Pesticide Residues in Wine

Wine is a natural product. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper (Sulphate)…

Jamie Goode writes on his Wine Anorak blog:

“Pesticide Action Network (PAN)(Europe) makes for rather alarming reading. Titled Message in a bottle, it reports the results of tests on 40 bottles of wine purchased within the European Union. ‘European wines systematically contaminated with pesticide residues’, is the conclusion. The report comments: ‘Together the 34 bottles of conventional wine contained 148 pesticide residues. All 34 bottles contained at least one pesticide, while the mean number of pesticides per bottle was more than four. The highest number of residues found in a single bottle was 10.’ Does this mean wine drinkers are in danger, and that there is a systematic failure by regulatory bodies to do the appropriate monitoring?”

After analysing the research about maximum permissible levels of exposure Jamie Goode’s conclusion is that the levels of agrochemicals aren’t high enough to warrant sufficient concerns about health safety. Although trace elements of pesticides in wines may pose no discernible health risks, it is rather too convenient for growers to assume a relativist view on this subject and to conclude that because human health is not at issue it is fine to spray a cocktail of chemicals on their vines.

Jamie cites three fungicides - amongst many - in common use with a potted description of their effects

Dimethomorph - Reported as not likely to be a human carcinogen
Pyrimethanil - Not acutely toxic
Carmendazim - Bad for earthworms

Hmm – hardly ringing endorsements for these products.

Such pesticides may not harm us in tiny quantities, but what about the worms, bugs and beneficial insect life that live amongst the vines. I am not willing to subscribe to the notion that pesticides are discerning and intelligently targeted so as to eliminate one pest without affecting other forms of life that well nearby.  This begs several questions. Is the measurement regime foolproof? Does it only take account of the health impact of individual pesticide residues or does it consider the likely effect of chemical cocktails? What happens when the wrong quantities of mixtures are sprayed? Political or legal directives are not the issue here; surely it is environmentally responsible to cultivate a chemical-free environment where natural solutions are found to natural problems – such as integrated pest management – and where the health and natural resistance of the vine is encouraged instead of chemical dependence.

Natural Solutions

Do not correct with a strike that which can be taught with a kiss.

Moroccan Proverb

Farming has been in thrall to the easy nostrum, le quick-fix since the 1950s. So many vineyards, especially in regions where the vine is a monoculture, have used agrochemicals to discipline the vines for a long time. Agriculture is another type of mass-industry, the containment and exploitation of nature for our own ends. The continuous application of chemicals has effectively destroyed the biodiversity of many vineyards, whilst at the same time making the vines lazy.

The PAN research tested organic wines for pesticide residues:
Of the six bottles of organic wine tested, five contained no detectable pesticide residues. These results provide a clear proof of principle that pesticide free wine production is possible where no synthetic pesticides are applied to grapes.

It is interesting how often you will see two contiguous vineyards, one where chemical sprays have been extensively applied and one which is entirely organic or biodynamic. The thriving nature of the organic vineyard suggests that the chemicals interventions are completely unnecessary; in fact one wonders whether many farmers employ pesticides because of a tangible scientific benefit, but rather for their voodoo properties (it makes them feel secure by keeping the unseen enemy at bay). It is like popping pills in case you feel ill in the future. What you notice when you visit chemically dependent vineyards is how lifeless they are: sans plants, sans flowers, sans insect life, sans worms, sans life.

Luc de Conti is a powerful critic of modern farming methods. According to him the soil is lifeless (“a cadaver”) and it is a fifteen year process to rid the ground of pollutants. In his vineyard the soil, which is turned constantly, is also nourished with seaweed and silica treatments to encourage microbial activity. The rich life in the vineyard is manifested in the incredible number of different wild yeast strains present, something that translates later into fantastic complexity in the wines that he makes.

Didier Barral has 25-hectares of biodynamically-farmed vineyards on slightly acid schist soils in which a little of everything grows. Everything starts from the soil which must be made as healthy as possible.

“Nowadays, farmers feed the planet but destroy it at the same time. Sometimes they think they are doing the right thing by ploughing too often for example, which eventually damages the soil structure. We have to observe nature and to understand how micro-organisms operate. Then we see that tools and machinery can never replace the natural, gentle work of earthworms, insect and other creatures that travel through a maze of tunnels, creating porosity and aerating the soil, making it permeable and alive. There’s grass in our vineyards and amongst the grass, there are cows and horses: a whole living world that lives together, each dependent on the other and each being vital to the balance of the biotope.” This is an extraordinary micro-climate where the mountains on one side and the proximity of the garrigue which shelters fauna and flora create the preconditions for an excellent terroir. Didier is adamant that cow manure is the best, and not having delved too deeply into these matters, as it were, who are we to say otherwise? A photographic album of the vineyards could be entitled: My Favourite Bugs or A Diet of Worms or even A Riot of Worms, for it reveals astonishing diversity of benevolent creepycrawlydom, indication of a thriving, living soil. Natural solutions prevail: small birds make their nests in the clefts of the vines (these nests lined with the horse hair that has been shedded) and they prey on the mites and bugs that are the enemies of the vine.

The PAN report seems measured in its conclusions. Its remit is to indicate the level of chemical spraying (between 1993 and 2003 the dose of synthetic fungicides applied to grapes in the EU increased by roughly 22%) and to set suggested targets to reverse this trend. The countervailing scientific approach that measures the impact of each toxin on an average human being and subsequently asserts that there is no risk from pesticide residues misses the wider point. This reminds me of Kant’s observation that science is organised knowledge, but wisdom is organised life.  Scientists do not address the moral question whether it is right in the first place to contaminate the soil with pesticides. Governments should regulate more stringently against the continued use of chemical pesticides and establish a timetable marking the conversion to sustainable and organic agriculture.