I’ve written about wine judgings several times in the past. Can the results be trusted? Do they mean anything? One of the big questions is if there are too many, or if the industry can support more. Perhaps the real question is: Do we need more? Well, somebody thinks so, since I just read that a new judging, which will be held in Sonoma County, is in the offing.
Since a judging format needs a new twist to create interest and get entries, this one is being sponsored by the same group that sponsored the recently held competition judged solely by women, appropriately called the National Women’s Wine Competition. What’s the big deal? Women are probably better judges than men in many cases and many have very refined palates. [See “What Women Want,” Special Wine Issue 2007.]
Planning and putting on a judging isn’t an easy, and NWWC organizers may have learned that in their second year, which attracted only half as many entries as expected. Planning on about 4,000 entries and getting nine panels of judges isn’t easy. The big problem comes when you only end up with less than 2,000 entries. From a judging standpoint, it makes for short days. Why they received so much less is anybody’s guess, but some soul searching seems in order.
It’s very interesting that the same group that suffered so recently is ready to do it again. An announcement in Decanter magazine says it already has 100 entries for a competition being billed as the first-annual Green Wine Competition. Organizers state it’s meant to be a roadmap for consumers looking to drink green. I’m not sure about this whole thing, but I do wonder how they’ll promote their results and to whom the profits will go. Will they be donated to the organic wine producers?
This competition would imply, to me, that there’s a market solely for organic and/or biodynamic wines. From my knowledge, I’m not sure that’s true. Also, does “green” imply a small carbon footprint, or does it mean environmentally friendly? Has the word expanded to mean everything from climate change to being pesticide-free? Let’s add WiFi-free also, so it can be sold in the Republic of Sebastopol.
Reading comments about the Decanter article indicate I’m not the only one who’s confused. A reader from Ireland felt marketing wine to women was patronizing. I’m sure others would agree. Far be it from me, Mister Politically Correct, to argue.
I should mention that, to be eligible for the green wine competition, producers need not be fully organic or biodynamic, but can comply with a range of U.S. sustainable certification programs such as Lodi Rules, Oregon LIVE and Certified Salmon Safe.
Is there really a wine market out there for organic wines? It doesn’t seem to me that any of the hard-to-get (read “expensive”) wines are being touted as organic or anything else besides difficult to obtain.
Another reader states it’s a “slap in the face…and the current trend toward labels such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘fish-friendly’ are primarily marketing tools with no accountability.” This from a Sonoma County viticulturalist and winemaker—and how correct he is! The entire agricultural world is guilty of pushing way beyond the limits of reality when it starts marketing organic and sustainable products.
It’s always struck me as interesting that, when shopping at Whole Foods, nearly everything seems to be organic, sustainable and so forth—except the wine.
From a well-known Pinot Noir winery in Oregon comes the following comment: “As well-meaning as the Green Wine Competition’s organizers may be, their skirting of organic and/or biodynamic certification as a requirement for participation doesn’t serve the interests of consumers and wine lovers of all stripes.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I think the single biggest problem I have with this competition, and all other things being promoted as green, is the lack of term definition. I’ve maintained for years that the viticulture industry is one of the cleanest agricultural industries we have. It’s standard practice for most grape growers to be, at a minimum, sustainable (that is, produce their crops with the least amount of nonorganic input)—more so than any other commercially produced crop. Since a farmer’s biggest ear is in his pocketbook, and chemicals are expensive, it becomes almost self-limiting. The single biggest problem with organic growing is weed control, where the options without the use of Roundup are very limiting and thus costly.
Now the really big questions! Is it a well-known fact that complete organic/biodynamic production is more expensive than conventional techniques? If yields are frequently lower will the everyday consumer be willing to pay a higher price for organic wines, and therefore will the winery be willing to pay more for organically grown grapes? Isn’t it possible to forget all of this and just thank God for blessing us with such a wonderful product like wine that, when consumed moderately, is not only very enjoyable but also very healthy.
I’m still confused about why organic/biodynamic wines should be of any different quality than their nonorganic counterparts. If the general public only knew what really goes on behind the scenes in the big-time organic production world, we wouldn’t care if our wine was organic or not—as long as it tasted good. It’s also good to remember that the reason for the uphill battle for organic wines is that, historically, the first few weren’t just bad—they were terrible. It wasn’t because they were organic, it was that they were poorly grown grapes and poorly made wines.
My final question is about the need or value of this newly proposed judging. Will it serve a purpose, or just muddy the already murky waters surrounding the organic/biodynamic world? Oh well, go do your homework—organic or not, it’s your choice.
