Thank you for the start to this very interesting topic. For me, being an organic wine farmer this conversation holds a lot of interesting points!
I wanted to tackle something you and others in comments said that I find a bit strange in the conversation about organic and similar farming methods though:
You define organic farming (among other things) as the absence of synthetic chemicals for spraying. Now I understand what is meant by that, but I find this to be a bad way of framing it for multiple reasons. The sprays we use are also synthetic, it causes the belief organic farming is not using any sprays and it trivializes the effect of the fungicides we do have to use.
In the spirit of an open and honest conversation I think a better term can be found (just by someone smarter than me!)
Just to reinforce what you wrote, Robert, It would be a mistake to mis-interpret Stacey's "easiEST to define" as "EASY to define."
The first major problem in defining organic is the one on which you put your finger, Robert, namely the lack of an appropriate definition of "synthetic" and, moreover, the questions not just of whether there can even be a chemically and philosophically clear distinction between "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" but also whether, if there can be, it would suit the interests and desires of those who wish to claim the "organic" moniker. I don't think this represents a huge practical problem, insofar as self-proclaimed organic growers are largely in agreement about those classes of treatments and those specific treatments that they consider taboo. But there are clearly going to be some tricky cases. A most obvious example is the use of copper sulfate. It does seem to require some semantic gymnastics to insist that the stuff is not "synthesized."
The second problem relates to further conceptual distinctions among vine treatments, now not as regards how they're made (or sourced) but rather how they work, distinctions which can have major practical import. A glaring example is the decision a decade ago by the EU to reclassifying potassium phosphate (active ingredients: phosphoric acid and its salts) - until then considered a "plant protecting [or 'strengthening'] agent" - as a "pesticide." (Actually, potassium phosphate is used to combat fungal afflictions, notably downy mildew, but the EU review takes place under the heading of "pesticide.") This has deprived organic winegrowers of a hitherto important alternative to copper sulfate. The ruling has been appealed by the German government on behalf of the country's winegrowers. (Incidentally, this EU decision does not appear to have been grounded in appropriately clear bio-chemical and sematic presuppositions, and in any case, such presuppositions could be contested.)
Thanks for chiming in! That’s so interesting, and points out where the gaps sometimes happen between those who actually farm and make wine, and those of us who write and talk about it. “No synthetics” is the definition of organic that was taught to us, and really the only definition I’ve heard, so I’m very curious to hear how you would define it, and what kind of synthetic sprays ARE allowed in organic farming. If I understand more precisely what is and isn’t allowed, I may be able to come up with better verbiage.
I don't say the definition of "no synthetics" is wrong, I guess it's a grey zone. The fungicides we do use in organic farming, copper and sulfites, and the way they are made usable to be applied in the vineyard are just definitely a synthetic thing too. Take copper for example, we are not using a small piece out of a mine, we are using a very specific molecule, with very specific properties, at very high purity. Withouth "synthetic" production this would be impossible (the same applies to sulfur).
Just to state the point: the main difference between organic and conventional fungicides is the way they work: organic only works where it covers the leaves and plant, similar to say wearing an armor. While conventional fungicides enter the plant and protect the system, similar to a vaccine.
Now discussions can and have been had to the effect this causes in the plant, but all farmers that use organic fungicides therefore spray syntheticly produced chemicals in the vineyards, just different ones. (Let me just stress here that I work organically myself, I just want the conversation to be honest). At least these are my two cents
Thanks for the clarification. I think the point about whether the sprays enter the plant is an interesting one, and one I haven't heard before. The differentiation that is usually made is whether the constituents of the spray exist naturally - although I understand that processing still has to happen to get something like copper into a usable state. And you run into complications, which I noted, because just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it isn't harmful in some way. Anyway, it seems like the term "synthetic" is the sticking point here, and I'm wondering how to get more precise about that without creating an extra paragraph anytime I want to talk about it. Lol.
You hit the nail on the head there Stacey. Unfortunately I don't have a clear answer either, as I run into the same struggle as you when I have to communicate my wine to consumers or B2B. Therefore maybe I have misplaced my frustration on the issue in this comment section, sorry for that! I guess we have to think or wait together for someone to come up with a good answer. Thanks again for your article
I’m sorry I can’t write a long post in response to this post. But, a good overview. I think all the labels are a joke at this point. Everyone has different laws- organic is great because we want to treat the land better than everything else - but it is expensive for vineyards to gain the certification which means most small producers that have already been organic practicing for generations can’t get it on a label. Biodynamic is woo woo from a cult like religious dude- but weirdly the wines are good. I just think it is absolute gobbledygook. Sustainable means absolutely nothing. One vineyard could claim it because they may recycle- but use toxic chemicals in the vineyard- another could be super organic but can’t afford a certificate. Regenerative is interesting- still haven’t seen many use the term. I think all the labels do more to confuse a customer than to help. Just because each one does not reflect the wine quality. And when wine merchants and distributors can’t even describe each category thoroughly there is a big problem.
Yes, agreed, to most of this. Like I said, the labels only mean something if they're tied to some kind of standard and accountability structure, and then - as you mention - a lot of smaller producers can't afford the process of certification even if they're above and beyond the standard. Biodynamics are weird, but also the kind of commitment to the land that is made by biodynamic producers yields results both in quality of wine and environmental impact, so have at it I guess? And yes, the lack of agreement about definition and understanding of the terms even within the industry is a huge problem.
Hi Kate, just a small point: I did some research into the costs of organic certification, and at least in Europe it really isn't expensive at all. So I don't buy that argument, although I hear it from growers all the time. I see it as a convenient excuse from growers who either can't be bothered with the extra bureaucracy, or have something to hide.
For example an Austrian grower with 25 hectares told me (and shared the invoices with me) that his annual costs for the inspection and reissue of his organic certificate are less than €1,500.
When you consider that his business will have an annual turnover of between €500,000 - €750,000, that is chickenfeed.
I definitely think the high cost is a US thing, and only in certain States or counties - some governments are better at subsidizing these costs than others. This is similar to our student debt crisis - we should be subsidizing costs for things we find value in, like education and sustainable/organic farming practices, and not trying to fill government coffers with these critical needs. That said, the US also needs much more coherent, rigid label laws regarding these terms and phraes. We constantly set up byzantine rules that only those in the industry even know about. Consumers, for the most part, have no idea what these terms mean, or how they're allowed to be used. It's unquestionably a mess over here. But that said, the value in them as a concept and what they ideally are meant to represent is equally as unquestionable.
Great overview - the biggest issue is it's a confusing mess to consumers with so many different sustainable credentials. I would argue having something is better than nothing, and many producers are practicing but not certifying to save a crop if they need to - which may save their business. Few can afford to survive with little to no production - although some can and do (see Champagne's 2024 harvest and Drappier). It's incumbent on the industry to communicate sustainability better to consumers, not by criticizing others, but by using simple, clear messaging. Just to add to the cost point from @simon there are quite a few studies that show organic farming yields long term economic benefits; but there is a big upfront investment.
I finally went down the regenerative wormhole last summer, and I think it's important to point out that the different certifying bodies for Regenerative are quite split.
To the best of my knowledge only the Regenerative Organic Alliance also requires farmers to hold organic certification. And in my opinion, no other way makes any sense.
How can we even start talking about soil health and regeneration if we continue to spray synthetics?
Yeah, I intentionally didn’t go far into the weeds on the variations between regenerative organizations. I understand what you’re saying about regenerative and organic going hand in hand, however, I can see a couple of reasons they wouldn’t also require organic certification. One might be that the regenerative certification itself prohibits synthetics, and they’ve decided not to demand the double cost and bureaucracy of an additional certification. More common, I think, is the desire to allow growers some flexibility in how they handle vineyard problems. Not all of the tactics that are allowed in organic farming are good for soil health, like copper sulfates, and they’re trying to allow for situations in which a small synthetic intervention might have less negative impact than a technically organic solution. But I understand how that can make the term fuzzy and prone to greenwashing.
Dear Stacey,
Thank you for the start to this very interesting topic. For me, being an organic wine farmer this conversation holds a lot of interesting points!
I wanted to tackle something you and others in comments said that I find a bit strange in the conversation about organic and similar farming methods though:
You define organic farming (among other things) as the absence of synthetic chemicals for spraying. Now I understand what is meant by that, but I find this to be a bad way of framing it for multiple reasons. The sprays we use are also synthetic, it causes the belief organic farming is not using any sprays and it trivializes the effect of the fungicides we do have to use.
In the spirit of an open and honest conversation I think a better term can be found (just by someone smarter than me!)
Thanks again
Just to reinforce what you wrote, Robert, It would be a mistake to mis-interpret Stacey's "easiEST to define" as "EASY to define."
The first major problem in defining organic is the one on which you put your finger, Robert, namely the lack of an appropriate definition of "synthetic" and, moreover, the questions not just of whether there can even be a chemically and philosophically clear distinction between "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" but also whether, if there can be, it would suit the interests and desires of those who wish to claim the "organic" moniker. I don't think this represents a huge practical problem, insofar as self-proclaimed organic growers are largely in agreement about those classes of treatments and those specific treatments that they consider taboo. But there are clearly going to be some tricky cases. A most obvious example is the use of copper sulfate. It does seem to require some semantic gymnastics to insist that the stuff is not "synthesized."
The second problem relates to further conceptual distinctions among vine treatments, now not as regards how they're made (or sourced) but rather how they work, distinctions which can have major practical import. A glaring example is the decision a decade ago by the EU to reclassifying potassium phosphate (active ingredients: phosphoric acid and its salts) - until then considered a "plant protecting [or 'strengthening'] agent" - as a "pesticide." (Actually, potassium phosphate is used to combat fungal afflictions, notably downy mildew, but the EU review takes place under the heading of "pesticide.") This has deprived organic winegrowers of a hitherto important alternative to copper sulfate. The ruling has been appealed by the German government on behalf of the country's winegrowers. (Incidentally, this EU decision does not appear to have been grounded in appropriately clear bio-chemical and sematic presuppositions, and in any case, such presuppositions could be contested.)
Thanks for chiming in! That’s so interesting, and points out where the gaps sometimes happen between those who actually farm and make wine, and those of us who write and talk about it. “No synthetics” is the definition of organic that was taught to us, and really the only definition I’ve heard, so I’m very curious to hear how you would define it, and what kind of synthetic sprays ARE allowed in organic farming. If I understand more precisely what is and isn’t allowed, I may be able to come up with better verbiage.
I don't say the definition of "no synthetics" is wrong, I guess it's a grey zone. The fungicides we do use in organic farming, copper and sulfites, and the way they are made usable to be applied in the vineyard are just definitely a synthetic thing too. Take copper for example, we are not using a small piece out of a mine, we are using a very specific molecule, with very specific properties, at very high purity. Withouth "synthetic" production this would be impossible (the same applies to sulfur).
Just to state the point: the main difference between organic and conventional fungicides is the way they work: organic only works where it covers the leaves and plant, similar to say wearing an armor. While conventional fungicides enter the plant and protect the system, similar to a vaccine.
Now discussions can and have been had to the effect this causes in the plant, but all farmers that use organic fungicides therefore spray syntheticly produced chemicals in the vineyards, just different ones. (Let me just stress here that I work organically myself, I just want the conversation to be honest). At least these are my two cents
Thanks for the clarification. I think the point about whether the sprays enter the plant is an interesting one, and one I haven't heard before. The differentiation that is usually made is whether the constituents of the spray exist naturally - although I understand that processing still has to happen to get something like copper into a usable state. And you run into complications, which I noted, because just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it isn't harmful in some way. Anyway, it seems like the term "synthetic" is the sticking point here, and I'm wondering how to get more precise about that without creating an extra paragraph anytime I want to talk about it. Lol.
You hit the nail on the head there Stacey. Unfortunately I don't have a clear answer either, as I run into the same struggle as you when I have to communicate my wine to consumers or B2B. Therefore maybe I have misplaced my frustration on the issue in this comment section, sorry for that! I guess we have to think or wait together for someone to come up with a good answer. Thanks again for your article
I’m sorry I can’t write a long post in response to this post. But, a good overview. I think all the labels are a joke at this point. Everyone has different laws- organic is great because we want to treat the land better than everything else - but it is expensive for vineyards to gain the certification which means most small producers that have already been organic practicing for generations can’t get it on a label. Biodynamic is woo woo from a cult like religious dude- but weirdly the wines are good. I just think it is absolute gobbledygook. Sustainable means absolutely nothing. One vineyard could claim it because they may recycle- but use toxic chemicals in the vineyard- another could be super organic but can’t afford a certificate. Regenerative is interesting- still haven’t seen many use the term. I think all the labels do more to confuse a customer than to help. Just because each one does not reflect the wine quality. And when wine merchants and distributors can’t even describe each category thoroughly there is a big problem.
Yes, agreed, to most of this. Like I said, the labels only mean something if they're tied to some kind of standard and accountability structure, and then - as you mention - a lot of smaller producers can't afford the process of certification even if they're above and beyond the standard. Biodynamics are weird, but also the kind of commitment to the land that is made by biodynamic producers yields results both in quality of wine and environmental impact, so have at it I guess? And yes, the lack of agreement about definition and understanding of the terms even within the industry is a huge problem.
Hi Kate, just a small point: I did some research into the costs of organic certification, and at least in Europe it really isn't expensive at all. So I don't buy that argument, although I hear it from growers all the time. I see it as a convenient excuse from growers who either can't be bothered with the extra bureaucracy, or have something to hide.
For example an Austrian grower with 25 hectares told me (and shared the invoices with me) that his annual costs for the inspection and reissue of his organic certificate are less than €1,500.
When you consider that his business will have an annual turnover of between €500,000 - €750,000, that is chickenfeed.
I definitely think the high cost is a US thing, and only in certain States or counties - some governments are better at subsidizing these costs than others. This is similar to our student debt crisis - we should be subsidizing costs for things we find value in, like education and sustainable/organic farming practices, and not trying to fill government coffers with these critical needs. That said, the US also needs much more coherent, rigid label laws regarding these terms and phraes. We constantly set up byzantine rules that only those in the industry even know about. Consumers, for the most part, have no idea what these terms mean, or how they're allowed to be used. It's unquestionably a mess over here. But that said, the value in them as a concept and what they ideally are meant to represent is equally as unquestionable.
Great overview - the biggest issue is it's a confusing mess to consumers with so many different sustainable credentials. I would argue having something is better than nothing, and many producers are practicing but not certifying to save a crop if they need to - which may save their business. Few can afford to survive with little to no production - although some can and do (see Champagne's 2024 harvest and Drappier). It's incumbent on the industry to communicate sustainability better to consumers, not by criticizing others, but by using simple, clear messaging. Just to add to the cost point from @simon there are quite a few studies that show organic farming yields long term economic benefits; but there is a big upfront investment.
Thank you for this excellent summary Stacey.
I finally went down the regenerative wormhole last summer, and I think it's important to point out that the different certifying bodies for Regenerative are quite split.
To the best of my knowledge only the Regenerative Organic Alliance also requires farmers to hold organic certification. And in my opinion, no other way makes any sense.
How can we even start talking about soil health and regeneration if we continue to spray synthetics?
Yeah, I intentionally didn’t go far into the weeds on the variations between regenerative organizations. I understand what you’re saying about regenerative and organic going hand in hand, however, I can see a couple of reasons they wouldn’t also require organic certification. One might be that the regenerative certification itself prohibits synthetics, and they’ve decided not to demand the double cost and bureaucracy of an additional certification. More common, I think, is the desire to allow growers some flexibility in how they handle vineyard problems. Not all of the tactics that are allowed in organic farming are good for soil health, like copper sulfates, and they’re trying to allow for situations in which a small synthetic intervention might have less negative impact than a technically organic solution. But I understand how that can make the term fuzzy and prone to greenwashing.