There are few topics that are more controversial in the wine world right now than that of Biodynamic wines. Both proponents and opponents seem to be equally passionate in their opinions on the subject. Jeff Lefevere has an outstanding post up on his Good Grape blog right now about the need for a change in the dialogue (or dueling monologues) on this topic. Jeff does a good job of showing the parallels between wine and politics or religion that this issue has created. From the post -
By now, I think most seasoned wine enthusiasts are not only familiar
with BioD, but they’ve formed an opinion on it. If you are like me, you
take BioD for what it is – a belief system, nothing more and nothing
less. Maybe you agree with it, maybe you don’t, but it’s like walking
down a New York City sidewalk and accepting an “All God’s Creatures” point
of view, instead of living like Travis
Bickle.Yet, read the comments to any article or blog post discussing
Biodynamics and you will inevitably see a comment denouncing Biodynamics
as the work of hucksters, crackpots and loonies. What happened to reasonable people being able to respect differing
belief systems—particularly when there is no right or wrong answer?
The name calling that accompanies this topic seems like it’s straight out of a Fox News program, or a religious message board on the internet. Jeff has tackled the “Biodynamics as a belief system” point in the past, and I think that there is a lot to this position. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that you are Godless if you don’t believe in BioD, but I think the parallel being drawn between people like Stuart Smith, who writes the blog Biodynamics is a Hoax, and say, Christopher Hitchens, is a valid one. It might even be a characterization that Smith himself wouldn’t mind. I don’t want to get into the question of religion here, if for no other reason than the fact that it might undermine my future plans to start a global religion based on wine. The point is that Biodynamics is just a belief system, and that all the hyperbole surrounding it might be a bit extreme.
In the interest of not leaving you all hanging too long, I am not a believer in Biodynamics. I do find a lot of the more mystical elements of the Biodynamic process to be a bit unbelievable, but I certainly don’t begrudge anyone engaging in those practices. I think that, like many religions, there are good points and some not so good. I find the not so good elements in Biodynamics to be fairly benign, and I think that the good points do have a lot of potential to lead to quality fruit being produced in a vineyard, and subsequently to quality wines being produced. I think that the overall effect is a positive one. I do, however, feel like a lot of the same vineyard quality could be achieved through other methods. My opinion is that the attention to the soil and environment within the vineyard that is required for Biodynamics is a big part of what produces positive results. I know growers who are every bit as careful as the average Biodynamic grower about the impact that they have on the land, without the inclusion of the more “quirky” elements of BioD, and I believe that they can produce grapes that are of the same high quality and minimally impact the environment.
The Question
Jeff’s post has gotten me started thinking about this issue some though, and trying to see it from both sides. Do you think that Biodynamics is a hoax, or just a benign system of beliefs? Do you think that the overall effects of Biodynamics are positive, negative, or neutral?
I certainly don’t understand the heavy backlash here. There seems to be an awful lot of handwringing and emotionally-fueled reactions to the subject, but I haven’t seen a lot of data backing either side of the argument up. Perhaps when I have more time to seek out data, I’ll write on this myself, but for now I certainly have to abstain from condemning the practice.
If someone practices it, and it appears to work, why harsh on their beliefs? On principle? That’s no different from reactionary wingnuts in politics. I can think of many, many better things to do with one’s time.
Of course, irrational politics makes my blood boil anyways, and this strikes me as a more focused version of that.
Break out the Bovine horns filled with poop and sprinkle the magic dust on your vineyards. The wine fairies will bless your vines and produce extra special elixer that season.
0_o
Hey, it can’t really hurt right?
Cheers
Brian
norcalwingman
I’ve spoken with Stu Smith at length about all things Steiner atop of Spring Mountain, and his main beef seemed to be with how biodynamic farming was being actively marketed by certain California wineries and other interested parties as “the” best way to grow grapes and make great wine. His blog can come across as needlessly strident, but I don’t begrudge him for calling out some mushy thinking.
I agree, it doesn’t make sense to me, though I’ve been trying to make sense of it. Admittedly, this post was somewhat of a fishing expedition for a more detailed post that I’m working on. Still trying to think through some things.
Man, it sounds like you and I have a lot in common when it comes to irrational politics. One of these days we need to chat over some vino, but I think we already knew that before now.
I think that’s my question. Why are people getting so worked up about it? I have some thoughts on why, but I just thought I’d get some feedback. I’m with you on the live and let live approach to the whole thing.
Thanks for the comment Sean. I did post these questions because I want to understand the nature of the fight about this issue. I certainly didn’t mean to come across as begrudging Stuart for his opinion. I am developing a more detailed post that examines the issue further, and I am trying to see both sides. While I tend to take a pretty tolerant attitude to the issue, I also don’t make my living from growing grapes or making wine at this point in time. I can understand the frustration with misleading marketing from those that do.
Thanks for the thought provoking post — some great points.
For my part, I find the argument against Biodynamics completely inane. In my mind, this is such a simple issue to figure out. If it does no harm (to people, the earth, etc) and the end product is good wine, who cares if you believe that ancient Pagan/Native American techniques work? I liken people who are afraid of BioD to people who were afraid of the Salem Witches. It’s just silliness and fear of the unknown (What if it DOES work? Would that throw their belief system out of whack?). If you want to use it, great. If not, leave the people that want to use it alone…unless they start polluting the earth, create horrible social ramifications, or are responsible for spawning Charles Manson-like killing cults.
As for the objection about marketing, consumers can decide this issue. It’s not misleading, it’s just an opinion put forth by the BioD producers. In our culture, marketers and advertisers spin things all the time (as a former Brand Manager for a large winery, please believe me). It’s no wonder the BioD producers are doing this — it helps them sell more wine! To take an example from outside the industry, do you honestly think that a bottle of Coke “opens happiness?” I don’t really think so, yet no one is arguing that Coke’s marketing campaign is full of “mushy thinking” (although it really is — horrible nutrition, empty calories and the obesity that they cause does not equal happiness for most people!).
Yeah! Good On Elizabeth. You echo my sentiment exactly. If it’s good drink, cool! If not, no harm no foul (except the wine perhaps).
Trust me some folks who really believe in it (go visit a semi-well-known winery in Hopland) are “REALLY INTO IT.” Not to the point of Manson Family antics, but approaching fundamentalist views.
As for the marketers, well, consumers have the final say don’t they?
Cheers
Brian
norcalwingman
Thanks for the comment Elizabeth. I am inclined to mostly agree with you, but I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate a bit.
It does seem that there is a difference between a slogan like, “Open happiness” and some of the pseudo-scientific superiority of Biodynamic wines. While one is just a marketing trick, the other could be construed as false advertising, or at least unsupportable scientific claims.
The other side of this is that it makes sense for the non-BioD growers and winemakers to vehemently object to these claims, as there really is no data to back up most claims, and it is their livelihood that is being threatened. Sure, this might just come across as sour grapes (sorry), but I guess that’s their decision.
Anyway, thanks so much for the comment. This is exactly the kind of conversation on the topic that I was hoping for. I definitely appreciate hearing your perspective on the issue.
I’m not a BioD cultist, but I’m kind of an organic/BioD lover since (even if it’s preachy and annoying and, at times, nuts) lots of the wineries that aren’t organic (including the ones that say they are “sustainable” because they turn off the lights when they leave for the day) are causing irreparable harm to the land on which they farm and the surrounding areas.
So even though I respect science, I have to also ask, are you SURE that the BioD claims are false, or are they as yet unproven? I hate getting existential here, but we really don’t know what the truth is on these issues. “Science” as we know it can also be wrong — the earth isn’t flat, the solar system doesn’t center around the earth, and Pluto isn’t a planet. Also, BioD and Organics predate “modern” farming by millions of years — mass industrial farming is an invention of the last 200 years. Could it be that their retreat to older ways and methods are right and the modern, more scientific ways are our shortest path to environmental disaster?
Who the hell knows? I still say let ‘em do what they want, unless they make crap wine or cause harm.
Good discussion!
There is a direct religious parallel, with the strict laws in Israel for production of kosher wine. (Not all Israeli wine is kosher, not all kosher wine is Israeli, obviously.) Things like letting the vines go fallow once every seven years, not even making wine until the vines are four years old, and lots of restrictions on who can handle the wine and what materials can be used in the fining process.
Does it scientifically make the wine better? Not necessarily, but there’s nothing harmful, and it’s important to people who maintain a kosher diet. If the monk Dom Perignon said prayers over his grapes, I leave it to theologians and philosophers to debate whether or not that made a difference. But in either case I’m not going to make fun of it or attack it.
I met with some biodynamic producers in Sonoma, and they mostly took a live and let live approach. They were proud of what they were doing, but didn’t feel it was the One True Path and had pretty close relationships with other winemakers who either produced conventionally, organically, or in some other method.
Great example. The parallel between BioD and kosher is certainly a good one. Only BioD has more mainstream marketing potential.
I certainly agree with the ideas expressed in several comments that as long as it’s not harmful, who cares.
Wish I had found this post earlier… there seems to be two biodynamic camps these days. There’s the small wineries which are truly into and dedicated to the concept (Cayuse), and many of these are producing fantastic wines. Perhaps it’s not because of the 9 preparations, but maybe because they spend more time tending to their vineyards.
Then there’s the group of larger wineries who are becoming biodynamic seemingly as a marketing tool. I question their dedication and belief in the system, and their wines aren’t necessarily any different. Perhaps the gnomes and other creatures Steiner proposed are aware of this and can see through those efforts, therefore not rendering their bounty upon that crop. Just a thought…
I think that you are exactly right. Anytime something strikes the public’s fancy, there are always going to be those who try to jump on the bandwagon, just to gain the benefits. Thanks for to comment Steven. I hope that California is treating you well.