Will your holiday toasts be organic? (Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times)For years, the main color decision a wine drinker had to make was red or white. Now the question is whether the wine should also be green.
Organic wines are one of the hottest trends in restaurants today, according to a report last week from the National Restaurant Association. But while a restaurant sommelier can help you navigate the world of green wines while dining out, the wine aisle is a confusing place for organic shoppers.
Wine labels carry various permutations of the organic label. Some wines are 100 percent organic, while others say “made with organic grapes.” Some labels use words like “sustainable” and “biodynamic.” And then, there is the all-important question of whether any of it tastes good.
In a recent article, Salon.com makes the case that wine lovers who want to go green should look past the organic label and read the fine print. That’s because the organic label requires wine makers to adhere to a strict set of rules that may not always result in the best-tasting wine. Instead, oenophiles who are concerned about pesticides and the environment should look for wines “made with organic grapes” or those that are grown using sustainable agriculture methods. These wines don’t meet specific United States Department of Agriculture standards to carry the organic seal, but the contents are still the result of earth-friendly farming practices. In fact, wine makers who use sustainable practices typically meet most or all of the criteria necessary to use the word “organic” on their label, but some winemakers avoid the term because many consumers associate it with poor taste.
For a wine to be labeled organic and bear the U.S.D.A. organic seal, that means at least 95 percent of the grapes were grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, according to the Organic Consumers Association. Wineries that bottle organic wines can’t use chemical cleansers or preservatives.
And that’s often a dilemma for winemakers, who for centuries have added sulfur dioxide to wines as a preservative. Although some people, particularly those with severe asthma, have sensitivities to sulfites, the vast majority of drinkers don’t have a problem. Some wine experts say the absence of added sulfites causes organic wines to change flavor after it’s bottled and is the reason organic wines often don’t taste as good as their conventionally-bottled counterparts.
Salon suggests that wine lovers who aren’t concerned about sulfites shouldn’t focus on whether the bottle carries the organic seal, and instead should just look for wines made from organic grapes. To make the claim on its label, a wine must be made with at least 70 percent organic grapes, according to the Organic Consumers Association. There’s no official seal for wines made from organic grapes, so you’ll have to read the label or ask the wine store owner where to find them.
Finding wine makers who use sustainable farming practices, which conserve soil and water, among other issues, is more difficult. Often the label will explain the farming methods or the wine will be in a section of the store devoted to “green” wines. Salon lists two Web sites that can help. Low Input Viticulture & Enology, Inc. certifies participating wineries and vineyards in the Pacific Northwest. The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance lists California wineries that follow sustainable guidelines. And this spring, New York Times wine writer Eric Asimov listed several winemakers who practice some form of organic, sustainable or natural winemaking in his article “When the Wine is Green.” And finally, the Organic Consumers Association has a useful guide explaining the various permutations of the organic label on wines.
Marnie Old, assistant dean of wine studies at New York’s French Culinary Institute, tells Salon that wines made from pesticide-free grapes usually are more interesting to drink. “The less interference in the farming of the fruit, the more pure the flavor is,” she said. “Everything you do to that ingredient, the grape, is reflected in the final product.”
.
Healthy living doesn't happen at the doctor's office. The road to better health is paved with the small decisions we make every day. It's about the choices we make when we buy groceries, drive our cars and hang out with our kids. Join columnist Tara Parker-Pope as she sifts through medical research and expert opinions for practical advice to help readers take control of their health and live well every day. You can reach Ms. Parker-Pope at 
The easiest and most pleasurable way to eat well is to cook. Recipes for Health offers recipes with an eye towards empowering you to cook healthy meals every day. 
From 1 to 25 of 40 Comments
Cheers to Organic Wine!
— RJH de la HayeEven if wine is organic, it may not be vegetarian/vegan friendly. Much of the clarifiers in wine are animal product based; some like gelatin and isinglass (fish bladders) require the animal to be killed. Others like egg whites, just used.
Wouldn’t it be nice if they were required to put that information on the wine bottles as well?
We tend to think that all things organic are good, but this is not the case.
— Jaye“Made With Organic ” is a USDA regulated label. It is proof to the consumer that the grape grower did not use chemical fertilizers and pesticides on their vineyard or other prohibited substances during the winemaking process.
If you want to get your facts correct on Organic regulations go to the Organic Trade Association http://www.OTA.com
The only other regulated label is Biodynamic, all others are suspect at best.
— George KalogridisNot all wines use isinglass to clarify. And there are alternatives such as Irish Moss (seaweed) and bentonite that are vegetarian/vegan. I think you would find the smaller wineries to use no clarifying agent and allow the particles to settle naturally during aging and before bottling. But the only way to know would be to speak directly with the vintners. Since it is removed with the particles before bottling it is not required on the label. Maybe it should be? The same issue applies to beer. Although my understanding is that Irish Moss is more of an industry standard there.
— NickJaye, if you’re concerned about fining agents ask the producer and keep in mind that reds are generally more likely to have animal by products used in their production that whites since protien products are most typically used to remove tannin. Clarification of whites is often done with bentonite ( which like most clay is generally obtained trhough strip mining). Honestly though, if you are primary concern is your global impact or carbon footprint or similar you’d be better off drinking water.
— pennySay more about Biodynamic. It is the most exacting and effective method of pesticide- and herbicide-free agriculture known to man. Beyond “sustainable,” BD methods have been shown to add to the vitality of soil. And, as poster George K points out, the BD label is regulated and it really stands for something.
— Bill DayI represent 27 French vineyards imported into the U.S. Apparently American wines are not label controlled in the same way as imported wines. We are not allowed to use the word “organic” anywhere on the label if it is not French government certified organic. That involves years of bureaucratic interventions in the vineyard. We also can’t say “organic grapes”, with less than the government certification. Almost all of the growers I work with grow with what’s called the “lutte raisonnée” method, which means they use no chemical pesticides, herbicides or fungicides unless it is necessary to save an entire vintage, which is rare. The result is fine wine that’s almost invariably “organically grown”, but tastes like fine wine should.
— Jack SilerDoes anyone know if the word sustainable really means anything to a large public? THAT we could do.
Jack Siler
My main concern regarding wine is that two drinks of red wine per day is good to my health. I hope green wine will do the same good. In view of the growing trend of drinking green wine, it appears now is the time I need to learn more about the difference between red and green and the production of especially the latter. Without doubt, the taste of the wine, be it red or green, is important. Consumers will judge, based on it, the price they should pay: a reasonable price. Incorrect advertising puff is no good. I totally agree that standardisation and control over the bottle label is important and required, in the consumers’ interests.
— Kevin ShumTo Jaye:
While I do respect the need for vegetarians to adhere to a vegetarian diet, I think it goes a little far to call for labeling wine bottles as vegetarian or not. With all due respect, most wine consumers do not care if their wine is vegetarian, and the inconvenience caused by this to producers would make it quite difficult to accomplish. I would hate to see producers turning from egg-related fining/filtration to more abrasive methods of filtration simply because vegetarian wine-drinkers wanted to know. Egg-related fining/filtering seems to make better wine than most other kinds of filtration because the wine is less abused during the process. Then the egg and sediment are removed, so there’s no animal product in the wine itself. I actually oppose all kinds of fining and filtering because it takes away from the character of the wine, but I certainly won’t skip on a good wine because of that one point. To make it easier for you, I would suggest asking your local wine shop for wines that are “unfined and unfiltered.” That way you won’t have to worry about animal products used to filter the wines. Those wines are better anyway.
I can’t resist this last question, I apologize if its over the top, but:
Why would you care if an animal product were used in wine-making? Its not like you’re eating the animal product, and the only thing left after the wine is made is maybe the slightest trace of whatever was used in the process. In the event of egg-fining, no chickens are killed for the eggs, so I’m not sure what the issue is - can you clarify?
— omnivorous wine drinkerIs it that you can’t stand that animals are affected by this? Or do you have an allergy to egg products? I just don’t see the point of trying to enjoy fine wine if you have to check every label to see if animal products were used. It just seems over the top. We all have to try to make a difference, to change things, and if this is your way, go for it. But it seems like there are better ways to spend your energy than rallying to get “vegetarian” put on the label of fine wines.
Its hard enough to get the calories and carbs, which by the way, I also do not support. What’s in the bottle is either tasty or not, and you know its good wine from the first sip. I’d find some good organic grape-growing estates that you trust, and stick with them if you’re worried.
I respect the folks that have gone to such lengths to remove all animal products from their diets if that’s what they believe is morally right.
But I know vegans who won’t drink alcoholic beverages at all because the yeast is killed. I think they would object to any wine being labelled ‘vegan’.
If you’re concerned about the techniques used in a winery, then research the winery. Find out how they make their wine. This isn’t the same as picking up a tomato at the grocery store and needing an ‘organic’ label because that tomato could have come from any one of thirty farms, with no way to find out which. Wine puts its maker’s name (and often a website) right on the label of the bottle you’re holding in your hand. While I respect your concerns, it’s far easier for the small subset of wine drinkers concerned about isinglass, gelatin, or eggs to research wines made to their specifications than it is to begin a new labeling initiative that will further complicate the bizarre labyrinth of regulations currently applied to wine production, bottling, and sale.
If a winemaker gets thirty calls from people wanting to know how he fines his wine, and finds that his ‘with bentonite’ answer is met with “I’d like to buy a case, then,” he may decide to put it on his label to get the thirty people who looked, wondered, didn’t call, and put the bottle back on the shelf. But requiring that it be put on the label?
I certainly don’t require that my produce be labeled if it’s not organically grown. I don’t want my produce growers required to label if they use GMO products. I don’t think the hamburger in the grocery store needs a big ol’ sign that says, “Feedlot-raised beef from an industrial megaranch.” I care about these things, so I seek out companies that care, too.
All I really want is what I have, the assurance that if someone tells me their food is organic or GMO-free, or doesn’t list high fructose corn syrup or artificial dyes on the label, that what they wrote on the label or in their ads cannot knowingly be untrue. It’s up to me to figure out the difference between ‘organic wine’ and ‘made with organic grapes’ (thanks, TPP, till today I didn’t know the difference!), so that I’m educated when I look at the label.
It’s up to me, for example, when the coffee rep is trying to sell me the “Well, 95% of coffee produced in the world is organically grown, and coffee only has to be 95% organically grown to get the ‘organic’ label, so really all the coffee we sell is by default organic, statistically,” (yes, that was a real conversation…) line, that I point out the flaws in his logic and his statistics and buy someone else’s coffee.
Trying to live one’s ethics occasionally requires research, it often requires planning, and it sometimes requires going without a bottle of wine or a pound of coffee because you just can’t be sure about your source.
— RowanI’d like to see what Eric Asimov has to say about this topic…
TPP responds: Read to the bottom of the story. It includes a link to Eric Asimov’s story from the spring about “green” wine.
— daveIt’s good to see more and more attention paid to organic wine, and sustainably produced wine in general. When I helped develop the rules for organically produced wine in British Columbia, Canada back in the early 1990s, it was still very much considered to be on the fringe of the wine industry.
The regulations for (certified) organic wine in Canada differ from the US’s: you can label a wine as certified organic if
a) all of the grapes were from certified organic grapes, and
b) all of the wine production methods were according to the standard (see http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/pdf/Bk2V7.pdf as an example)
Certified organic winemaking practises in Canada include — thankfully — using a small amount of sulfite. This means that Canadian “organic wine” does not have the major quality handicap that the ‘no added sulfite’ organic wines in the US do. Without this small amount of anti-oxidation protection, wine deteriorates very quickly, most people would agree, and since sulfites are a naturally substance in wine, the elimination of their addition does not guarantee the consumer anything special.
Unfortunately, when my family’s winery (Hainle Vineyards) was sold in 2002, the new owners did not seek organic re-certification, but continue to claim that their wines are organic, and all natural. In my opinion, this is organic wine’s Achilles heel — making empty, unverifiable, and therefore meaningless claims about the wine’s naturalness, as it were.
Many of us winemakers working in this field hope that more rigorous regulations, and a consumer demand for openness and verifiability on the winery’s behalf will bring clarity for the consumer, as well as delicious wine that is good for you, and good for the earth. It is a principle I embrace as I plan my next (modest) winemaking venture.
TPP responds: Thanks so much for taking the time to post your comments. It’s interesting to hear a winemaker’s take on the subject.
— Tilman HainleIn response to the omnivorous wine drinker in #9: I’m not Jaye, but I’m also a vegan who is bothered by animal products being used to filter wine.
So first: No one is asking wineries to stop using animal products (well, it would be nice, but…); the request is that they indicate on their label whether they do. That doesn’t seem like such a hardship to me.
Your other question was, essentially, why does it matter if you’re not actually consuming the product? For someone who was vegan entirely for health reasons, maybe it wouldn’t matter. Most vegans, though, are primarily concerned with what we see as the unnecessary suffering and exploitation of animals. And the chickens who live their entire lives in a space the size of a sheet of paper don’t suffer any less if I only use the egg, but don’t actually eat it. I guess that goes a long way towards answering your next question, too–what’s the issue since the chickens don’t die? The treatment of egg-laying chickens is unbelievably cruel. “Cage-free” establishments are only minimally better, if at all. Many vegans actually think eating meat but cutting out eggs is a more important step than becoming ovo-lacto vegetarian. Check out http://www.eggcruelty.com if you really want to know what the problem is.
— TinaHas anyone tasted Frey wines? Completely organic and excellent.
— Charles DentFirst of all, I’m disappointed to see such a poorly researched / documented story appear in the New York Times. This could have been a very informative fact based piece that could have been a primer on how organic farming and vegan practices relate to wine.
I have been been selling wine for the past 22 years. While there is no shortage of misinformation concerning wine and wine production among consumers, sulfites lead the league in misinformation and misplaced concerns.
Some info. on the obligatory “Contains Sulfites” warning required by the TTF (formerly BATF) not FDA:
- Winemakers have historically added sulfur dioxide or sulfites to wine to help protect against damage to the wine by oxygen. After the grapes are harvested and crushed, small amounts of sulfur dioxide is used to inhibit the growth of bacteria, mold and wild yeast, as well as to prevent spoilage or oxidation in the final wine. Sulfites are also naturally-produced during the fermentation process of winemaking.
- Since July 9, 1987 the U.S. government has required the words “contains sulfites” on labels of all wine sold in the U.S. which contain 10 parts per million (ppm) or more of sulfites. Furthermore, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) states that wines cannot contain more than 350 parts per million of sulfites.
- While some wines carry a “sulfite-free” label, most experts agree this claim is not feasible. According to WineMaker magazine: “ It is impossible to make a sulfite-free wine, because wine yeast produces sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the fermentation process.” Additionally, The Food Marketing Institute states “Even wine marketed as “sulfite-free” contains small amounts of naturally occurring sulfites.”
- Organic wines, like all wines, contain naturally-occurring levels of sulfites. While USDA National Organic Program regulations prohibit the use of sulfites in food products, two exceptions exist for wine:
1) USDA ORGANIC LABEL: To call it ‘certified organic’ wine and use the USDA certified organic seal on the wine label, no sulfites may be added in winemaking and total levels of sulfites must be less than 20 ppm.
2) USDA “MADE WITH ORGANICALLY GROWN GRAPES” LABEL: When low levels of sulfites are traditionally added to the winemaking process, the wines may be called “made with organically grown grapes” on the label if the total level of sulfites is Iess than 100 ppm. (In all other countries they are labeled as organic wines)
- Sulfites do not cause headaches, and the reason for red wine headaches that some people complain about has not yet been discovered.
Among the wineries and importers that my company represents is Organic Vintners. They import a wide variety of wines and market wines from California as well. Most are vegan and are labeled as such. Visit http://www.organicvintners.com/index.cgi for more information on wines made from organically grown grapes.
— Paul CrigerTina,
Good God. Really. Does it ever occur to you that a lot of the problems you have with the meat industry don’t apply to meat industries outside of the US? Did it ever occur to you that instead of asking the bulk of humanity to change 10,000+ years of evolutionary history in which there has never been a vegan society (even Jains are not historically vegan) you could try and change the process by which meat is raised in this country?
As to your labeling comment. It’s not simply a question of asking domestic producers to label their products; it’s a question of asking international ones as well, many of whom have never even heard of the concept of veganism. And wine making is not like mass producing twinkees. Wine makers change the process slightly each time to deal with the quality and character of the grapes they are receiving, and also the price of the materials they have at hand. They don’t know for sure what clarifiers or how much they’re going to use ahead of time and by that point the labels are already made.
No one is saying you should drink wine. Perhaps you should accept that by going vegan you are making the choice that you’re either going to abstain from wine or you’re going to include it in a gray area of a sometimes beverage.
I am all for the labeling of food, but at what point does the burden for supporting your food lifestyle (and it is a lifestyle predicated on relative affluence, and most typically the ability to ship large quantities of food long distances) rest with you and not the person manufacturing the food product. You have a reasonable idea of what may be in a bottle of wine either drink up or shut up.
I don’t eat beef, butter, and a littany of other foods too tiresome to get into here. When I’m not sure if a product contains one of those ingredients or not, I ask. If the information is not forthcoming I abstain. It really is that simple.
— Jane DoeWhy should it make such a difference whether people want to know about the products/ingredients used in making wine because they are allergic to the item or because they are morally opposed to the item? Why does one have to be more important than the other? Why does a person who is allergic to peanuts, wheat, eggs, etc. have more rights regarding food labels than a person who finds it morally reprehensible to consume products derived from killing an animal? Can you imagine if people with allergies to foods as common as gluten or wheat were just told to get over it and stay away from eating anything that is not homemade (and I don’t believe they should have to)? No one is saying the process should be changed, only that the labelling should be more accurate.
— MelissaBravo Jane Doe. That is a very intelligent, nuanced response. And I agree with you: responsibility should rest on the vegetarian or vegan’s consumers shoulders.
What frightens me about this discussion is the moral certitude of some of the commentary, how, for example, Jaye, states: “We tend to think that all things organic are good, but this is not the case.” In Jaye’s case, “good” means: vegetarian/vegan friendly.
This is nonsense, of course, but it reminds me, chillingly, of the sort of brazen, extremist attitude that just assumes “goodness” without considering the alternatives.
— Seth PollinsIn comment #7, Jack Siler asked “Does anyone know if the word sustainable really means anything to a large public? THAT we could do.”
Jack, some description of sustainable practices on a wine label would certainly factor into my buying decision. And I would love to learn more about the “lutte raisonnée” method.
Thanks,
Robert
— Robert BallingerPaul Criger #15 you are so right. My family has been making wine for over 125 years and couldn’t agree with you more. Excellent transmission of information.
— MazzThere are many top-notch wineries which have been run as “organic”, “sustainable”, or “biodynamic” for years, but they do not often advertise themselves as such. Why? Because in the U.S., until the recent push towards organic eating, being labelled “organic” was a stigma. The first wines marketed as “organic” that came to market a dozen or so years ago were bad, plain and simple.
But today, that emphasis should be altered: they were bad.
It would probably surprise many wine drinkers to know that some of the most highly regarded and/or biggest-selling, long-standing U.S. wine brands on the market, such as Grgich Hills, have been organic for years, and are working towards being certified biodynamic. Grgich put American winemaking on the map with the Paris tasting of 1973, and has received medals and awards ever since. Fetzer - one of the largest winemakers in California - has been involved in organic practices for over 20 years; their Bonterra label was 100% organic from its launch.
American winemakers - particularly those in Napa - know that in order to be able to produce their product for decades to come, and to be able to meet constantly growing demand, they have to find ways to improve their product, and to produce more of it on existing land. As more people crowded into Napa, either seeking to get their own vineyard, or to built a home on the coveted property, the land began to suffer. It soon became clear that eco-responsibility was incredibly vital to the survival of Napa, if people wanted to continue growing - and selling - expensive wines there. Some vineyards have changed willingly; some fought. California’s wine growing regions - and there’s many of them, beyond its most famous, Napa - know better than perhaps any other wine region in the world how important it is to “reduce, reuse, recycle”.
There’s a difference between “sustainable” and “organic”, however. The sustainablewinegrowing.org website says that sustainable winegrowing practices aim to ” help reduce water and energy use, minimize pesticide use, build healthy soil, protect air and water quality, recycle natural resources, maintain surrounding wildlife habitat, provide employee education, and communicate with neighbors about vineyard and winery operations.”
As a consumer, I’m glad to know that when I reach for a favorite brand on the shelf. But I’m even more glad when I discover a tasty wine has been organically or biodynamically grown.
I’d never heard the term “biodynamic” until I went to California in September 2006 and visited Ceàgo Vinegarden in the up-and-coming Clear Lake/Lake County, about an hour north of Napa Valley. Ceàgo was founded by Jim Fetzer - son of Barney and Kathleen Fetzer of Fetzer Vineyards fame.
Biodynamic farmers, I found out, do not use chemical fertilizers. Today’s consumers - ultra-aware of the chemicals and preservatives in their diet - should take note of this, and seek to support these kind of operations. Ceàgo’s website defines what they do as such: “Biodynamic viticulture is a system of farming and managing natural resources to produce the highest possible crop quality. The central goal of biodynamic farming is to create and maintain unique, self-sustaining farm ecosystems. This is achieved by building and maintaining soil fertility through composting and crop rotation. Unique to biodynamic farming is the application of biodynamic preperations (organic nutrient teas) that stimulate soil and compost microbial activity and stimulate the life forces of soil and plants. A certified biodynamic farm meets all the USDA and California standards for organic agriculture, as well as those specific to Biodynamic farming.”
On that same trip, I also visited Long Meadow Ranch in Rutherford (Napa), another biodynamic vineyard, and took a tour, which allowed me to see the practices first-hand. LMR not only sells their wines, but also the beef and olive oil they produce on their own land.
And how do these biodynamic and organic wines taste? Great. If you didn’t know they were organic/biodynamic, you’d likely never guess it.
In fact, when you see a winery like Fetzer, Ceàgo, Long Meadow Ranch or Grgich Hills sustainably producing great product, you can’t help but wonder: why don’t all vineyards do the same?
Some suggested reading if you’re looking for more background on California (particularly Napa) winemaking:
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine, by George M. Taber
— Cheryl Lemanski- Napa: The Story of an American Eden, by James Conaway
- The Far Side of Eden: New Money, Old Land, and the Battle for Napa Valley (sequel to Napa), by James Conoway
- 2006 list of biodynamic/organic wineries in Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino
I would love it if someone showed me one well-done human study that shows eating or drinking organic food actually prevents disease. I’m not talking about organic food versus cases of eating tainted food, but organic versus “regular.”
Please don’t talk to me about in vitro or animal studies. If we could prevent or cure cancer in humans like we can in animals or in petrie dishes, there would be no human cancer. Thus, such animal and in vitro studies provide a good roadmap for human trials, but NOTHING MORE.
— JackJack –
I bet that you could find ample anecdotal evidence, at least, on the effects of non-organic pesticides and fertilizers on the farmers and farmhands who cultivate and harvest non-organic produce. I’m willing to spend a few extra bucks per week to prevent cancer and other nasty diseases in the folks who grow the food I eat every day.
Scooter
— Scooter@Paul Criger -
Sulfites may or may not cause headaches, but I’m 100% sure they cause me to break out in itchy hives. I know I have allergies (not terribly bad ones but definitely quite a few food allergies). I have a family history of sulfa-based drug allergies (not uncommon in the general population either). When I drink wine that contains added sulfites, I start getting itchy and break out in blotchy hives unless I take my allergy medications. When I drink “organic” (mostly I care about the no-sulfite-added part), I’m ok.
Please don’t minimize or dismiss people’s desire to avoid sulfite-added wines. It’s a quite-serious health issue for us.
— forestbrookJack and Scooter -
Not just anecdotal evidence, there are studies that have shown that the birth defect rate among children conceived in the farming areas of Minnesota is both higher than the rate among children from non-farming areas, but the rate also rises and falls depending on the season (and the pesticide being used during those seasons).
Quotation:
— forestbrook“In addition, infants conceived during April-June–the time of herbicide application–had an increased chance of being diagnosed with circulatory/respiratory (excluding heart) malformations compared with births conceived during other months of the year”
Source:
Schreinemachers DM. (2003) Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes in four U.S. Wheat-producing states.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5830/5830.html