I agree that levels of volatile acidity in wine are pretty much a matter perspective. I can't comment on European limits to VA established as law because I do not know how or why they've come up with their thresholds, although I suspect those laws give a lot of leeway.
But I do know that both consumers and media (including critics) are also quite lenient in their tolerance. In fact, in my nearly 50 years in the business, I could always see that most of them like high VA in wines very, very much. Small yet perceptible (and harmless) amounts of acetic acid and ethyl acetate add a sweetness to wines both everyday and professional wine lovers find quite attractive. Many of the "great" wines of the world have traditionally, and deliberately, been made with perceptible amounts of VA. In matters of taste, it is hard to be critical.
In my circles, though, the "issue" of VA is now multifaceted. On one hand, at a higher level there has been significant recent movement towards picking grapes at lower sugars and higher natural acidity to produce sleeker styles of wines more in keeping with contemporary tastes. This, of course, means less likelihood of high VA. Inevitably--say, in wine judging circuits--detection of high VA is now indicative of "old school" wines. The type of wines that, just 10, 20 years ago, used to garner high "scores" because of their full alcohol, low acidity and attendant notes of VA.
At the same time, though, there is a definite movement towards natural style wines which, like old European wines, are highly tolerant of wines retaining elements of microbial spoilage such as VA. While professional wine judges, who are forced to taste blind, may dismiss these types of wines as examples of sloppy winemaking, there is no arguing with the fact that many consumers, as well as professional in the trade (such as young sommeliers) find these wines quite appealing. Again, there is no arguing with taste. To each his/her own.
Who's afraid of volatile acidity, indeed? Most certainly, the people who count the most--the ones who buy the most wine--are not, and they are the ones whose judgement counts the most.
“there is no arguing with the fact that many consumers, as well as professional in the trade (such as young sommeliers) find these wines quite appealing”
This is the whole point I feel. Some people find kombucha, shrubs or vinegar in general disgusting. Others adore it. Legislation shouldn't try to enforce uniform taste.
Volatility can manifest itself in a manner that most tasters would find objectionable. So, wine laws attempt to spare testers an objectionable experience.
This is typically attempted by setting an analytical upper bound. But the precise number is going to be arbitrary and human perception, as you explain, doesn't track linearly with the analytical level of volatility.
But what is the in-principle alternative? It's for a panel of testers to decide whether a wine is expressing objectionable volatility. And in the company of Morning Claret readers, I don't need to detail why that's problematic.
The best compromise is in my view to retain an analytical limit, but set it higher than does current EU law, which clearly leaves far too many delicious wines cast into oblivion.
I agree, the dreaded tasting panel must be avoided at all costs. Since the EU already allows higher limits of between 1.25 and 2.4 g/L for hundreds of different regional styles and appellations, it would make sense if they just set one higher limit - let's say 2.4 g/L - for all wine, irrespective of category or provenance.
This is, after all, supposed to be a backstop, not an optimal figure that all winemakers must aim to hit.
Either that or we invite a new beverage category, winegar, for all fermented grape products that have VA between 1.2 and 4 g/L. It might become all the rage!
Earlier this year, I came across a wine which had 2.4g/l of acetic acid. I don't think it needs to be destroyed but I do think that the winemaker should accept that it's a fault and try not to repeat the same mistakes. We give the natural wine category a bad rep if we start defending this as terroir.
But this is the exact point I wanted to make. Why does it have to be about the number? It should be about whether the wine tastes good and people want to drink it, surely?
If 2.4 g/L is allowed in some regions, there must be a good reason for that?
In other words, there is nothing inherently dangerous to our health or 'wrong' about VA at a level like that.
The harm is less for human health, and more the health of the natural wine market. By normalising wines which are let’s say extreme, we risk drinkers going back to conventional wine or not drinking wine at all.
The same wine (the one with 2.44 VA) also had the highest levels of histamine and tyramine of all the wines we analysed, as well as 1760 of 4-EF (3x the sensory threshold) and a high population of lactic acid bacteria… it had everything!
I feel VA has become rather like sulfites. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 or between 30 and 50 is not a big deal at the end of the day… but it’s a term which people now recognise… and it’s been made out to be the Big Bad Guy when it’s actually a canary in the mine of bad winemaking.
If I were served that wine in a restaurant, I’d send it back just like I’d send back a wine that was corked.
(Oh, and the winemaker in question, when I sent him the analysis, said
“I make wines like this; I’m a free spirit.”
(and my brain went: OK, fine, just don’t complain if you struggle to sell your wines…)
That's a very interesting point - that high VA could signify there are likely to be other microbial issues in the wine.
I feel that the jury is still out on whether higher levels of histamine and other bio-amines are genuinely harmful in wine. After all, cured hams and mature cheeses likely have far higher levels. It's like the whole sulphites thing all over again IMO.
I will return to my shtick though. You'd only send that wine back if you didn't like the way it tasted or smelled, surely? You're not going to ask to see a lab analysis and automatically reject it because the numbers don't look optimal are you?
I have a feeling creeping up when I study the microbes in wine, I think we are all going to have to get used to more VA in wines as the planet heats up.
Humans are resourceful. I am an optimist on this point. Those who were smart enough to realise that everything needs to change - pruning, canopy management, farming methodologies, harvest dates etc - will do best.
I agree that levels of volatile acidity in wine are pretty much a matter perspective. I can't comment on European limits to VA established as law because I do not know how or why they've come up with their thresholds, although I suspect those laws give a lot of leeway.
But I do know that both consumers and media (including critics) are also quite lenient in their tolerance. In fact, in my nearly 50 years in the business, I could always see that most of them like high VA in wines very, very much. Small yet perceptible (and harmless) amounts of acetic acid and ethyl acetate add a sweetness to wines both everyday and professional wine lovers find quite attractive. Many of the "great" wines of the world have traditionally, and deliberately, been made with perceptible amounts of VA. In matters of taste, it is hard to be critical.
In my circles, though, the "issue" of VA is now multifaceted. On one hand, at a higher level there has been significant recent movement towards picking grapes at lower sugars and higher natural acidity to produce sleeker styles of wines more in keeping with contemporary tastes. This, of course, means less likelihood of high VA. Inevitably--say, in wine judging circuits--detection of high VA is now indicative of "old school" wines. The type of wines that, just 10, 20 years ago, used to garner high "scores" because of their full alcohol, low acidity and attendant notes of VA.
At the same time, though, there is a definite movement towards natural style wines which, like old European wines, are highly tolerant of wines retaining elements of microbial spoilage such as VA. While professional wine judges, who are forced to taste blind, may dismiss these types of wines as examples of sloppy winemaking, there is no arguing with the fact that many consumers, as well as professional in the trade (such as young sommeliers) find these wines quite appealing. Again, there is no arguing with taste. To each his/her own.
Who's afraid of volatile acidity, indeed? Most certainly, the people who count the most--the ones who buy the most wine--are not, and they are the ones whose judgement counts the most.
“there is no arguing with the fact that many consumers, as well as professional in the trade (such as young sommeliers) find these wines quite appealing”
This is the whole point I feel. Some people find kombucha, shrubs or vinegar in general disgusting. Others adore it. Legislation shouldn't try to enforce uniform taste.
Volatility can manifest itself in a manner that most tasters would find objectionable. So, wine laws attempt to spare testers an objectionable experience.
This is typically attempted by setting an analytical upper bound. But the precise number is going to be arbitrary and human perception, as you explain, doesn't track linearly with the analytical level of volatility.
But what is the in-principle alternative? It's for a panel of testers to decide whether a wine is expressing objectionable volatility. And in the company of Morning Claret readers, I don't need to detail why that's problematic.
The best compromise is in my view to retain an analytical limit, but set it higher than does current EU law, which clearly leaves far too many delicious wines cast into oblivion.
I agree, the dreaded tasting panel must be avoided at all costs. Since the EU already allows higher limits of between 1.25 and 2.4 g/L for hundreds of different regional styles and appellations, it would make sense if they just set one higher limit - let's say 2.4 g/L - for all wine, irrespective of category or provenance.
This is, after all, supposed to be a backstop, not an optimal figure that all winemakers must aim to hit.
Either that or we invite a new beverage category, winegar, for all fermented grape products that have VA between 1.2 and 4 g/L. It might become all the rage!
Earlier this year, I came across a wine which had 2.4g/l of acetic acid. I don't think it needs to be destroyed but I do think that the winemaker should accept that it's a fault and try not to repeat the same mistakes. We give the natural wine category a bad rep if we start defending this as terroir.
But this is the exact point I wanted to make. Why does it have to be about the number? It should be about whether the wine tastes good and people want to drink it, surely?
If 2.4 g/L is allowed in some regions, there must be a good reason for that?
In other words, there is nothing inherently dangerous to our health or 'wrong' about VA at a level like that.
The harm is less for human health, and more the health of the natural wine market. By normalising wines which are let’s say extreme, we risk drinkers going back to conventional wine or not drinking wine at all.
The same wine (the one with 2.44 VA) also had the highest levels of histamine and tyramine of all the wines we analysed, as well as 1760 of 4-EF (3x the sensory threshold) and a high population of lactic acid bacteria… it had everything!
I feel VA has become rather like sulfites. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 or between 30 and 50 is not a big deal at the end of the day… but it’s a term which people now recognise… and it’s been made out to be the Big Bad Guy when it’s actually a canary in the mine of bad winemaking.
If I were served that wine in a restaurant, I’d send it back just like I’d send back a wine that was corked.
(Oh, and the winemaker in question, when I sent him the analysis, said
“I make wines like this; I’m a free spirit.”
(and my brain went: OK, fine, just don’t complain if you struggle to sell your wines…)
That's a very interesting point - that high VA could signify there are likely to be other microbial issues in the wine.
I feel that the jury is still out on whether higher levels of histamine and other bio-amines are genuinely harmful in wine. After all, cured hams and mature cheeses likely have far higher levels. It's like the whole sulphites thing all over again IMO.
I will return to my shtick though. You'd only send that wine back if you didn't like the way it tasted or smelled, surely? You're not going to ask to see a lab analysis and automatically reject it because the numbers don't look optimal are you?
I have a feeling creeping up when I study the microbes in wine, I think we are all going to have to get used to more VA in wines as the planet heats up.
Yes, this is definitely an issue. The interventionists will probably insist this is why we need selected yeasts and lots of sulphites.
Will wine even exist in many traditional areas?
Humans are resourceful. I am an optimist on this point. Those who were smart enough to realise that everything needs to change - pruning, canopy management, farming methodologies, harvest dates etc - will do best.