(SeattleWeeekly) - The cult of the winemaker is endemic within the broader culture: It’s why famed wine consultants can make millions of dollars and travel around the globe consulting on projects from Walla Walla to Mendoza. Wine writers and sommeliers do love to talk about the terroir of wines, but we also like to discuss the technical minutiae of that wine’s production, the work of the winemaker.

Contrasted against that image of the winemaker-as-hero is the idea that perhaps we should get out of Mother Nature’s way. So-called “natural wine” has become the newest in a growing constellation of wine styles that promise little in the way of winemaker intervention—but does that term mean anything, and are those resulting wines any good?

Let’s unpack the term just a bit: natural wine sits alongside terms like organic and bio-dynamic that have some generally agreed-upon principles but little actual legal meaning. An organic winemaker can’t use commercial fertilizers or pesticides, but that doesn’t mean sugar or acid isn’t added to balance the wine once it’s in the winery. Bio-dynamic wines adhere to the basic principles laid out by Rudolf Steiner: The whole of the vineyard is a living organism, and thus certain rhythms and rituals are observed. Both schools have adherents all over the world, for ethical reasons and because many winemakers believe the wine is better.

Natural wine is more about the winemaking process (though it starts with organic, bio-dynamic grapes) and in particular about not adding certain commonly used chemicals and treatments. For example, natural wines will be made with little or no added sulfur, which is commonly used in winemaking as a preservative. Additionally, those wines are fermented with naturally occurring yeasts, not commercial strains that are more predictable and often add specific flavor notes to the wine. Proponents like to say that this is wine “the way it should be.”