Lettie on Natural Wines
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:15 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83968.html
OK, so while I like a lot of "Natural Wines", I can't be characterized as a true believer. But this article is just so bad- I've had issues with Lettie as a "journalist" before, but this article is pitiful.
So she asks several people who are into "natural wine" (and a couple who aren't) their definition- and they come up with (slightly) different answers. No evidence that they are contradictory, just phrased differently. So if "Natural wine" proponents (and hostile others) can't come up with a strict definiton, then Natural wines don't exist? In that case, would you argue that folk rock, Expressionist art, sports cars, and soul food don't exist? Because pretty sure if you asked fans/pros re any of those you wouldn't get a definitive definition.
She says Charles Massoud claims that natural wines are dangerous because of excess biogenic amines - that's mentioned twice in the article, despite her admission there is no proof of that. Could she or Massoud come up with ONE instance of someone being harmed by tyramine and putrescine in a wine? Or of a natural wine that tested in dangerous levels for one of those amines? The WSJ is usually all in denial mode re any manufacturer liability, yet here they sling accusations with absolutely no evidence.
Then there is her tasting of the wines. I'm fine with her not liking some of the reds, but why not name them so one can figure out if her tastes matter to you?
(edited because someone didn't like my characterization of the Massouds)
OK, so while I like a lot of "Natural Wines", I can't be characterized as a true believer. But this article is just so bad- I've had issues with Lettie as a "journalist" before, but this article is pitiful.
So she asks several people who are into "natural wine" (and a couple who aren't) their definition- and they come up with (slightly) different answers. No evidence that they are contradictory, just phrased differently. So if "Natural wine" proponents (and hostile others) can't come up with a strict definiton, then Natural wines don't exist? In that case, would you argue that folk rock, Expressionist art, sports cars, and soul food don't exist? Because pretty sure if you asked fans/pros re any of those you wouldn't get a definitive definition.
She says Charles Massoud claims that natural wines are dangerous because of excess biogenic amines - that's mentioned twice in the article, despite her admission there is no proof of that. Could she or Massoud come up with ONE instance of someone being harmed by tyramine and putrescine in a wine? Or of a natural wine that tested in dangerous levels for one of those amines? The WSJ is usually all in denial mode re any manufacturer liability, yet here they sling accusations with absolutely no evidence.
Then there is her tasting of the wines. I'm fine with her not liking some of the reds, but why not name them so one can figure out if her tastes matter to you?
(edited because someone didn't like my characterization of the Massouds)