The no- and low-alcohol conundrum

As I noted last week (Has the WHO lost its way regarding alcohol?), the World Health Organization has mistakenly taken a very negative formal stance with regard to alcohol consumption. I contended in that post that there is little basis for this stance. Nevertheless, many members of the public are taking this very seriously, and “mainstream media is creating a negative narrative about wine with click-bait headlines that can impact government policy as well as popular opinion and consumption for years to come” (Come Over October: creating a positive narrative about wine).

One wine-industry response to this has been the increased development of low-alcohol and no-alcohol wines (sometimes called No-Lo wines). This is thus a topic worth looking at here, because there is little historically acquired expertise for this process (see my earlier post: Low- and no-alcohol wines really do need to be the way of the future).

It is particularly worth noting (Nolo: wine's final frontier) that:

“The rise of no or low-alcohol [Nolo] wines goes hand in hand with the increase of those seeking a healthier life. The benefits of a traditionally alcoholic beverage without alcohol are huge. For those with addiction issues or who are simply taking a break from alcohol, it can psychologically offer the placebo-like adult sophistication of an alcoholic beverage without the associated health risks.”

So, this is an issue that goes way beyond wine, or even alcohol in general, especially for younger generations (eg. Millennials drive no-alcohol gains in the US). Nevertheless, in this blog post I will restrict my comments to the making of the No-Lo wines themselves.

It has been argued (The war on wine) that: “Nonalcoholic wine is ... a gross contradiction in terms — and just kind of gross.” That is, wine contains alcohol by definition, so removing it creates a false terminology. More importantly, removing (or even reducing) the alcohol has a very big effect on the texture and taste of the resulting drink. Jeff Siegel (The war on wine) covers this topic in detail, as does an anonymous commenter (The idea of dealcoholised wine is appalling).

There three current methods (What is dealcoholized wine?): vacuum distillation, reverse osmosis, and spinning cone. The first two require heating the grape juice to almost body temperature, to evaporate the unwanted components (ie. alcohol) — this does, indeed, sound like it would have a pretty serious effect on the wine. The third method is thus the most common, in which the liquid is sent down a vertical series of spinning cones — the spinning motion of the cones separates out the different components, including the alcohol.

What is most interesting, however, for we consumers is what wine-makers are going to do to address this issue, of the changed nature of the resulting NoLo wine. It seems very unlikely that they will do nothing for their product (see: 8 reasons to get excited about the no-alcohol category). However, it has been noted (The challenges of making low/no alcohol wine) that:

“It was striking how different the wines were. Removing even the smallest amount of alcohol affects the flavour; removing a chunk of it fundamentally alters the wine, demonstrating just how much impact alcohol has on wine flavour.”

This, then, is the conundrum. A wine is usually treated as having five components: sweetness, acidity, tannin, alcohol and body. Removing the alcohol actually affects all five of these, not just the fourth one. Something needs to be done to replicate the body, mouth-feel and perceived warmth associated with the equivalent alcoholic wine (The 5 characteristics of non-alcoholic wine).

Given all of this, it should come as no great surprise what the response has been: Why a fine de-alcoholised wine starts with an ‘undrinkable’ base. That is, we already know that, for example, if we intend to age a wine, then we need to start with a wine that is nothing like the intended drinking product: “a young Bordeaux or Barolo, for example, is intended to age and evolve for 20 years or more, and it is simply not going to be delicious after three years, unless you enjoy an astringently tannic mouthful” (How to define a good wine? It’s complicated). [On the weekend, my wife and I had a 2011 Rioja, which was perfect.]

So, it is no wonder that reduced alcohol wines need a pretty different starting point from usual, if they are to be any good at the end. That is: “vacuum distillation does result in the loss of 60% of the wine’s aromas, and 20% of the base product’s volume, and hence the need to exaggerate the aromatic profile before the process begins.” You can read the above article for a specific example (Why a fine de-alcoholised wine starts with an ‘undrinkable’ base).

Given this idea, we can now consider whether anyone has yet created what the wine media might consider acceptable, or even good. As one example, Dave McIntyre at the Washington Post, has  some suggestions: Even with the alcohol removed, these new wines are actually good.

More generally, it has been noted that Germany has been making non-alcoholic wines for more than a century (For the best nonalcoholic wines, look to Germany), and may thus have some pretty good examples of how to proceed.

Even here in Sweden there is progress. For example:

“Oddbird was started in 2013 by family therapist Moa Gürbüzer. After working with families struggling with alcohol-related problems, she saddled up and started Oddbird to create good wines without alcohol.”

I have tried a few of the wines, and they are perfectly acceptable (and are inexpensive).