For decades, there has been an underground wine trend in this country that has been fostered by some faulty assumptions about today's commercial wines.

I would call this the "Natural Wine Movement," but the word "movement" implies it is widespread. Fortunately, it isn't. To me, the topic is promoted by people who are more emotional than factual.

I got the idea to write about it because a woman I had never met asserted, during a dinner party, that most of today's U.S. wines were made by people with evil intent. She said the only "safe" wine was "natural" wine. She said additives made wine harmful.

I replied, as politely as possible, that she was circulating fake news. I avoided calling her a kook.

After she alleged that natural wines were more healthful than "non-natural" wines, I asked her to define the term. And she admitted that there was no widely agreed-upon definition. Even advocates of natural wine admit that.

Probably the most widely held notion by people who support natural wine is that it must not contain any sulfites. Or that to be natural, wine may not have any sulfites that are added.

Many wines are made with no S02. Some are sound. But unless a winemaker knows how to do it, many wines made without added sulfites will display odd aromas or tastes that scientists define as spoilage. Sulfur dioxide has been widely used for more than 2000 years to prevent spoilage.

Indeed, today's best wines are based on sound scientific principles that natural wine proponents might despise. And even wines that have no sulfites added still contain them! Sulfites are naturally occurring by-products of fermentation, posing a dilemma for natural wine advocates.

It's true that sulfites can be harmful to some people — technically. But almost all reactions to S02 only occur in extremely rare circumstances, which rarely occur with wine. Sulfur reactions from wine are so rare that scientists do not consider them to be an issue.

Natural wine supporters often say they prefer wines made with minimal intervention. They often say that the U.S. government permits dozens of additives to be used in wine. This is true.

But what natural wine proponents don't say is that almost no wineries use harmful additives. And that virtually every additive has a purpose — to make wine that is spoilage-free.

In addition, almost all legal wine additives are catalytic agents, which help wine to be sound and tasty. And almost all such agents end up being filtered out of the wine before it is bottled. If any additive remains, it is in such amounts that it is harmless.

I am not a chemist, so I avoid specifics. But I recall my first year investigating wine thoroughly, about 1973. In the next decade, about 30% of the wines I tasted were spoiled in one way or another.

I am now in my 52nd year of formally evaluating wine. Of the commercial, non-natural wines I have evaluated in the last decade, about 1% are spoiled. But of the natural wines I've evaluated, roughly 20% have some sort of technical flaw.

Those who adhere to their beliefs in natural wines argue that they are better for humans. Scientists who are experts in this field might disagree. All wine drunk in moderation has some healthful benefits and some drawbacks.

In the five decades I have consumed wine daily, I'd guess that I am about $1,500 poorer because I was willing to try "natural" wines.

Wine of the Week: 2023 Girasole ($16) — 2023 Girasole Pinot Blanc, Mendocino County ($16) — This certified organic wine has a fresh tropical fruit aroma with hints of lemon peel and guava. It is slightly sweet, but dry enough to serve with a wide variety of seafood dishes.

To find out more about Sonoma County resident Dan Berger and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Johann Siemens at Unsplash