There are two prisms through which to praise or condemn biodynamics. It can be judged based on the total effect it has had on farming over the course of its century-long existence, including all the beliefs from the past. Or it can be judged solely based on the current standards as stated by Demeter or other certifying agencies.
For those in support of the idea of biodynamics, the result is better soil, better ecology, and better wine, but there is also the positive social outcome of what biodynamics has done for the world. With the emergence and success of Demeter, Rudolf Steiner and biodynamics birthed an idea within the twentieth century that food and wine could be held to higher standards than what the government sets. This has launched a host of other standards competing for attention from the wine consumer that have raised awareness and demand for climate-friendly practices. That the organic standard owes existential thanks to biodynamics is certainly a point in its favor for many people.
Countermovements in wine eco-certification like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) have emerged, challenging the notion that biodynamic preparations have a place in the modern wine world. Some might argue that what ROC appears to be doing is stripping biodynamics of its mysticism and focusing on ecological outcomes. Some might view these movements as superior to biodynamics because they are more scientific, and others still defend biodynamics, suggesting that the proof is in the wine or the values.
For those on the side of biodynamics, those values are important. The principle that a farm, or a vineyard, should be its own cohesive ecosystem without outside inputs is a hard-to-attain goal, but one worth striving for. On the one hand, there may be the ecological arguments, that when done well it has a lighter impact on the land than most of the rest of viticulture, but there are also the ideals embedded within it. For many, the principle of a small, independent, naturally-inclined vineyard is worth fighting for. To these people, the resulting wine is more honest and authentic.
And for those who remain unconvinced of the values or efficacy of the farming, there is the final defense, that it does not do any harm. The amendments don’t pollute the environment, the wine isn’t toxic – there is no problem. Others contend that espousing unscientific ideas does do harm. Linda Chalker-Scott summarizes this view: “… when these things are promoted … as being better than conventional … without any kind of scientific evidence, then it does exacerbate those differences where people become less and less trustful of science.” She goes on to list vaccines, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), and climate change as issues on which public viewpoints don’t always line up with the scientific consensus and where this lack of trust in science has resulted in tangible harm.
Still, many are unsure what the right path is. Part of the reason there is so much uncertainty is that biodynamics and organics are continually changing, as both farming principles adapt to new times, and farming fads come and go. Some of the researchers who have studied biodynamics say that there is much more research needed, and more research can still help.
In his introduction to one of his books, An Outline of Occult Science, Steiner notes why his audience was drawn to the topic: “… what attracts many adherents of occult science – or occultism – is nothing but the fatal craving for what is unknown and mysterious or even vague.” One could ask whether the same attraction is true of biodynamic farming, whether adherents are moved by core ideas that feel important and true, and are justified with the level of scientific rigor available at the time. Or maybe the popularity of biodynamic principles like natural remedies, holistic perspectives, self sufficiency, and circular, animal-inclusive viticulture, is also a reaction to the modern world. Whatever vintners decide to do, they will need to make sure that their farming system can stand the test of time.
