originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Thank you for the enlightening discussion, and semantic touché Mark E.
And Mark, while you are on the line, some follow up questions re: "I would not call a wine spoofed it had been sterile filtered for yeast/bacterial stability."
Would you find it equally acceptable if it had been sterile filtered for aesthetic reasons? Because that is the issue here.
Since yeast/bacterial stability is also used to justify the use of SO2 right after harvesting, in the must before inoculation, and/or when bottling, and you are presumably less sanguine about these, where do you draw the line? Where do the ends stop justifying the means?
So the first question is pretty straightforward: sterile filtration would not be used for that purpose, probably some other type of filtration or perhaps letting the wine settle rather than bottling cloudy.
SO2 is trickier. (Maybe Messrs Brezeme, Dashe and Edmunds can chime in). SO2 right after harvest in the must is not for stability per se, but to select the microorganisms you want to favor and/or (in whites, in particular) to inhibit browning. But I'm not sure if tiny amounts would be considered spoof vs large amounts. I can't really answer that. I'm sure a panel of natural winemakers would give different answers.
And where do you stop? Not sure where the line is - some would say no SO2, others perhaps tiny amounts . . .