A Rhetorical Analysis of Sustainable, Organic & Biodynamic Wines Moms Will Adore by Michelle Vale
By: Crista Miller
Tags: Biodynamic, Wine, Sustainability, Organic

There are 269 Master Sommeliers (Court of Master Sommeliers), a coveted title awarded to a person who is an expert in wine pairings; for Masters of Wine, a title awarded to those who’ve studied wine professionally for years, just 409. (Masters of Wine) Basically, there are very few wine experts in the world. As far as experts in Sustainable, Organic, and Biodynamic wine go, since there’s no official ranking or tracking, we can assume even fewer than the aforementioned titles. In the article Sustainable, Organic & Biodynamic Wines Moms Will Adore, author Michelle Vale makes claims around the health benefits of drinking wine, specifically sustainable, organic, and biodynamically farmed wines, but pivots quickly to just telling us what those words mean. She claims that she isn’t an expert but she has had ‘a few wine classes’ and has spoken to some winemakers, which makes her qualified to speak on the subject. The argument Vale presents makes two claims: sustainable, organic, and biodynamic wines are the healthiest way to consume wine, and, modern winemaking is unhealthy. Instead, it could be the case that wine manufacturing technique doesn’t equate to healthiness. Despite Vale’s aforementioned wine courses and discussions with winemakers, her lack of experience in the subject matters leads to a red herring fallacy and doesn’t hold up as a credible source for understanding sustainable, organic, or biodynamic wines.

Vitis Vinifera, Spain — Photo by Nacho Domínguez Argenta on Unsplash

Vale’s Introduction to Sustainable, Organic, and Biodynamic Wine

Vale starts off the article by indicating that wine is necessary for getting her through parenthood and that when she is making decisions about the things that she puts in her body, she tries to pick the healthiest option of any product offering. She says, “What’s lurking in a bottle depends on how it’s processed, so to get the full health benefits without too many questionable ingredients, I educated myself further.”(Vale) This phrasing Vale chooses immediately makes me think that something nefarious is going on in regular wine, without Vale citing any evidence to back it up. She then goes on to illustrate that the most common methods of winemaking involve the use of additives and insinuates that additives are innately unhealthy. She also claims that there are numerous claimed health benefits linked to drinking wine. Right away, this indication that some wine is healthier than others is where the article starts to head south. She describes some health benefits that wine has as “boosting heart health and acting as a shield for certain types of cancer.” Despite numerous claims of the health benefits of red wine, there are very few peer-reviewed studies to indicate that there are any tangible health benefits. In fact, alcohol in all of its varieties are classified as a Level 1 Carcinogen by The International Agency for Research on Cancer. (“Preventable Exposures Associated With Human Cancers”) Because of the misleading information around the health benefits of wine, Vale’s article continues to fall apart.

It’s at this point in the article where the red-herring circles back. Vale pivots the article by describing her perceived understanding of the differences between ‘Sustainable, Organic, and Biodynamic’ wines. She doesn’t list any references for these descriptions, which is another red flag for the credibility of the article, but instead chooses to describe them with her questionable definitions. For example, she describes ‘Sustainable’ wine as follows: “First there is certified sustainable, where vineyards put into practice a variety of sustainable practices both good for the health of you and the environment.” (Vale) Using ‘sustainable’ to define sustainability doesn’t make for a clear answer, nor does her definition offer any sources. More so, at no point during these descriptions does she provide any concrete evidence that these methods are in fact healthier for consumers or the environment. As a matter of fact, she makes no correlation at all between wine and health past referencing “multiple studies”, which again, are unlinked. This article has a clear red herring fallacy — it started off spouting the health benefits and describing how she likes to pick the healthiest products but drops the ball in actually linking the described production methods to any health benefits at all.

Sustainability?

Once Vale’s position pivots from the health benefits of wine to the descriptions of types of wine production and growing, any chance of credibility the article had starts to crumble. She starts by umbrellaing all of the terms under ‘Sustainable’: this gives the impression that organic and biodynamic wines are types of sustainable wines. In fact, she even claims ‘There are 3 main categories of sustainable wines here in the US.’, but once again fails to cite any sources for this statement. There are several associations that determine a vineyard’s sustainability, so while there is no one true governing body on the matter, Wine Institute indicates that ‘Sustainable winegrowing is a comprehensive set of practices that are environmentally sound, socially equitable and economically viable.’ (Wine Institute) Vale’s claims about sustainability offer no proof, so I’d argue that this specific couldn’t possibly always be the case: organic wines, for example, just need to be made of certified organic fruit, but that doesn’t indicate that the vineyard is run sustainably.

Once Vale starts to dive deeper into the aforementioned types of sustainable wines, the credibility sinks even lower. Under her umbrella of ‘Sustainable Wines’, she alludes to ‘Certified Sustainable’ as the next topic. Vale then goes on to define ‘Certified Sustainable’ with the following quote, “Whether it’s irrigating the land in a less impactful way or using a fertilizer free of chemicals, vineyards producing sustainable wines are taking steps to be more ecological.” (Vale) This statement isn’t credible at all. First, everything is made of chemicals, so while it is common knowledge that fertilizers are bad, classifying the methods used in sustainable agriculture as ‘free of chemicals’ is misleading. In addition, wine regions all have their own rules and regulations on how irrigation can be done. There are so many laws, in fact, that it would be prohibitive to cite them all. Since wine is grown in over 70 regions, each with its own laws, there is no true source on how to best perform irrigation. (Our World in Data) Essentially, irrigation in vineyards depends on local laws and can vary depending on climate, water table levels, and other factors. While it is admirable for her to consider water use in the space of being more ecological, it is not something that many vineyards can go out and change without consequence. According to Appalachian State University, “Sustainability, as a philosophy, integrates economics, ecology, and community into the farming operation.” (Appalachian State University) Essentially, sustainability really depends on a winemaker’s own vineyard, economics, and community. Since Vale hasn’t made it clear what being sustainable actually means, the information she presents in this paragraph isn’t useful to the reader or consumers.

Tuscan Landscapes — Photo by Reuben Teo on Unsplash

Organic Winemaking

Next, Vale goes on to explain ‘Organic Winemaking’. She says, “Wines that are labeled organic need to have all the certifications required in order to classify them as organic and be marked certified on the bottle. For this, a vineyard must not only make their wines using certified organic grapes, they must also refrain from using non-organic pesticides, herbicides or non-organic fertilizers or chemicals.” (Vale) Legally, the definition of organic winemaking depends on what country you are in. Her phrasing also contradicts an earlier comment she had, namely that sustainable wines needed to be free of fertilizers using chemicals. According to her own claim that organic wines are types of sustainable wines, and that sustainable wines cannot use fertilizers with chemicals, her own definition of organic wines contradicts the entire description she provides. Further on in her description of organic wines she makes the claim that sulfites can’t be added to them, then goes on to clarify that the rule isn’t the case in Europe. Over 50% of the world's production of wine comes from Europe, with the U.S. trailing far behind at 8% (Karlsson) — to start a paragraph with a misleading fact throws further questions of her credibility in my mind. The author criticizes the U.S. limiting the use of sulfur in natural winemaking, which again contradicts her earlier stance on additives. She ends her description of organic wine by insinuating that, perhaps, the addition of sulfur and sulfites in wine might not be that bad since Europe does it too. Once again, Vale has failed to provide adequate information to accurately portray what ‘Organic Winemaking’ is.

Biodynamics

Vale’s lack of further analysis into the intricate art and science that is biodynamic winemaking really seals the deal to me: this article is not credible and generally misleading. At this point in the article, she moves on to her final type of winemaking, ‘Biodynamic’. Vale describes biodynamic winemaking as: “It is basically a process where all of the elemental tasks of farming are ecologically interrelated.” She then paints a picture of a vineyard where sheep fertilize the land and owls control the pests, but doesn’t go into much more detail about the nuances and rituals in biodynamic winemaking. Vale does go on to note that biodynamic winemaking allows the use of sulfur and sulfites, and she frames it in a way that makes it appear to be positive. This change of opinion on additives doesn’t strengthen her arguments. This is also her last write up of the actual benefits or differences between sustainable, organic, or biodynamic wines before launching into a full-fledged advertisement.

Vale ends her article by listing off places to buy sustainable, organic, and biodynamic wine. While I don’t see any referral links hiding in her write up, the ending of the article makes it feel like one big advertisement. I concede that she does list some important wineries in regards to ‘Sustainable, Organic, or Biodynamic’ wines, like Tablas Creek which is a huge root nursery for California wines (Tablas Creek), or Bonterra who continues to pave the way in organic and biodynamic winemaking (Barth), she also lists some questionable ones. As of her writing in July of 2020, at least one of the wineries on her list is involved in a large political scandal, (Mobley) which, in my opinion, reduces the credibility of her writing even more.

An Almost Empty Glass of Wine — Photo by Irene Kredenets on Unsplash

Conclusion

In summary, when taking a critical look at Sustainable, Organic & Biodynamic Wines Moms Will Adore by Michelle Vale, the article and author offer little credibility. Vale uses a red-herring fallacy to begin the article by claiming health benefits, then pivots to poorly researched descriptions of ‘Sustainable, Organic, and Biodynamic’ wines without ever circling back to her original claims. The article is informative in introducing the subject matter to consumers who may not know about ‘Sustainable, Organic, and Biodynamic’ wines, but it feels more like an advertisement than a well thought out piece. Because Vale’s argument is unsupported and her descriptions of these practices are incomplete and occasionally factually incorrect, this article would not be an adequate source to cite for any research on the topic of Biodynamic Wine.