Another Reason Why Organically Grown Wine Matters: Groundwater Contamination from Pesticides

Many of the organic or Biodynamic vineyardists that I talk to talk about the pride they feel in knowing that the water running through the vines they work on is clean when it leaves the property.

Therefore you'd be forgiven for not knowing what the other guys out there are doing. Because they don't say what the water is like when it leaves their vineyard.

When you buy that cheap supermarket bottle in the grocery (not organic) or even an expensive one from a high end winery, you may be supporting the kind of pesticide use that leads to groundwater contamination.

We are fortunate here in California to live in a state that requires pesticide use reporting. That way state authorities can postulate where the pesticide is coming from when state authorities are monitoring groundwater contamination from pesticides.

This video from the state DPR may make you wonder - well, what agricultural pesticides are they finding in that groundwater? And that might be a good question to ask. Because when it comes to the 90 percent of wine that is grown industrially over the state, as well as those "artisanal" growers, there are indeed neurotoxins, developmental toxins, carcinogens and more that are applied to the vines. It's not a message you're going to hear from the Wine Institute.

This video is in English, with Spanish subtitles.

  

The state's DPR has just published an update to its ongoing progress report. You can read it here. Chlorpyrifos is one of the wine grape pesticides mentioned in the report. It's in Lorsban and Dursban and other brands.

It's an old school organophosphate that's been linked to autoimmune disorders and more. It's become widespread in some of the agricultural areas of California. This comes from the Wikipedia article about chlorpyrifos:

"In samples collected between 2007 and 2009 from families living in Northern California, TCPy was found in 98.7% of floor wipes tested and in 65% of urine samples tested. For both children and adults, the average concentrations of TCPy in urine were lower in the later study.[48] A 2008 study found dramatic drops in the urinary levels of chlorpyrifos metabolites when children in the general population switched from conventional to organic diets.[49]^"

Of course, the best thing you can do to prevent pesticide use is to support organic farmers and organic grape growers and the vintners who grow or buy these grapes.

PESTICIDES IN CALIFORNIA VINEYARDS

Here is what the other guys are using (data from the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation). These are the same statistics I trot out about once or twice a year on this blog, but they bear repeating. There are 52,000 pounds - yes POUNDS - of chlorpyrifos used on wine grapes alone on 25,000+ acres.

Bird and Bee Toxins

• Boscalid: bee hazard, possible carcinogen

53,340 pounds a year on 239,940 acres

• Chlorantraniliprole: bee hazard

3,877 pounds on 52,626 acres

• Imidacloprid: kills bees and birds

44,040+ pounds spread on 189,885 acres

• Methoxyfenozide: kills bees and birds

28,711 pounds spread on 139,978 acres

Carcinogens - Probable and Possible

• 1, 3 Dichloropropene: probable carcinogen

666,004 pounds on 2,648 acres

• Mancozeb: developmental toxin and probable carcinogen

9,482 pounds over 6,465 acres

• Oxyfluorfen: possible carcinogen

71,267 pounds on 209,122 acres

• Pendimethalin: possible carcinogen

142,253 pounds on 68,146 acres

Neurotoxins

• Chlorpyrifos: neurotoxin

52,341 pounds on 28,359 acres

• Glufosinate ammonium: neurotoxin 

70,701 pounds on 114,843+ acres

MAP: CHLORPYRIFOS APPLIED TO WINE GRAPES (California Dept. of Public Health map/data from 2010, the latest year for which mapping data exists):

Here's where the chlorpyrifos is. I should clarify that this data is not showing groundwater contamination. This data is showing the application of chlorpyrifos to vineyards. From vineyards, it can reach wells.

Chlorprifos found in well water is heavily linked to a hugely increased risk for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other pretty dire autoimmune conditions. (Read on for specific citations).

Notice the applications are not just the Central Valley. There are more than a few Lorsban users in Sonoma and Napa counties as well as in Monterey all along Highway 101. Remember this is just showing the chlorpyrifos applied to wine grapes alone. (It's also applied to many other crops.)

Of course, this is one of the leading "bad old pesticides," nothing like the newer ones - like imidacloprid, for instance. Just kidding. (Imidacloprid, heralded as the latest in the long list of "wonder" chemicals, is now on the state's list of agricultural chemicals tested for in groundwater.)

Here are the maps for Napa and Sonoma counties showing where chlorpyrifos is being used on wine grapes. In Napa there is only one company that uses it, but they are the biggest single landowner and grower in the county. In Sonoma, some of the Lorsban users are prominent vintners.

The map shows 2010 data from the California Dept. of Pesticide
Regulation PUR that has been mapped by the California Dept. of
Public Health. The latest available PUR data (2012) has not been mapped
but shows 272 pounds of chlorpyrifos used on 162 acres in Napa in 2012.

 This map shows 2010 data from the California Dept. of Pesticide 
Regulation PUR that has been mapped by the California Dept. of 
Public Health. The latest available PUR data (2012) has not been mapped 
but shows 123 pounds of chlorpyrifos used on 65 acres in Sonoma in 2012.

You can explore the maps and data on California's wine grape pesticides at the California Dept. of Public Health here.

Currently the DPR is deciding whether to restrict chlorpyrifos sales solely to registered pest control advisors. 

Its press release on this matter states, "Since 2004, 1-2 million pounds of chlorpyrifos has been applied each year to agricultural lands in California." At the national level, the EPA estimates that 10 million pounds are used on agricultural lands in the U.S.

All this comes in the wake of epidemiological studies released in 2009 showing rural Californians drinking private well water in Tulare, Fresno and Kern counties had an 82% increased chance of getting Parkinson's due to chlorpyrifos being used in their areas.

(Unfortunately the state of California does not test groundwater for chlorpyrifos, having, for some reason, decided that it is not an imminent threat, but the UCLA researchers did test for, basing their assessment on known health risks and the assessment of other states).

You can contact your local ag commissioner to obtain a list of the sites and applications of chlorpyrifos in your county. Just ask for the latest Pesticide Use Report from the county. It is public information. Some counties (Napa, Sonoma) require sending in a form (which they will email to you) to obtain the data. Others (Santa Barbara County, for instance) just post a link to it online. It makes for interesting reading.

The state's Pesticide Use Reports are available online here. These, too, are broken out by crop type or chemical and location. Readers can read the reports for each county in California as well.

UPDATE: Feb. 22, 2015: I just found out that the EPA has issued a press release expressing its concerns over chlorpyrifos and worker safety. Its latest report states, "We are concerned about some workers who mix, load and apply chlorpyrifos to agricultural and other non-residential sites...We are also concerned about workers who work around areas that are treated with chlorpyrifos as part of their jobs." 

More information is also available from Environmental Health News which posted a story about the topic here.

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch—Chlorpyrifos (Used on 5% of Wine Grapes)—is Dead (But Only Sort Of): California Bans Sales (But Not Yet Use) Effective February 6

Five percent of California's wine grape
growers use Lorsban, a restricted material
linked for years to neurological diseases in
children and adults.

For decades, scientists—and especially pediatricians—have been calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos, an old school insecticide that is used by conventional and, sadly, yes, sustainable growers.

Starting Feb. 6, sales of the neurotoxin in California will be banned.

Glasses up! Break out the bubbly!

But maybe fill up the glasses only half or a quarter full, since this is not actually a full glass victory.

Over the years, I have written a number of articles about chlorpyrifos in the wine industry.

Sold as Lorsban, the insecticide has a dark history—invented by war chemists in Germany before World War II)—and has been in the cross hairs of public health authorities since the 1980's.

For the last year data is available—2017—California wine grape growers used 49,417 pounds on 26,430 acres.

Why should we care about this dastardly chemical? And will banning its sale in the state end its use?

• In a pesticide hair testing study conducted by the Greens in Europe, it was found in 10% of the 150+ participants.

• It's linked by numerous scientific studies to neurological conditions—including damaging child brain development—and neurological diseases like Alzehimer's and Parkinson's.

• It contaminates water supplies in California where it's used (now mostly in the Central Valley, but it's been used in Sonoma, Napa, Monterey and elsewhere over decades. It's becoming increasingly popular on wine grapes in the Tulare region). A story published by Environmental Health News about the study conducted by Beate Ritz (an expert who also testified in the Roundup trials, but that's another story) published in Environmental Health Perspectives summarized the study's findings:

People drinking well water within 500 meters of a dozen or more of the pesticides had a 66 percent greater rate of Parkinson’s, the study says. Airborne exposure only slightly increased the risk. [Boldings mine.]

• It also pollutes the air. 

• It is highly toxic to bees.

Heard enough?

• In 2015, the EPA said it wanted to ban the pesticide, but the wheels of government moved slowly. Cal EPA issued a press release in 2015 expressing its concerns over chlorpyrifos and worker safety. Its report stated,

"We are concerned about some workers who mix, load and apply chlorpyrifos to agricultural and other non-residential sites...We are also concerned about workers who work around areas that are treated with chlorpyrifos as part of their jobs." 

When Trump assumed power he killed the proposed nationwide ban.

Surprisingly

• Sustainable wine growers in the Wine Institute's Certified Sustainable Winegrowing program may use it but only during the first year of certification. (Why would this be allowed?) It is used to wipe out nematodes in replanting vineyards, controlling vine mealybugs and other uses. Basically, it's an exterminator.

• The California Association of Winegrape Growers, showing no compassion towards workers, residents or health officials (or the reputation of their industry) opposed the ban on selling it. According to an article published on Wine Business.com, the growers "and other agricultural organizations argued chlorpyrifos as another 'tool' in the farmers’ 'toolbox.'"

Sadly

• No one can legally buy chlorpyrifos in the state of California, but it is available outside of California. While California is now on the road to banning its use, that milestone, if approved, is two years away, according to state authorities. They are moving to cancel its use after a period of transition in which $5.7 million has been allocated to help growers using it try other products.

For now, its use was not made illegal—only its sale—so it remains a restricted material.

That means county ag commissioners must issue permits for its use. While ag commissioners are able to grant or deny permits, they cannot actually deny a permit for a legal chemical and it is still legal to use chlorpyrifos.

Just ask the Sonoma County ag commissioner's office: they had to give Sonoma Cutrer a permit to spray it on 100 acres in 2017. "We can't prohibit it because it is legal to use it, even though it's restricted," a spokesperson for the office said. Locals were alarmed. And rightly so. There is no requirement to warn when spraying is approved or about to take place.

UCLA researchers have documented the problem of ag commissioners' reluctance or inability to stop the use of restricted materials, writing a report on ag commissioners' track records. Read their full report here or local news coverage here. Certain counties will be more or less likely to continue granting permits.

A FEW CASE STUDIES FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WINE COUNTRY

• SONOMA

Gallo used 147 gallons of chlorpyrifos on 400 acres at its Two Rock vineyard.

Gallo sprayed 147 gallons of it over Gina Gallo's favorite Chardonnay vineyard, Two Rock, in Petaluma in 2015.

Sonoma Cutrer sprayed it on 100 acres in Sonoma in 2017. (Source: Sonoma County Ag Commissioner's public data—pesticide use report records—available from the county ag commissioner's office upon request).

Parents with children in nearby schools and homes are not required to be notified when the spray is used.

• NAPA

Laird Family in Napa (and Sonoma) has consistently used chlorpyrifos for years.

It is the largest land owner in Napa with 5% of the county's vines.

So why are Laird Family's wines sold even at Whole Foods in Berkeley? (You'll have to ask Whole Foods' wine experts or post on Whole Foods social media.)

Take a look at the second post on chlorpyrifos here to see maps of where wineries used it from 2000 to 2017 (latest year data is available). 

Finally It's Adieu to Chlorpyrifos: 1 in 20 Acres of California Vines Will No Longer Be Sprayed with Neurotoxin Related to Nazi's Nerve Gas

Raise a glass to the sunsetting of chlorpyrifos, one of the most dangerous agricultural chemicals that was used for decades on wine grapes (and other crops). 

In California, its use on agricultural crops came to an end Dec. 31, 2020.

Now the EPA has finally forbidden the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture nationwide. It was already banned in the EU earlier in 2020.

Still, it's shameful that it wasn't banned earlier, despite many attempts by scientists, pediatricians, the medical community and public health officials. It was on its way out the door when Trump prolonged its use by overturning attempts to ban it during his administration.

Yet what's most shameful of all is that it was ever used and then continued to be used on California vineyards. In 2018, the most recent year in which California released aggregated pesticide use data, the state's wine grape growers used 52,902 pounds of it on 28,822 acres.

WWI-WWII: GERMANY'S WEAPONIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

In World War I, the Germans established chemical warfare by introducing mustard gas, a breakthrough chemical weapon, against the British, killing as many as 20,000 in the first six weeks it was used on the battlefield. This success led the Germans to continue to develop chemical warfare. 

The Nazis took developing organophosphates as chemical weapons to new heights in World War II, enhancing work done in 1936 by Gerhard Schrader, a pioneer in organophosphates used as systemic insecticides in agriculture. His discoveries of the deadly nerve gas Sarin and the toxic organophosphate Tabun gave Germany a huge advantage in chemical warfare.

Schrader in his lab, I. G. Farben (photo: Bayer Archives)

In Germany, Zyklon B [not an organophosphate], which had been invented in the 1920s, as a pesticide and delousing agent, became the most famous chemical in World War II. When the Nazi's came to power, they turned the deadly gas on the Jews in Nazi concentration camps.

Tabun was used on Jewish prisoners as well as hundreds of Schrader's other compounds.

Germany's chemical warfare in World War II wasn't the end of the story, though, as Sarin and Tabun have continued to be used, most notably in Syria.

ORGANOPHOSPHATES IN PEACETIME 

Schrader discovered malathion, which was also used in agriculture.

After World War II, German manufacturers and others returned their attention to the use of organophosphates in ag. 

Excerpt from von Hippel's The Chemical Age

When the most famous post war insecticide, DDT, which worked so well against malaria, turned out to be more toxic than had previously been thought, Dow Chemical launched chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide [not a systemic] in 1966. It was created as an alternative to DDT and became widely used and well known under the product names Lorsban or Dursban.

(To anyone interested in reading more about the historical development of these chemicals, I recommend Frank von Hippel's excellent and fascinating 2020 book The Chemical Age, published by UChicago Press, which presents a compelling, detailed history in several chapters of the main German and Nazi personalities and their competitive races to become the top dog scientist. The book details the interconnected strands of Germany's agricultural pesticide and chemical weapons research.)

A DEAD END

But chlorpyrifos, too, was soon found to be highly toxic and years of research have only shown more and more severe impacts on health.

These have been published over decades in peer reviewed medical studies, linking the chemical to declines in children's brain health and increased risks of cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

In a pesticide hair testing study of 150 people, conducted in Europe by the Green Party, chlorpyrifos was found in 10% of the people tested. (It can be eliminated by eating an organic diet.)

Groups of medical and scientific professionals–including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Academy of Sciences–have called for it to be banned since the 1970s.

CALIFORNIA AND CHLORPYRIFOS

So in order to grow wine grapes, 52,902 pounds of chlorpyrifos was still used in 2018 despite its significant and known impacts.

As recently as 2015, in Sonoma, Gallo sprayed 147 gallons of it on 400 acres at Two Rock on Gina Gallo's favorite Chardonnay vineyard. 

Kendall Jackson used 16 gallons on 13 acres on Brown's Lane in Petaluma.

Sonoma Cutrer sprayed it on 100 acres in Sonoma County in 2017.

2018: Hot Spots 

The state agricultural pesticide map lets us take a look at where chlorpyrifos was most intensively used in 2018 (the most recent data the state has made available). Here are some of the hot spots, generally located along the spine of Route 99, running through the heart of the Central Valley, supplier of supermarket wines to the nation.

Lodi

Bakersfield

Certified Sustainable Wines May Be Grown With Chlorpyrifos

Even more shocking is that a bottle of Certified Sustainable Wine from the CSWA can still be grown with chlorpyrifos today if it's used during the winery's first year of certification. For vintages before 2017, there were no restrictions on its use in "certified sustainable wines."

Though sales of it are banned in California, it could be obtained (until the EPA ruling now) in other states.

Groundwater Contamination

As I wrote in a previous post here, "All this comes in the wake of epidemiological studies released in 2009 showing rural Californians drinking private well water in Tulare, Fresno and Kern counties had an 82% increased chance of getting Parkinson's due to chlorpyrifos being used in their areas."

Now, at long last, there will be a law against it.

UPDATE

*August 30 editor's note: Portions of this post on pesticide history have been revised and updated with specific citations in response to reader feedback asking for more details. 

The original version contained an error regarding Zyklon B; Zyklon B is not chemically related to chlorpyrifos (as has been incorrectly reported in other articles on the Internet), since it is not an organophosphate insecticide, and this has been corrected. 

New text was added on pesticide history to provide a broader context for the development of this class of chemicals and to provide more background on the linkages within the German and Nazi era development of these chemicals. 

Germany's leadership in the early and mid 20th century led it to become the giant that it is today in pesticide industry. The latest advance of this cultural and scientific movement was Bayer's 2018 purchase of Monsanto (and Roundup), which has mired the company in financial and internal leadership battles, after the merger was completed under intense scrutiny.  According to the Wall Street Journal, this was "one of the worst corporate deals."

Super Wow - French TV Ad for Hair Testing for Pesticides

Best ad of the year...!

Although it's in French, you can probably make out what the text says which is basically: You think pesticides are here. And here. And here. But in fact they are everywhere. The same goes for your hair. What? We tested people's hair to show where longer term pesticide exposure is. Pesticides have nothing to do with your body. Share this with others who demand getting rid of pesticides.

 

The first wave of hair testing for a panel of pesticides was recently conducted by the EU Green Party and released in early November.

Though the number of people sampled was small, you can see what the first wave of testing found here in this report. (A new hair test for glyphosate has just been introduced but it wasn't part of this first group of tests since it was not yet on the market). The detailed report is here.

More than 60% of samples from 148 people contained at least one pesticide residue

Basically the four most commonly found pesticides include chlorpyrifos-ethyl (insecticide, 10.1%), fipronil (insecticide, 29.7%), permethrin (insecticide, 18.9%) and propiconazole (fungicide, 18.9%).

Chlorpyrifos is banned in agriculture in the EU (though not in the U.S.). Chlorpyrifos is not commonly used on wine grapes, though it is a staple on conventional produce farms. A dangerous neurotoxin, it was scheduled to be banned by the EPA until Trump became president and those plans were overturned.

Last year Sonoma-Cutrer used it on 100 acres in Sonoma.

Both chlorpyrifos and fipronil are used in pet flea collars and experts surmise these products may be exposing humans as well as pets.

Pesticides and the Political Will: Europe and U.S. Moving in Opposite Directions - What It Means to the U.S. Wine Industry

It's hard to imagine a time when Europe and the U.S. moved so forcefully in opposite directions when it comes to industrial agricultural's ubiquitous poisonous brews. While populism in the Trump era is drowned out by anti environment and industry interests, Europeans are taking the bull by the horn and flipping decades of ag chem policies to protect their populations against scientifically proven health risks.

IN THE U.S.: TRUMP LED POLICIES GIVE CHEM INDUSTRY FREER REIGN

As the New York Times reported in detail in Sunday's Oct. 22 edition, it wasn't enough that Scott Pruitt was appointed to head up the EPA and forestall any positive action on climate change. The in-depth article, authored by Eric Lipton, entitled (in the print edition) Chemical Industry Insider Now Shapes Policy at EPA, details the Trump-influenced rise to power of Nancy Beck, a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, to the position of Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Chlorpyrifos used on California wine grape vineyards, 2015 (latest data)
California Department of Pesticide Regulation data

In addition, Trump's appointees at the EPA recently reversed a decades long move to ban the neurotoxin Chlorpyrifos, a deadly insecticide which was being phased out.

Chlorpyrifos was used on 25,861 acres of wine grape vineyards in California in 2015. That's 5 percent of the vineyards. The insecticide affects the nervous system and child development.

There is no talk of any restrictions or cutbacks on glyphosate (contained in the commonly used herbicide Roundup), at the federal level, which is now officially classified by both the international cancer experts group IARC (part of WHO) and the state of California as a carcinogen, but one with less immediate observable effects.

EU: POLICIES RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENTED HEALTH RISKS

At the same time, as the Guardian posts, in a very well informed article by Arthur Neslen entitled EU on Brink of Historic Decision on Pervasive Glyphosate Weedkiller, France has already committed to banning glyphosate entirely, and other EU nations appear poised to phase the chemical out altogether as well.

The BIG NEWS of the day is that the European Parliament, in a non binding resolution, voted 355 to 204 to phase out the herbicide glyphosate altogether by 2022. More than 100 - 111, to be precise - abstained, reflecting the controversial nature of the ban. European farmers are up in arms over the licensing of the herbicide.

See European Parliament press release here for details.

A vote by the European Commission (which would be binding) on whether or not to relicense the herbicide is still pending. France, which had said it would phase the chemical out within three years, was said to have agreed to compromise on a four year phaseout.

This move comes only a few years after the EU voted to ban the bee killing neonics, still commonly used in about 60 percent of California's wine grape vineyards. Neonics have now been found in 75% of honey sampled around the globe.

BAD PRESS FOR CALIFORNIA WINES IN WAKE OF NEONIC USE

Bee activists in Europe have already begun tweeting about California wines' use of neonics as a reason not to buy Golden State wines.

Dave Goulson, one of the leading bee scientists in the world, tweeted this out to his 8,800 followers last month.

Here's the distribution of neonics usage on California's wine grape vineyards (showing summed pounds). As you can see, its use is fairly ubiquitous.

Neonic usage on wine grape vineyards in California, 2015. Source: California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation data

U.S. WINE INDUSTRY VULNERABLE TO CONSUMERS' GROWING ANTI GLYPHOSATE SENTIMENT?

Ben and Jerry's faced market pressure this fall after activists announced that glyphosate was found in its popular frozen desserts. It quickly announced it was launching glyphosate-free ice creams.

Wine grape growers in the U.S. should think clearly about what it will mean to consumers to be able to purchase European wines a few years from now when the continental wines are known to be grown without glyphosate.

There's a five year (give or take a year) window of opportunity for U.S. vintners to phase out glyphosate or face the consequences of a European wine industry that is sure to point out the difference between drinking American glyphosated grape wines versus European wines that are free of the carcinogenic herbicide.  Organic certification takes three years of compliance in order to be awarded.

The optics are not good here for U.S. producers.

Why Is Whole Foods So Lame About Organically Grown Wine?

Is it just me, or...? I never "get" why Whole Foods, the country's second largest retailer of organic food (Costco is in first place at the moment) with $3.6 billion in organic sales, is so lame about selling organically grown wines.

Marketing their values (really, our values) signs around the store tell us Whole Foods stands for...

Does this sign need to add..."Except when it comes to wine"?

A large barrel sign overhead said, "We seek out and promote organically grown foods." Another sign above nearby says, "We practice and advance environmental stewardship." Another banner says, "We care about our communities and our environment."

But look at the products in the wine area. I'd venture to say that more than 99% are not from organic vines. And aside from 2 major brands (Frey and Bonterra), and a few minor brands (Lucinda & Millie, and a few others) that are in one section (variously labeled at different stores Eco-Friendly or, at Novato, where I was last night, No Added Sulfite [which is not true for the wines that were there], there's no way to find the others. Not a little green label, not the word organic, nothing.

Doesn't that seem odd?

I talked to the wine dept. sales person at the Novato store last night (after attending a CCOF North Coast chapter meeting held in the dining area there; I don't generally shop there but patronize my local farmers markets) about a new product that was prominently displayed on an end cap...organic Sangria. Unlike wines, which generally say "Made with Organic Grapes," it had a label saying "Made with Organic Fruit" - as this sangria has a lot of added organic fruit juices. (More on that later).

I asked him why the store isn't making organic more prominent. He gave me the old saw, that organic certification cost too much for the little guy. Unlike most wine dept. sales people who said that, he actually quoted me a number. "It costs $1,500," he said.

I told him I wrote about organically grown wines. It actually costs far less to be certified - about $7 an acre. He was unimpressed, even though I told him I had just written an article about this for a leading wine industry publication.

He told me that the Whole Foods direction was endorsing and moving toward sustainability. "We're saying you should 'know your grower'," he said.

"Know your grower? Aside from telling you how green they are and following the sustainability media training program messaging, what is your grower going to tell you?" I asked.

Meanwhile, Gallo, a certified sustainable winery by the Wine Institute's CSWA program, is out there  in Petaluma, at their Two Rock Vineyard (bordering Highway 101, the Washoe Creek Golf Course and neighboring homes), spraying one of the worst old school pesticides, an organophosphate called chlorpyrifos, all over the 400+ acre vineyard where Gina Gallo's favorite Chardonnay (Gallo Family Vineyards Chardonnay) comes from.

To see this spot on Google Maps, click here; to sit it on Every Vine, click here.

Chlorpyrifos is known to increase the risk of slow brain development and autism in children and, in adults, of getting lung cancer, Parkinson's Disease and other auto immune disorders. It is also highly toxic to bees.

Location of Gallo's Two Rock Vineyard in Petaluma in Google Maps tiltup

Government officials have moved closer to banning it over the years and, just this month, the EPA announced this month that's it banning it altogether due to its water contamination dangers.

Gallo applied Lorsban, one of the brand names for chlorpyrifos, on the Two Rock site at least 28 times, using more than 147 gallons of the toxic substance there.

Meanwhile, Gina Gallo's quoted in the press as saying how much she really likes the biodynamic eggs that come from her husband's 17 acre biodynamic vineyard on Olivet Lane in the Russian River Valley.

"You should be sure to get the growers' pesticide use reports," I suggested to the wine department sales person who was suggesting that sustainability was a positive. No response.

A quick look around the wine section revealed only the most minimal of organic choices - Frog's Leap (which is organic but doesn't label its wines, not even on the back of the label) and Grgich Hills Estate. I also found a Chardonnay and a Sauvignon Blanc from Medlock Ames. All were expensive.

Less expensive options ($14-22) were the Terra Savia Chardonnay and Meritage (Bordeaux blend), one Sauvignon Blanc from Mendocino from Elizabeth Spencer, a Pinot Noir from Jeriko (Mendocino),  and a red blend table wine from Horse and Plow.

It's sad to think that in the middle of wine country, where 8% of Napa's vineyards are certified organic and 25% of Mendocino's are, that Whole Foods can only stock less than one percent of its wines from organic vines. It must drive the organic growers, especially in Mendocino, crazy. Their grapes are going into Kendall Jackson wines and other big brands for a song because "no one values organic."

Meanwhile, out front, the organic sangria was proudly on display. A huge end cap that must have cost its distributors a tidy sum.

Eppa, a new brand from the Deutsch Family, is the latest product from the folks who brought you Yellow Tail (the #1 selling wine in America). It's got organically grown wine and organic fruit juices inside. Do they think organic won't sell? Doesn't look like it.

Or is the message here, organic will only sell when people think it's a fruit juice?

Why is Whole Foods so backwards about organically grown wines? They could make the market jump up a notch in a nanosecond - if they wanted to. They could have their own wine brand made totally from Mendocino's organic bulk wine. They could have several in house brands, if they wanted.

Whole Foods could even lobby the government to change the organic wine standards so the "no added sulfite" wines no longer confuse the category, which is the primary factor why the U.S. lags behind the rest of the world in consuming and producing organically grown wine. (Globally, organically grown wine, both at the low and high ends, has grown from 2% to 5% of the market. The U.S. is the only wine producing region where there has been no increase; producers and marketers attribute this to the confusion about no added sulfites.)

In the U.S. organic food sales are climbing 11% a year. They were nearly $36 billion in 2014. In Europe, organically grown wine consumption has been steadily increasing at 11% a year.

Sticking strictly to the retail front and choosing simply from excellent, high quality, existing U.S. brands, Whole Foods could have a $10 and under organic section in the wine dept. and a $20 and up organic section - if they wanted. They could double shelve these wines both by varietal and in the organic section.

The question is, what's holding them back?

Wine Institute's Sustainability Program Cautions Against Widely Used Toxics - Including Abamectin and Paraquat - But Lets Growers Use Them If They Need To

My ears perked up when I heard that the Wine Institute's California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance had issued its first restrictions on what toxic chemicals sustainable winegrowers can and can't use in the vineyards. That's the good news, and then there's some bad news.

The Alliance has banned the use of some chemicals outright (the Red List) and cautioned against using a second group of chemicals (the Yellow List), but permits growers to use them if necessary.

Becoming certified under the CSWA program helps wineries in many ways. One is to meet sustainability requirements for major retailers like Walmart and others. Certification also gives certified sustainable wineries bragging points - and labeling if they like - to use in marketing themselves as green.

RED LIST - BANNED CHEMICALS - ALMOST HALF ARE NOT USED

I reviewed the list of banned chemicals on the Red List. Among 28 chemicals listed, 13 were not used by any wine grape growers, according to California Department of Pesticide Regulation's 2015 summary report. Apparently this was by design, according to the CSWA. Of the chemicals banned, 46% on the Red List are not currently being used on California wine grapes.

If you want to perform your own analysis, visit the California Dept. of Pesticide Use and look at the chemicals used on wine grapes.

I also added up all of the acreage affected by the remaining 15 chemicals, which totaled 13,938 acres in 2015. That acreage amounts to 2% of all wine grape vines in the state. That means that 98% of growers in the state are not using these banned chemicals.

YELLOW LIST - CAUTIONARY CHEMICALS - USED MOSTLY BY CENTRAL VALLEY GROWERS (MAKING SUPERMARKET WINES)

In reviewing the Yellow List, things get a lot more interesting, because the list could have a big impact by decreasing toxic chemicals.

But, somewhat surprisingly, growers don't have to stop using the Yellow List chemicals. They may continue to use them if they justify their use.

Of the 10 chemicals on the Yellow list, eight are used on fewer than 5% of the state's vines, but two are more widely used - the insecticide abamectin, a miticide, and the herbicide paraquat dichloride.

(I generated the maps below using the Agricultural Pesticide Mapping Tool which was created by the California Department of Environmental Health Tracking Program [CEHTP] using the state PUR data. The organization is funded by the CDC. )

Abamectin is used on 188,900 acres, or a third of California's 560,000 acres of wine grape vineyards. It is classified as a "Bad Actor" and as acutely toxic. It is a developmental and reproductive toxin and a suspected endocrine disruptor. It is also classified as a possible groundwater contaminant.

Paraquat dichloride is used on 100,400 acres, or 18% of California wine grape vines. Acutely toxic, it is classified as a "Bad Actor" and is a suspected endocrine disruptor.  It has been banned in Europe based on its extreme toxicity - it's often used in farmer suicides - as well as its links to lung cancer and Parkinson's.

In a 2015 story on farm pesticides used close to schools, the Sacramento Bee reported on the use of paraquat and other chemicals and the health threats they represent, quoting data from the California Dept. of Public Health.

The third most used chemical, chlorpyrifos, was slated to be banned nationwide, until the Trump administration reversed this decision.

Chlorpyrifos was used on 25,861 acres - or 5% - of wine grape vineyards.

The deadly insecticide is know to affect child development and the nervous system.

BEYOND THE LIST

It should be noted that many chemicals designated as "chemicals of concern" are not on the Wine Institute's Red or Yellow Lists. These include carcinogens (Roundup and glyphosate, for instance, now classified by the state of California as carcinogens), developmental or reproductive toxins, neurotoxins, bird and bee toxins and more.

CASE STUDY: MANCOZEB

Among the banned chemicals is Mancozeb, which is, oddly, used more in Sonoma than any other county in California.

Mancozeb is classified as a "Bad Actor," a carcinogen, a developmental and reproductive toxin and a suspected endocrine disruptor.

A New York Times article, published 26 years ago, wrote, "In 1987, the National Academy of Sciences identified the chemicals - mancozeb, maneb and metiram - as among the most potent carcinogens used in agriculture."

ENFORCEMENT

How will the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance enforce the restrictions? Will the group actually revoke certification for wineries using the Yellow List chemicals?

These are not legally binding standards, but a voluntary program run by an industry group, so it will be interesting to see the extent to which the industry will actually police itself in instances like this, and if growers will change rather than be booted out of the program.

It could also be the case that this move is an attempt to gently wean the growers using the worst toxics off of them. If the CSWA is successful, the Pesticide Use Report should reflect the impact the restrictions have.

What You Read: Top 10 Posts of the Year

 

Observations:

1. Importance/impact of being retweeted or reposted: WineFuture 2021 post must have been reposted. (But maybe it was worth reposting).

2. Wineries getting new certifications: Donum getting organic certified was just one of many. Others this year included Hanzell, Opus One, and Crane vineyard at Salvestrin. In Argentina, Domaine Bousquet announced it is going biodynamic and seeking B-Corp certification. Plus Napa's expanding organic sector with Quintessa and Hoopes joining its ranks.

3. Women in Wine: Batonnage tasting and Mini Banks' acquisition of southern Oregon superstar Cowhorn. (She also just bought Johan Vineyards in the Willamette). 

4. Pesticides: Paraquat and Chlorpyrifos, some of the top "baddies" on the decline. Chlorpyrifos IS gone, finally, but paraquat still remains in a shocking 1 in 8 vineyard acres. Remember that when you buy those supermarket wines from the Central Valley. Is it time to change those habits?

5. Fetzer and Bonterra - is its behavior ethical? Fetzer is making brand claims that purposefully drive consumer confusion. 

6. Organic Wine - can it be profitable? A question no one should have to ask, but like many wine myths, people often believe it is not profitable. It clearly is profitable in California and Oregon (and Washington), where there is a Mediterranean climate (and it does not rain at harvest time), but it requires a certain skillset. Consumer demand for organic is still growing, according to Wine Intelligence and other market reporting sources. It is especially going strong in Europe. 

Wishing you a happy holiday and a fun filled new year. Let's drink some great wines!

Revised: The Dark Side of Sonoma's Sustainability Movement: No to Organics, Deep Deception, and When Is a Standard a Standard?

Dec. 31, 2019 Note
I took this post down in 2018, after it received more than 6,000 page views and caused a bit of a furor. I didn't want to be known solely as the writer who attacked the Sonoma vintners for deceptive practices. 

In 2018, I was attacked online by Karissa Kruse's boyfriend Steve Dutton (I didn't know at the time that I wrote this that Steve Dutton was her boyfriend) in a letter published on Wine Industry Insight which accused me of slander and of bias because I briefly worked for Demeter USA in 2018 (which was financially a sacrifice, earning me a quarter of my usual rate in order to produce the first International Biodynamic Wine Conference, which was a great success). So I must have an ulterior motive for knocking sustainability. 

Despite Dutton's improper use of chemicals prohibited by his sustainability certification, no actions appear to have been taken in his ability to display little green seals on his wine bottles that say Sonoma Certified Sustainable. So, like, why was no action taken?

Dutton said he's stopped using mancozeb, so I removed the post, but now, in 2019, I think it's good to keep it here for archive purposes.

---

Last year the number of acres of organic vineyards in Sonoma County declined 11 percent.

The decline in certified acreage in Sonoma coincides with the advent of the Sonoma County Winegrowers' move to adopt sustainability practices, sometimes at the expense of organic practices.

While the move to employ sustainable practices is well intentioned and a positive, there are negatives that tend to downgrade the program's reputation, according to local observers:

• Eliminating programs that support organic viticulture
• Deceptively portraying one grower as organic (when it is not) and overstating accomplishments in its marketing campaigns for "Sonoma Certified Sustainable"
• Failing to tell consumers which type of sustainability certification a vintner or grower has used (i.e. CSWA, Fish Friendly Farming, SIP, or Lodi Rules, all of which have widely varying requirements); passing any of those four qualifies for "Sonoma Certified Sustainable" so there is actually not one standard but any one of four for vineyards and four for wineries or any combination thereof

1. Eliminating Organic Grower Meetups

Under the leadership of Karissa Kruse, the group moved to end organic meetup groups, where growers could learn about organic viticulture on vineyard visits to various Sonoma organic vineyards.

Update Dec. 31, 2019: I've been told that this was because someone (a volunteer?) was tired of running the program. That may be true. But I am sure that another volunteer or perhaps even a staff person could have been assigned to do this if it had been a priority.

2. Deception

The county's winegrowers are promoting what some would see as deceptive storytelling in the group's latest Sustainability report's feature on Marimar Torres' "organic practices." That winery began using synthetic herbicides and fungicides in 2013; that makes it no longer organic.

Subsequently Marimar Torres called several times and invited me to lunch to explain how wonderful sustainable standards are. Alas, I was not able to schedule a time to meet with her, but since she is not organic and is now a great evangelist for sustainability, I'm not sure how fruitful our discussions would have been, though I would most likely enjoy her company. I'm not ever going to support sustainability over higher standards for organic and biodynamic farming, so a charm offensive would be wasted on me.

3. Toxic Agrochemicals Can Be Used by "Sonoma Certified Sustainable" Vineyards

The Sonoma Sustainability group does not call upon growers and vintners to use one set of standards in order to be listed as "certified sustainable." It says that winegrowers can use any of four different programs - CSWA, Fish Friendly Farming, Lodi Rules or SIP.

But... it doesn't post which program each "certified vineyard" has been certified by, thereby making it impossible to understand what chemicals, if any, are prohibited.

Steve Dutton, a prominent grower who is the president of the Sonoma Farm Bureau (and whose brother Jim heads up the Sonoma Winegrowers), uses vineyard chemicals that are prohibited by the CSWA standard in the family's vineyards - Mancozeb -, but since it turns out that only the Dutton winery - not its vineyards - is certified, the CSWA vineyard standard doesn't apply. Could that be confusing to consumers?

Furthermore, the winery says it's going to be labeling its wines as certified "Sonoma Certified Sustainable," but what does that mean? How can consumers know what's in the bottle?

Update: Dutton wrote in his letter that bringing up his noncompliance was a feature not a bug in sustainability.  

"In fact, what she is mocking is one of the strengths of our sustainability program. Even though the product is legal to use, I discontinued its use immediately because I am actively involved in our sustainable winegrowing program and learned it was on the CSWA Red List.

The fact is that the substance he used wasn't permitted under Fish Friendly Farming, which is the program he was certified by. Of the agrochemicals used in vineyards, it is one of the most toxic substances for fish. The CSWA program does permit its use for a limited introductory period only - that's what the red list is - stuff you have to stop using soon. But his vineyard wasn't a CSWA vineyard at the time. 

Organic Grower Meetups: No More

I remember attending one of these at Preston Farm & Winery, back in the day, and a lot of of good information was provided and great questions were asked and answered. There were shared lunches, and a lot of learning took place in a comfortable environment.

Today Sonoma has fewer than 2 percent organic vines, compared to Napa with 7.3% certified organic vines.

Napa's Growers proudly sponsor the country's only organic winegrowing conference, which takes place every other year.

The Sonoma organization ditched the organic meetups; now all meetings focus on sustainability.

Does this mean that Sonoma is deliberately squelching organics? No. Does it show leadership and support for organics? No.

Sonoma's Sustainability Greenwashing: How Misleading Can It Get?
The Marimar Torres Story: Sowing the Seeds of Organic Confusion

Sonoma's latest sustainability champion, Marimar Torres, is featured in the 2017 Sonoma Wine Growers's Sustainability Report (italics mine):

"For more than a decade, the vineyards at Marimar Estate have been farmed with organic practices—with the idea of improved, more balanced ecological health. In January, the estate took what Vineyard Manager Tony Britton considers to be a more encompassing step that builds upon its organic background—they became certified sustainable.

It was a natural step, he says, for an organic, family-owned vineyard in Green Valley to become certified sustainable. In their 70 acres of vines,* Britton uses cover crops to attract beneficial insects and nourish the soil, as well as composting and relying on solar energy. In addition, he has refrained from spraying pesticides since 1996. 

In reading this, would you think that Marimar Torres is either certified or "practicing" organic today?

It is neither.

In his comment about pesticides, Britton is apparently saying he doesn't use insecticides, which may be true. But he does use herbicides and fungicides (that are not organic). Cover crops and composting are part of sustainable as well as organic farming. More than half the wineries in the state use cover crops.

Though Marimar Torres was formerly certified organic on its Green Valley vineyard in 2003 and later its Freestone vineyard, the winery gave up on organic practices and started farming with chemicals that are prohibited under organic certification on its Freestone vineyard in 2013 and on its Green Valley property surrounding the winery in 2016.

The winery has surrendered all of its organic certifications - and it has stopped being organic in its practices.

Here is the list from the company's 2017-2018 Pesticide Use Report of chemicals it sprayed on the 60 acres (*not 70) at Marimar Torres two estate properties:

• Roundup (glyphosate - which is a carcinogen)
• Elevate Fungicide (Fenhexamid)
• Flint Fungicide (Strobilurin)
• Inspire Fungicide (Difenocozole)
• Mettle Fungicide (Tetraconazole)
• Viticure Fungicide (Triflumizole)

None of these is permitted under organic certification.

Furthermore, the story goes on to say that heritage and the next generation is important to Torres. “The legacy of passing it down generations is in the family,” Britton says. “Sustainability speaks to that.”

So why would using genotoxic substances (like Roundup) be a good thing to use? Genotoxic substances affect one's DNA.

In short, this is not a story about sustainability certification complementing an organic vineyard. It is a story about a winery that was formerly organic deciding to use the more toxic agrochemicals and THEN switching to the lower standard on agrochemicals - sustainability.

I fully support sustainability's efforts to reduce inputs and make growers and wineries more efficient but painting a portrait like the one here is misleading and deceptive.

Marimar Torres stopped being organic. Then the winery decided to be sustainable.

In defense of Marimar Torres, on its web site, the winery does not say it is still organic, as the Sonoma Sustainable folks did in their flyer. (Federal law prohibits producers who are not organic from using the word "organic.")

However the winery does provide this handout, which say the winery converted to sustainable certification in 2016, and also mentions it was certified organic in 2003 and 2006. But the handout does not say the winery ended its organic practices and certification in 2013 and 2016.

On the winery's web site, it says it's sustainable, but doesn't say which certification program the winery uses.

The web site also says that it practices biodynamics, but, in using the chemicals listed, it couldn't be. (In addition, use of that term is permitted only with permission of Demeter USA, which
has trademarked the term and restricts it to certified entities).

Elsewhere Marimar has been quoted as saying consumers don't know the difference between organic and biodynamic, but, surely, as a professional, she does.

What's in the Bottle?
Sonoma Farm Bureau President Steve Dutton: Using Mancozeb While "Sonoma Certified Sustainable"

Sonoma Certified Sustainable? Consumers must read the fine print very carefully.

Joe and Steve Dutton were awarded the Sonoma County Harvest Fair's top sustainability award in 2017.

Dutton Estate Winery's sustainability page declares that the winery is "an active participant in the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) and has been certified since 2016." Dutton displays certified sustainable signs on his property.

Under the CSWA's guidelines, CSWA certified vineyards may not use a list of prohibited chemicals on what it calls the red list.

Mancozeb is one of the red list chemicals.

Here is what the CSWA says: "Vineyards that are Certified California Sustainable Winegrowing (CERTIFIED SUSTAINABLE) may not use Red List materials by their second year of certification."

Dutton's vineyards appear on the Sonoma Sustainability list of certified vineyards.

According to Steve Dutton's Pesticide Use Report, submitted to the county ag commissioner and the state of California, Dutton has been applying Mancozeb and continued to use it in 2017 and in 2018.

Pesticide Action Network classifies Mancozeb as a Bad Actor and categorized it as a carcinogen, a developmental and reproductive toxin and a probable endocrine disruptor. The fungicide is also highly toxic to fish.

The National Academy of Sciences in 1987 urged the EPA to ban Mancozeb, calling it one of the most potent carcinogens in agriculture.

Mancozeb is an old school fungicide that has been widely phased out in vineyards.

In 2016 in Sonoma, wine growers applied 881 pounds over 313 acres.

Map source: Agricultural Pesticide Use Map, California State Dept. of Health, Environmental Health Tracking

But, come to find out, Dutton's vineyards are not CSWA certified. Only his winery is. So the Mancozeb prohibition doesn't apply to Dutton.

Sonoma Certified Sustainable has a mix and match system of sustainability certifications.

The Sonoma list of "Certified Vineyards" includes wineries that have received "third party certification from California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA), Fish Friendly Farming, Lodi Rules or Sustainable in Practice (SIP)." But the Sonoma list doesn't say which type of certification each vineyard received.

Dutton Estate Winery announced that it will be labeling its wines with the Certified Sustainable Sonoma logo beginning with the 2017 vintage. (This is not the CSWA logo, but the Sonoma program logo.)

It turns out that the Dutton vineyard certification is for Fish Friendly Farming (FFF).

Is Mancozeb prohibited or permitted under FFF guidelines? Laurel Marcus who heads up the FFF program says growers should use alternatives to Mancozeb. "Since it has a high toxicity to aquatic life, we would require they look for a different, less toxic product," she said.

Here's what the Sonoma Certified Sustainable website says of its SCS program:

Sonoma County grape farmers are dependent on a healthy environment to grow the best grapes...consumers...can buy with confidence knowing it (the wine) was produced in an environmentally friendly way by passionate stewards of the land."

Yet, if you, as a consumer (or even a wine professional), try to understand these standards, you might be pretty darn confused. Or if you consider Mancozeb or chlorpyrifos to be dangerous, you might not put them in the "environmentally friendly" category. The EPA initially moved to ban Mancozeb and had plans underway to ban chlorpyrifos until Trump was elected. (But last week a court ordered the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days).

Is that what the Sonoma Certified Sustainability movement wants consumers to know about its standards?

If Sonoma winegrowers and marketers think people will respect the Sonoma Certified Sustainable green bottle label and possibly be willing to pay $1 a bottle more for it, that might backfire when consumers find out Mancozeb is being used.

Post Script (Sept. 3, 2018)

The main issue across the board is not whether a winery chooses to certify as sustainable or organic, but about transparency and accountability. Can the wine industry be trusted to be honest about the materials it uses in each certification type?

The standards and enforcement of the National Organic Program (organic certification) and Demeter USA (biodynamic certification) program are both very clear and transparent. These are both legal standards, protected by federal law (for organic) and trademark law (for Biodynamic).

Should the sustainability programs, which are overseen by and enforced by nonprofits or the wine industry, be held to the same high standards of transparency and accountability? And how will consumers know that they are?

Related articles

Sustainability: Sonoma Growers Push Back on Transparency, Forge Ahead in PR

The Emperor's New (Green Marketing) Clothes: "Sustainability" Program Ramps Up in Sonoma - Headed by Marketing Professor

Sonoma Gets Its (Toxics) Closeup: What's on Those Vines? A Look at Carcinogens, Neurotoxins and More

Note: A previous version of this post erroneously stated that Dutton's vineyards were CSWA certified and therefore not in compliance with the CSWA vineyard standard. This post was revised and corrected Aug. 21 to reflect the fact that Dutton is only a certified CSWA winery and not a CSWA certified vineyard. 

The Next Chapter - Part 2

I've written a followup blog post about reaction to this story - along with a list of more Mancozeb users. Find it here.