulphite wines develop particular, information-heavy sales networks which require a lot of personal involvement from the producers. The whole company, both in production and in sales, has to adapt to the absence of SO2 and its consequences. The irony of this move is the fact that very few consumers realise what SO2 is at all, and what the consequences of limiting it are. In monetary terms, the expense of making low-sulphite wines far outstretches the advantages.

However altruistic it sounds, the fact is that organic wine producers who do strive to minimize SO2 in their wines do so not because of market pressures, or consumer demand, or regulations – but because they believe it is the right thing to do. They are, after all, in an ethical business.