Wine.Woot guest blogger emeritus Peter Wellington comes down from the mountain bearing more of his winemaking wisdom!

Let me start by saying I don't really hate organic. I just have some major quarrels with its current manifestation in our culture. The title of this blog is more the result of my obsession with perverting cultural references. Lest I alienate a large number of you, and instigate a bunch of hate mail, I'll start with some background on the environmental and organic movements...

The first generation synthetic pesticides (primarily insecticides) weredeveloped in the 1940's and 50's, at a time when we were making thetransition to dial phones, automatic transmissions and transistorradios (just to put the concurrent level of technologicalsophistication into perspective). These chemicals were cheap and easyto produce, highly effective and much less toxic to humans than the'natural” insecticides, like nicotine and arsenic, that they replaced.Broad spectrum effectiveness and slow breakdown were considered to bepositive pesticide attributes; for example, DDT was still lethal tomosquitoes six months after application and is responsible for saving10's of millions from death by malaria.

Widespread use of synthetic pesticides was just one aspect of a seachange in American agriculture that took place mid-20th century.Mechanization multiplied and the farm population dropped precipitously.Corporate agribusiness utilizing large scale monoculture, excessiveplowing with tractors, chemical fertilizers and pesticides replacedcomplex, labor intensive family farms. It didn't take long beforeserious problems with the new system became evident: loss of soilfertility, accelerated soil erosion, water pollution and repercussionson wildlife and human health. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring,published in 1962, is widely credited as giving birth to theenvironmental movement. Environmentalism and the organic movement grewin no small part out of backlash against the problems created by“modern” agriculture.

A little personal background fits into the time frame at this point. Myinterest in environmental issues grew dramatically around 1970, when Ihelped organize campus activities for the first Earth Day and became avegetarian (38 years and counting). My personal concerns also dictatedmy educational path. After initially majoring in nutrition, I got myB.S. at UC Berkeley in Biology of Natural Resources, with emphasis inSoil Science and Plant Nutrition. My coursework included geologicalmorphology, soil chemistry, genetics, microbiology, plant biochem,pesticide toxicity and toxicology, plant pathology, soil conservationamong many others. More than any specific vocational goal, I had adesire to understand how the natural world works. One of my favoritesayings is, “Earth's ecosystem is more complex than man thinks becauseit is more complex than man can think” (or something along those lines, attributed to Bucky Fuller).

My understanding of organic principles is that there are two maingoals, safe healthy food and a healthy environment. Some pesticides,both natural and synthetic, have had significant negative impact on oneor both. The issues with synthetic fertilizers are all aboutenvironmental impact, not food safety or nutritional value. The twomain effects are depletion of soils when trace minerals and organicmatter (humus) are not replaced and both surface and ground waterpollution from over application (also possible with organicfertilizers). Organic farming's simple solution was to distrustanything synthetic and set up a system of regulations based on thatbelief. This brings me to a point where I can start listing the 10things I hate about O.

1. It is based on a simplistic categorization of natural vs. syntheticthat overrides consideration of whether something is the best practicefor food safety and environmental health. It caters to mistrust oftechnology and scientific learning. Organic regulations are probablyone of the few things in our society that didn't piss off Ted Kaczynski.

2. The regulations are proscriptive rather than prescriptive. Ratherthan a recipe of sound farming practices, we are given a list ofprohibited substances. Building and maintaining healthy soils,waterways and air involves a lot more than just not using certainfertilizers or pesticides. IMHO, routine plowing is far moredestructive than the use of manufactured fertilizers, yet is perfectlyacceptable under organic regulations. Cultivation with diesel tractorsis one of the largest causes of air pollution, water pollution, andsoil loss in the world.

3. Complying with organic regulations can actually foster practicesthat are more destructive to the environment. One of the argumentsagainst synthetic fertilizer is that petroleum is burned for energyused in its production. How much petroleum is burned when you haulorganic compost from the next county and spread it with a dieseltractor?

The main cultural practice that prevents many vineyards from meetingorganic standards is in-row weed control. Back in the 90's an “organic”friend encouraged me to look into some new equipment, a weed flamerthat uses 100,000 BTU propane torches to heat weeds to permanentwilting temperature, killing the above ground parts but not the roots.I watched a demonstration and it seemed like a great idea until Ithought about it for a while. The positive aspects were no “chemicals”and no soil disturbance. The negative was burning 10 gallons or more offossil fuel per crop acre per year, not even counting tractor fuel tohaul the equipment through the vineyard several times a year. Aprominent biodynamic vineyard and winery uses weed flaming extensively;somehow this doesn't seem to fit with the concept of a self-containedfarm. Other organic weed control methods include gas driven stringtrimmers (weed eaters), hand hoeing and various mechanical devices thatuse considerable amounts of tractor fuel and tend to beat up the soiland cause vine injuries. There's no free lunch.

When wearing my vineyard cap I probably agonize more about weed controlthan anything else. I will admit to using weed eaters. Our currentmodel has a 4-stroke engine, so it burns a lot cleaner than the morecommon 2-stroke which uses oil-gas mix. We've also done hand hoeing attimes, but I'm reluctant to ask vineyard workers to do that becauseit's extremely hard physical labor. If I were to change to anon-chemical method it would probably be mechanical – a french plow orrotary plow followed by hand hoeing clean-up. The big trade offs wouldbe increased fossil fuel usage and soil damage that doesn't occur withthe chemical weed control we currently use.

4. Current common organic practices are not the most sustainablepractices. Sustainability is a three legged stool. We tend to thinkmainly in terms of environmental sustainability, but economic andsocial sustainability are also necessary. Organic addressesenvironmental sustainability only partially, banning syntheticsubstances (except fossil fuel), but not limiting use of fossil fuelinputs or destructive soil cultivation techniques. It certainly iseconomically sustainable as long as enough people are willing to pay apremium for products carrying an organic label. It is also moresocially sustainable than “conventional” farming from the standpoint ofcommunity acceptance but less socially sustainable to the extent thatit is more dependent on manual labor. A perpetual supply of a hungrylabor force from third world countries is not something upon which wecan or should rely.

5. There is a myth that organic tastes better. Fresh, local andripened-on-the-plant taste better. Back in the day when the onlyorganic producers were small farms, most organic produce tasted great.Organic produce that is factory farmed and/or shipped long distancesdoesn't taste so good. Our local Sonoma County “regular” milk frompasture grazed herds tastes great. I can't print the words I use todescribe the taste of the supermarket organic milk we can buy thatcomes from a huge feedlot dairy hundreds of miles away. Wheneverpossible, eat local!

6. Another myth is that organic foods are healthier or more nutritious.The same arguments I applied to flavor pertain here. The deadly E. colioutbreak of 2007 involved both regular and organic spinach. I've had arunning battle with my wife for years over buying pre-packaged greens.I've been known to put “real lettuce” on the shopping list. I've alwayswashed the pre-packaged stuff and been asked why I did so; when thespinach disaster occurred I was finally able to say, “that's why”.Again: eat local!

7. Organic legitimizes biodynamic, or VDDD as someone here put it(MarkdaSpark, perhaps). Upon reading an article about a local winery“making the transition from organic to biodynamic” my wife asked whywe're not going biodynamic. My reply was that I am respected as arational, reasonably intelligent member of the community and I don'twish to change that. I'm not any more likely to time vineyard andwinery operations based on a biodynamic calendar than I am to plan mydaily life based on my horoscope.

Biodynamic is for the most part benign unless too much reliance on someof its claims lead you to neglect common sense. A tragic example ofthis was the loss of a beautiful old vineyard that was ravaged socompletely by mildew that it had to be destroyed. Apparently thevineyard manager had put unwarranted faith in the claim thatbiodynamics would increase the vines' disease resistance.

8. Both consumer perceptions and legal definitions of what organicactually means are highly variable. I'm always somewhat wary of foreignproduce whether it's marketed as organic or not. I know a vineyardmanager (primarily of organic ranches) who went on a vineyard tour inFrance and always asked to see the vineyard sheds – full of chemicalswhether the vignerons were “organic” or not. He asked one organicgrower what he did for weeds and the straight faced answer was “leRoundup”.

A lot of people think organic means no pesticides. A friend of mywife's was visiting once and when I told her I had to get up early thenext morning to sulfur dust she reacted as if I had said I was going totorture kittens. All was forgiven the next day when I explained thatsulfur was what the organic growers used. The line between syntheticand “natural” pesticides gets blurrier all the time. Sulfur dust,originally mined from mineral deposits, now comes as a byproduct ofpetroleum refining but is still okay for organic. High tech fungicidesbased on plant extracts are also okay. In the meantime, “conventional”pesticides, like pharmaceuticals, are using ever more specificbiological activities, often based on plants' natural defensemechanisms. Rather than diverging, organic and conventional viticultureare becoming more alike.

9. Organic carries an inference that anything not organically certifiedis contaminated or unhealthy. My wife once asked me if I ever worrythat the Roundup I spray on weeds could end up in the wine. I explainedto her that Roundup is thousands of times more toxic to plants than topeople and it would kill the vines if it got into them. I'm moreconcerned about contamination from auto exhaust from Highway 12 (which,fortunately, is downwind from us most of the time).

The first generation of synthetic pesticides like DDT have all beenreplaced by pesticides with more specific biological modes of action,less bio-persistance and lower toxicity to non-target organisms. I'mnot so naive as to claim that today's pesticides are completely benign,but when used properly they are safer than their predecessors by ordersof magnitude. Today's farmers are more educated and more heavilyregulated as well. Risk is a combination of toxicity and exposure, andboth factors have been greatly reduced in recent years, yet anunwarranted hysteria about possible food contamination remains. Youhave an immensely higher risk of cancer from not eating fruits andvegetables than you do from eating conventionally grown produce.

10. Greenwashing. Andy Peay of Peay Vineyards wrote a thought provokingarticle that was published in the San Francisco Chronicle lastNovember, questioning wineries' motives for going green. While somevineyards and wineries truly have their hearts into organics, I wonderabout a lot of the others. One company that has for many years toutedits rationale for organic as worker safety and environmentalstewardship committed total land rape a few years ago. They bought anold vineyard, ripped it out, clear cut almost a mile of stream (Cal.Fish & Game fined them for that), and fumigated with one of themost toxic and environmentally damaging chemicals allowed in U.S.Agriculture (and being phased out by international accord). The cynicin me says they applied for organic certification the very next day –it's a three year wait, about as long as it takes to get a vineyardinto production.

Twenty years ago a family member from another local vineyard and winerychastised me strongly for not cultivating (discing) our new vineyardblocks. I was mowing rather than plowing. Their vineyards always lookedimmaculate; I swear they would send a tractor down a row, churning thesoil relentlessly just to kill the last little weed that had escapedthe previous four or five passes of th disc. This same family operationis now lauded for their green accomplishments. They disc less, have putup multiple bird roosts and nesting boxes and are using softerchemicals. I'm pleased to see all this, but I can't help wonder howmuch of the change is based on PR and marketing value versus just doingthe right thing. They do get a lot of mileage out of their greenness,but who am I to complain – I brag about our green practices all thetime.

In December I went to a conference on wine industry sustainability puton by my old college (College of Natural Resources) in Berkeley. Talksranged from the potential consequences of climate change (includingsome I hadn't considered), to energy practices and raw materials input.The most interesting presentation was made by a viticulturist for along established, highly respected winery. He gave a very frankdescription of the conversion of some of their vineyards to certifiedorganic status. The company does not want to be excluded from thegrowing number of restaurants that sell only wines made from certifiedorganic grapes. They have carefully chosen some, but not all, of theirvineyards for this process. Hillside vineyards were left out of theorganic program due to concerns about erosion and worker safety. Thiscompany is quite forthright (at least in this academic setting) that itis doing some conversion to organic solely for marketing purposes. Theyare already very green and environmentally responsible and haveinstituted some cutting edge practices on that front. This conversionis costing them some money for new equipment, more labor including moretractor usage, and record keeping for organic compliance. It also maybe a slight step backward for them in terms of environmental impact andsustainability.

The commercialization of organic has bothered me for years. Governmentorganic standards have been lowered time and again in response topressure from big agri-business concerns eager to cash in on the demandfor organic products. They even have provisos for substituting“non-organic” supplies and ingredients when the cost of the organiccorollary gets too high! Too many marketing strategies are based onwhat is not in products rather than what is in them. Does anyone reallythink organic tortilla chips are a healthy snack? I'm reminded that afew years ago, at the peak of the low carb fad, a winery came out withsome brands like 1.6 Chardonnay and 1.9 Merlot, referring to the gramsof carbohydrate per 5 ounce glass. They got a lot of press as “reducedcarb” wines. Reduced from what? Those are both over 1% residual sugar!My immediate thought was, “Geez, my wines are all, like, 0.1 to 0.4 bytheir criteria; what a bleeping scam!” They were charging 10 bucks plusfor crappy, semi-sweet wine, preying on ignorance and gullibility.

In summary, I don't want to give the impression that all currentvineyard chemicals are benign or that the environmental and healthhazards of agriculture have completely disappeared. Organicpractitioners are not completely irrational, and many of them have truepassion for what they do and great respect for the land. Mostvineyardists have a more holistic approach than they did 10 or 20 yearsago, using more sustainable techniques that foster biodiversity andhealthier soils. Fortunately, grapes have very few pests in California,and most vineyards never need to use insecticides. Sulfur dust is theonly thing many growers, organic and not, ever spray on the vines, andthe health risk of substances other than alcohol in California wine isminute. I can't speak for imported wines, but as with anything else,always consider the source. If I ever try a Chinese wine I'm using aspit bucket;)