Before discussing about the evident provocation of the title, it is the case to
state a rightful introduction: sulfur dioxide is not a healthy substance, a
condition determined, as usual, by the quantity being used, by the use and the
abuse. Sulfur dioxide is not even the absolute evil of wine - something someone
is trying to support in many occasions - by recognizing to this substance the
discriminating power capable of defining a good and genuine wine or a bad and
adulterated one. One more rightful statement: as health is a subject of evident
collective interest - everyone wishes oneself to live in good health - it is also
evident a healthy wine is something of collective interest, both honest
producers and consumers, with no exception. Therefore, if it is true sulfur
dioxide can be a harmful substance for the body - in particular, for those
subjects particularly sensitive to this element - the reduction of its usage is
of course something to be wished in order to have a healthier wine.
If we see what is happening in the world of wine in recent years, it seems there
is a war going on against sulfur dioxide - sometimes being cut-throat as well -
something never seen in the past, something never seen for any other beverage or
food. Sulfur dioxide is widely used by food and beverage industry, sometimes
used in quantity higher than what it is usually done for wine, nevertheless, it
does not seem this is arising the very same outcry, the same cut-throat
opposition happening for wine. It would make no sense to give an example of
foods and beverages in which sulfur dioxide is widely used: the list would be
extremely long and boring. Moreover, in order to realize how sulfur dioxide is
used in foods and beverages, it is enough to do what it is not usually done when
you go to a shop: reading the list of ingredients printed on the label of those
products we easily, and with too much trust, put in a carriage.
It is not difficult to find that out: the most frequent indications include
sulfur dioxide, contain sulfites, or the famous European codes beginning
with the E letter, followed by numbers going from 220 to 229, a category
identifying sulfites, commonly used as preservatives, with the exception
of calcium bisulfite (E227) also having thickening properties. For the sake of
completeness, potassium metabisulfite, that is the substance mainly used in wine
making for the production of sulfur dioxide, is identified with the code
E224. Nevertheless, no one, maybe just few, make objections on some products
in which are evidently present sulfites used as a preservative. We happily buy
them, we take them home and we consume them with satisfaction and pleasure. Wine
is different: in the poor beverage of Bacchus, even the minimum suspect of the
presence of sulfites can cause endless arguments, even blaming the producer of
adulterating the wines, as if it was a crime.
It is then a big surprise to find out sulfur dioxide is naturally found in wine
and also in case this substance is not added by man, yeast produces sulfur
dioxide during fermentation. It should be said the production of sulfur dioxide
made by yeast during fermentation can also reach 40mg per liter - depending on
the type - however the average quantity if about 20-25mg per liter. A quantity
evidently lower than what it is usually added during production that - it should
be noticed - is set by law and it is 200mg per liter for white wines and 150mg
for red wines. Once again, for the sake of clearness, it should be said the
maximum quantity set by law is rarely reached and - in good viticultural and
wine making conditions - the quantity is even lower than the half. Let me say
this clear: I am not trying to justify or supporting the use of sulfur dioxide
in wine making, I am simply stating concrete facts.
The use of sulfur dioxide in wine making is a very ancient practice: not only it
was used as a preservative of wine and in order to sanify it, but also for
sanifying wine tanks and the rooms where it was being produced wine. Before the
introduction of potassium metabisulfite, sulfur dioxide was produced by burning
sulfur pills, a practice, used since many centuries, which can also be
considered traditional. This practice - to which is usually recognized a
romantic and genuine meaning - is indeed quite difficult to
control as it is not possible to know the exact quantity of sulfur dioxide added
to the wine. The use of modern and evil potassium metabisulfite
offers a better control, as every gram produces about 0.55 grams of sulfur
dioxide. In conclusion, despite potassium metabisulfite is considered the
absolute evil of wine, this allows a conscious and judicious use of sulfur
dioxide.
We all agree on the fact sulfur dioxide is not he healthiest of the substances
and limiting its use in wine making it is desirable, also by considering the
property of this element to alter the organoleptic profile of a wine. I am
suspecting the war against sulfur dioxide is just a new wine fashion, a
subject of which everyone can talk about, also with in a simple way and without
having any specific competence in wine making: after all, if everyone is talking
about this, there must be a reason. It is something everyone talk about as if
this is the main problem of wine - indeed, the worst of them all - even though,
in my opinion, I believe the real problems of the world of wine are elsewhere
and it is convenient to keep them hidden. Producers, as they are legitimately
trying to make a profit from their job, follow this fashion and start to make
wines by emphasizing the fact they do not contain added sulfites. There is also
who, cunningly, say their wines do not contain sulfites, a pretty improbable
condition, as yeast however produce this substance. My point of view is still
the same, also in this case: glass at hand, I want the wine to be evaluated by
my senses, without the conditioning of words and fashions. And in case
the evident faults of a wine are being justified by saying it is because there
are no added sulfites, this is not a merit: it is an aggravating circumstance.
Antonello Biancalana
|