Showing posts with label Emiliana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emiliana. Show all posts

Thursday, 12 March 2020

Doing The Right Thing


Some things are just instinctive, like chasing that shoplifter the other day who burst into the shop just before we closed and helped himself to a six pack of someone else’s wine, boxed up earlier that day and awaiting collection.  There was no thinking required, it was just obvious.  It was simply the right thing to do.  Naturally I hadn’t anticipated the cuts, bruises and ruptured Achilles tendon I sustained as I tried to chase him down, nor the extended period which still lies ahead of me with my foot in a sweaty support boot.  However it does present the opportunity to write this long-planned piece on Sustainability and Natural Wines (whatever they are…).  It feels like the right time.



My father was always eager to stress the importance of “doing the right thing”, almost to the point of obsession, and in all my years in the wine trade I have met many wine producers of like mind.  These are people making wine responsibly, from the point of view not only of the wine, but also the environment, their customers, employees and the wider community.  The effects of their irreproachable standards reach way beyond the vineyard; this approach now has a name that’s becoming a buzzword in the trade - Sustainability.



In recent days it has surely become obvious that there are two contradicting ways to react to our planet’s need for us to live in a more sustainable way; we can either dig up lawns, block roads and generally make a nuisance of ourselves in the vain hope that our misbehaviour will persuade others to behave better (still not sure how that’s supposed to work), or we can lead by example with each of us doing our bit towards a more sustainable lifestyle.  I know which I prefer, I know which I do and I know which I think others will find more persuasive.  People choosing the latter course tend not to bang on about it though.  For most wine producers it’s not even a commercial choice to seek some sort of advantage in the marketplace, it’s simply the way it should be done.  I thought it worth illustrating what just one of our producers is doing to help.



Those who have been there (and admittedly I haven’t) say that Emiliana’s holdings in Chile feel more like a nature reserve than a winery.  Organic and Biodynamic practices have been part of their ethos for years.  They also seek to minimise carbon emissions by adding organic matter to the vineyards which helps to stabilise carbon that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere.



Emiliana began their conversion to organic status in 1998 – several years before Saint Greta was born - and are now 100% organic.  They were the first South American winery to produce Biodynamic wines (in 2006) and are now 100% biodynamic.  They produce an annual Sustainability Report and run a Bio-intensive Garden programme which now extends to 12 neighbouring vineyards.  They have an Employee Programme which sees the production of both alpaca and sheep’s wool as well as natural honey and olive oil from their own trees.  Returns from the sale of these products goes directly back to the employees.  Plastic and glass is all recycled and whatever can be composted is.  They track their CO2 emissions and constantly monitor water, electricity and gas consumption.  They don’t harp on about it (though this information is on their website) they simply see their methods as the right course to take.



In many ways it reminds me of the early days of organic wine (or, more correctly, wine made from organically grown grapes) where guidelines eventually emerged that many winemakers realised they were already working to, and which were formalised by a set of rules, policed by a governing body of some sort, with certification awarded for people doing it properly.



We’re not at that point yet with “sustainability”, although embryonic certification now exists, or for that matter “natural wines”, which is the second subject of this article.  Neither concept yet has an official definition, but it is not hard to have a stab at what the terms mean – essentially they both really amount to just doing the right thing.



A few people have had a bash at defining what the term “natural wine” means, though I’ve yet to meet a customer who really knows what they are asking for when they enquire about them.  Some people are preoccupied with sulphite levels, others with fining agents (vegans mostly…one once asked us what the glue was made from that stuck the label to the bottle) but nobody has yet come in with a question about cryoextraction. Any yet-to-emerge definition for natural wines is likely to include such things as the following which is the Natural Wines Charter of one of our suppliers.  In the absence of a recognised definition they drew up their own you see.  Here it is:



·         No irrigation

·         Hand-Picked

·         No added sugars, yeast or bacteria

·         No adjustments for acidity

·         No external flavour additives other than those imparted by barrels

·         Minimal or no fining

·         Light filtration (or none)

·         No heavy manipulation, such as micro-oxygenation, reverse osmosis, spinning cone or cryoextraction

·         Total sulphites typically less than 70mg/litre



Now it turns out that many of the people we buy from were already following some, if not all, of the guidelines that potentially govern what a Natural Wine is, they just don’t shout about it.  They’ve never felt the need.  They’ve always done it this way because it was the way their forbears did it and it worked for them, so why change?  In the early days of growing interest in organics, I remember trying to assemble a list of our producers who were growing organically and sent out a barrage of emails, “Right chaps, who’s doing this then? Customers are asking you see…” A few responded but the overwhelming response was silence.  Especially from France.  They just didn’t relate to the question and one could sense the collective shrug of the shoulders from across the channel and mutterings along the lines of “My farzer, ee made ze wine zis way, and his farzer before ‘im.  Zay ‘ad no chemicals or machines.  Just ze soil, ze grapes and ze love of ze wine and zum friends to ‘elp out picking ze grapes.” 



Be careful though folks, it is a common assumption that if a bottle of wine is labelled “natural” it’s got to be better because it sounds wholesome and reassuring but it is definitely not a guarantee of quality.  It can also suggest that any bottle not described as “natural” is somehow unnatural, which is not the case: it’s made from grapes and what could be more natural than a cleanly grown piece of fruit?



What you do, or don’t do to that piece of fruit will affect the quality of your finished wine and there’s an incredibly fine line between “natural” and unstable.  Turn down the sulphite level for instance and the risk increases greatly that wines will re-ferment, oxidise or just be spoilt by bacteria, and nobody wants to drink wines that look, smell or taste as if they’ve been drunk already… You’ve got to be prepared to poke up with sediment, and potentially higher prices which are the inevitable consequence of lower yields.  On the other hand, you’ll be able to count your purchases as part of “doing the right thing”.



This is all very well but it’s important to remember that the Wines of Interest approach has always been one that puts quality above all else.  You would rather buy clean wine of purity and character than some oxidised bottle of lightly cloudy, cidery white that has been buried in clay amphora and costs £18.95, labelled “natural”.  Badges for “organic” or “natural” or even “sustainable” are nice to see certainly, but if the quality isn’t there, and with it value for money, we won’t list it.  “This wine is delicious and, by the way, it happens to be organic”, goes down much better than “This wine is organic but tastes awful”. 



Our priority is for lovely, well made wine first and foremost.  That won’t change.  Good wine and good value first, anything else is a bonus.  That’s always been our approach, but we are seeing an increasing number of producers who are doing the right thing, in terms of the environment, their employees and the wider community and it makes sense for us to tell you about them, as and when they think of telling us…

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Fairtrade Fortnight - Bit Lukewarm Actually. Here's Why...


Any minute now we should all expect a tap with the “worthy” stick as retailers try to persuade us to buy Fairtrade.  Many of us will respond and pay the extra for what are, as far as anyone can tell, the same bananas/coffee/chocolate (delete as appropriate) we bought last week with the exception of the comforting blue & green logo on them.  But hey! That’s fine because someone at the other end of the line should be getting a fair deal, right?  Not according to one of our suppliers who, when exploring the idea of a range of Fairtrade wines with a major supermarket was told that whilst this was an idea they would love to take further, they weren’t prepared to pay any more for the wines.  Really?  Isn’t that the point?  Shouldn’t those of us who can afford to do so be prepared to pay a bit more for the reassurance of a better deal for the chaps at the other end?  This particular major retailer was not in the least concerned about these effects, it simply wished to bask in the glory of being perceived to be Doing The Right Thing. 

How many will be offering discounts on Fairtrade products during Fairtrade Fortnight, and who do you suppose is supporting these offers? Cutting prices on these products just at the point that’s supposed to increase sales is at best counterproductive; hypocritical at worst.

Please don’t get us wrong here though.  We are not against Fairtrade (and other similar schemes) in principle.  We just don’t like the fact that a well-intentioned scheme has been hijacked and used as a marketing tool.  There are a lot of front-end costs too which make us wonder just how much of the good that could be done gets siphoned off in bureaucracy.

Surely the idea is not to attract the bargain hunters with special offers just for two weeks of the year but rather to encourage people to switch permanently to lines which deliver a better deal for the producers?  Sorry, but you don’t achieve that with discounts.  All you do is attract the “price-is-all-that-matters” consumers who’ll be chasing the next deal in 2 weeks time and the golden opportunity for long term benefit will be lost.

There is only one thing that will clinch long-term support for Fairtrade lines and that’s delivering quality products at affordable prices (actually that may be two things so to get round that we’ll call it “value for money”).  This is where it all starts to fall down as far as the vast majority of Fairtrade wines are concerned because frequently the people in most need of help are working the poorest plots of land so you’re not starting with good quality raw material – silk purse, sow’s ear etc.

Oh we’ve tried plenty of Fairtrade wines certainly, but it strikes us that the reason people buy them is because of the badge and not because they’re any good (the supermarket tale above certainly suggests that’s what they think anyway) and that’s putting the cart before the horse.  Frankly, the wines themselves need to be better, both better made and more exciting.  It’s no use trotting out yet another predictable South African Chenin Blanc or Chilean Merlot which people will simply find “acceptable”.  There has to be a reason to keep buying these wines beyond the call of the badge.  You don’t drink the badge after all.

If you’re minded to try wines such as these during the dedicated two week period we would point you to the Santa Digna (Gewurztraminer and Cab.Sauv.Rose) wines by Miguel Torres and the Coyam and Novas reds by Emiliana.  They carry the Fair For Life badge as opposed to the Fairtrade one but they were good wines first and happen also to subsequently deliver a good deal for the people who grow the grapes.  These wines do appear on offer occasionally, though not at the demand of the retailer.  More importantly, they are all good enough for us to recommend them for 52 weeks of the year and not just two.