Natural wine is no less harmful to health; hangover is also the same

Natural wine is one of the most sought-after beverage categories in the United States today, and the health claims are just as intoxicating: Drink natural wine, advocates say, and your headaches and hangovers will be less; you won’t feel as dehydrated; your gut health will improve.

“There’s a general perception that when you drink something cleaner, you’re drinking something healthier,” said Anita Oberholster, a grape and wine expert at the University of California at Davis. But “there is no clear evidence of that,” she said.

So is natural wine really better than its conventional counterparts, or is this just a bit of clever marketing? We looked at some of the most common health claims for natural wine and asked experts if they had any science in their favor.

What is natural wine?

Before evaluating natural wine health claims, it is important to agree on what we are talking about.

Unlike products with the organic seal of certification, which must meet a clear and regulated set of federal requirements, natural wine is, at best, the result of a set of voluntary and well-intentioned production principles. Use organically grown grapes; do not add anything (eg yeast) or modify anything (like acidity levels) during the fermentation process; do not filter the final product (so as to retain its natural flavors and microbes); and add little or no sulfite (substances produced naturally during the fermentation process or added to preserve freshness or minimize oxidation).

At worst, “natural wine” is a marketing slogan, capitalizing on an extremely popular cultural trend.

“It’s not like the term is regulated. So if a company tells you they’re selling natural wine, it’s impossible to know what they’re really saying,” said Oberholster.

Claim 1: less pesticides

A recurring argument is that conventional wines can be loaded with toxic pesticides, while natural wines – grown with organic viticulture practices – are not.

Evidence: According to Oberholster, all wine sold in the US – whether conventional or otherwise – can only contain infinitesimal amounts of pesticide residues. Anything greater than that, according to regulators, would pose risks to human health.

“Allowed levels of pesticides in wine are almost undetectable,” she said. “You wouldn’t be able to notice them without very advanced instruments. The levels are far below anything that could affect human health.”

Of course, there is no evidence today that such small exposures to pesticides can affect health. But perhaps we can later learn the effect of cumulative exposures over time. “Research evolves,” said Oberholster, “and what we know to be true today may not be true forever.”

Claim 2: weaker hangover

There’s a feeling among aficionados that natural wine is less aggressive or harmful to our overall constitution — something “soft on the system,” as Simon Woolf, journalist and wine expert, said in a 2020 interview with the Wine Scholar Guild.

Alice Feiring, a famous New York-based wine writer, said, “I don’t want to sound like other fanatics about this, but natural wine really does feel better in your body.” But she was careful to note that this was not a scientifically proven claim.

As natural wine tends to have a lower alcohol level by volume than conventional wines, some say it is easier to process the next day.

Evidence: Andrew Waterhouse, professor emeritus and director of the Robert Mondavi Institute of Food and Wine Science at the University of California at Davis, said natural wine won’t lighten your morning after.

“There is absolutely no proof that the natural wine hangover will be any less severe,” he said. Feiring agreed, noting that she drinks “almost exclusively natural wine, and I’ve had more than my share of hangovers.”

“There’s no magic trick to avoid them,” she continued. Feiring added that while some natural wines have a lower alcohol content, that’s not a rule — and some natural wines have a very high alcohol content. “Just go to your wine store and look at the labels if you want to clear up this common myth,” she said.

Claim 3: less sulfites

Another prevalent claim is that both added and natural sulfites in conventional wines are harmful to human health. It is true that, in excess, exposure to sulfite can cause a number of problems, including mild headaches, dehydration, and severe respiratory distress.

In the 1980s, it was widely reported that high levels of sulfites sprayed on vegetables to keep them from wilting or browning were making many people sick.

Conventional wine is legally allowed to contain 350 parts per million of sulfites, while natural wine generally limits sulfite levels to 100 parts per million — but they typically contain much less.

The evidence: Amarat Simonne, who also goes by Amy, is a professor of food safety at the University of Florida and has researched the effects of sulfites on human health. She said that unless you are among the 2% to 3% of people who suffer from sulfite intolerance, exposure to legally permitted levels of sulfite in food and drink will not adversely affect your health.

“But you never know,” she added. “People’s tolerance for sulfites can vary over time.”

Those with true sulfite intolerance, especially if they have asthma, may experience respiratory complications from exposure to the chemicals in conventional wine. More likely, sulfite intolerant people can become very dehydrated and have a headache after drinking unnatural wine — symptoms that go hand in hand with a traditional hangover.

But Waterhouse’s assessment was more forceful: “I am not aware of any data indicating that wine with added sulfites has negative health outcomes for most people.”

Claim 4: Better gut health

Finally, some enthusiasts claim that since natural wine is rich in good bacteria, which are not filtered out or minimized during the winemaking process, natural wine can improve gut health.

Evidence: Several limited studies have cautiously indicated that red wine may have digestive benefits, but more research is needed. And none of these studies have shown differences between natural and conventional wines — nor should they, said David Mills, a molecular biologist and professor emeritus in the departments of Food Science and Technology and Viticulture and Enology at the University of California at Davis.

“There wouldn’t be any significant difference in microbial content whether the wine was called natural or not,” said Mills, who was skeptical of the significant gut health benefits of drinking any type of wine.

“Alcohol will kill most of the beneficial bacteria anyway, so it’s not like the wine is going to come close to the level of kimchi or yogurt.”

Conclusion

No matter how wine is produced — or any alcoholic beverage, for that matter — it can do significant harm.

Studies that have suggested that moderate wine consumption may have some benefits, such as better heart health or lowered cholesterol, have been inconclusive at best. And the health risks — cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease and dementia, to name a few — are numerous and well documented.

Also, Mills said, there simply isn’t a robust body of research on natural wine.

If you like the taste of natural wine, or want to support sustainable agriculture, go ahead and drink it. But know that it may not be the best option for health you imagined.

Translated by Luiz Roberto M. Gonçalves