Fifteen years ago, my wife, Polly Pittman, and I set out to establish a small vineyard on our family farm in Maryland in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. We were strongly committed to environmental sustainability and believed that organic viticulture, meaning production methods that qualify for organic certification, would be more beneficial for the environment and produce higher-quality wine than conventional methods. We also knew the journey would be challenging, especially given the mid-Atlantic’s humid and rainy climate, which can quickly devastate a vintage. Even though few in the region had successfully converted to organic methods, we were determined to make it work. Looking back on over a decade of learning, we realise our assumptions were flawed.
In fact, we question whether an organic vineyard in our region is consistent with sustainable environmental goals.
What is organic farming?
Organic agriculture was conceptualised in the 1930s when chemical manufacturers sought to market nitrogenous compounds and poisonous gases that were developed as weapons in the First World War as fertilizers and pesticides. Sir Albert Howard and his contemporaries, including Walter Northbourne, Lady Eve Balfour, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, and Jerome Rodale, argued that these chemicals were necessary only when conventional farming practices had stripped the soil of its fertility. Instead, they proposed that farmers could rejuvenate the soil, reduce pesticide use, and grow healthier food by recycling organic waste, composting, and companion planting.
Sadly, today’s organic certification standards don’t assess the practices the founders had in mind. Less than a third of certified organic farms in the US use cover crops, manure, or organic compost, the primary methods Howard promoted. These practices are hard to evaluate, so they are loosely interpreted and applied leniently. Instead, organic standards focus almost exclusively on eliminating synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms, thus addressing the symptoms rather than the root problem. Conventional farming includes any use of one or more synthetic inputs, even if many eco-friendly methods are also used. Notably, certification doesn’t mean farms are free of chemicals or pesticides.
Years of research suggest that this focus on synthetic inputs may not always be the best choice. For instance, the Stockholm Resilience Centre, which created the planetary boundaries framework, doesn’t distinguish synthetic chemicals from the naturally occurring substances the organic standards allow. They see synthetic pesticides and “naturally occurring substances mobilized by anthropogenic activity” as chemical pollutants. Organic certification may thus compel farmers to swap one toxic chemical for another without considering the overall pollution or its effects. For example, copper, a common organic fungicide, builds up in the soil and riparian environments, harming terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Sulphur, used by organic farmers as a fungicide and miticide, is linked to asthma among children who live or go to school near where it’s applied.
The impact on food
There are still many unknowns about pesticide residues in food, including wine. Consistent with research on wine, the US Department of Agriculture found that almost 75% of food products had them. However, less than 1% had levels above what the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. They also found that organic products are about half as likely to have these residues as regular foods, but this statistic doesn’t tell the whole story. Some organic insecticides like pyrethrins and spinosad are frequently found in food. Still, the most common organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, aren’t assessed in the US because the agency believes these chemicals are so harmless that they don’t need to set safe levels for dietary exposure. However, recent studies suggest an association between chronic exposure to them and neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson’s Disease.
Organic foods also don’t necessarily offer the other nutritional or environmental benefits people expect. In fact, many studies have failed to find significant differences in nutrient content between organic and conventionally grown foods. Ecological studies show organic farms have more biodiversity. Still, this finding varies by crop, farming practices, and location, and the effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity appear minor compared to other biodiversity-promoting practices like hedgerows and flower strips that are not part of the organic standards. Moreover, the pesticides used in organic production can disrupt the beneficial effects of these techniques. For example, sulphur and copper reduce the natural control of insect pests, at least in vineyards and orchards.
Organic farming isn’t always better for other aspects of the environment, either. Compared to conventional agriculture, organic farms use more land and cause more water pollution per calorie of food produced. Greenhouse gas emissions and soil acidification are similar in both systems. Organic fruit growing typically uses fewer fossil fuels, but these effects are inconsistent. For example, organic vineyards often require more tractor passes to apply pesticides. Because biodiversity, eutrophication, climate change, and pollution are connected, focusing exclusively on one domain can sometimes worsen the others.
Farmers know that growing crops requires adapting to a specific site, climate, and season. Rigid certification rules that limit the available tools thus restrict organic farming to places where it always works well. That may be why almost all fresh organic fruits and nuts, including wine grapes, and 70% of organic vegetables are grown in California, Oregon, or Washington, where fungal diseases are less common. The favorable growing conditions thus drive organic farmers to regions prone to drought, heat waves, and wildfires today. This concentration of production in climatically vulnerable regions puts the nation’s supply of healthy food and wine at risk. Robust, crisis-ready, decentralised local food systems are needed as the effects of climate change make farming more difficult.
Slow adoption
Consumers and farmers appear to agree that the disadvantages of organic food outweigh the advantages. Certified organic foods have remained niche products despite strong government support, growing private sector promotion, and significant price premiums. Only a tiny fraction of farmland, less than 1%, is organic, and organic products make up less than 6% of grocery sales, mostly from big food conglomerates. Even though organic certification would result in a competitive advantage, many farmers who could meet the standards prioritise healthy soils, biodiversity, and reducing their carbon footprint while rejecting organic practices that they find inhumane or wasteful. A recent survey of winegrowers in Switzerland showed that conventional vineyards use more soil-friendly practices than organic ones.
Our experience highlights this dilemma. Like many vineyards, we avoided herbicides from the beginning and quickly adopted sustainable practices recommended by our local agricultural extension service. As we learned more, we embraced techniques to regenerate soil, boost biodiversity, and restore ecosystem balance. We established diverse native and naturalised grasses and forbs as cover crops, created pollinator gardens and hedgerows, and planted 1600 trees, including many edible fruit and nut species. We made compost from woodchips balanced with nutrient-scavenging duckweed from the farm pond and incorporated livestock — sheep, chickens, and pigs — into the vineyard and the surrounding area.
Over a dozen years, our effort has paid off. The soil's organic matter has increased tenfold, representing over 3000 tons of sequestered carbon dioxide. Erosion has decreased, and water infiltration and storage have improved. We’ve cut down on tractor passes, reducing carbon emissions. The diversity of microbes, plants, and beneficial insects has flourished. Phytonutrients and antioxidants have increased, boosting plant resistance to microbial pathogens. We have nearly eliminated insecticides and cut fungicide use by a third. As a result, the soil, the landscape, and the grapevines are healthier and more resilient to extreme weather and pests. And the wine? With more polyphenols and Vitamin C, it tastes better.
We’ve had remarkable success and doubt that switching from synthetic to organic chemicals would accelerate the progress. In fact, it might slow or reverse it. Our trials and the experiences of others suggest that substituting copper and sulphur for synthetic fungicides, our final step toward certification, might control disease, but it would also mean more frequent pesticide use and chemical pollution, higher carbon emissions, and further environmental damage, and potentially harm human health.
Climate scientists have been clear that agriculture must fundamentally transform for the planet to remain habitable. Organic agriculture has moved the needle slightly in this direction by heightening awareness of eco-friendly farming and the benefits of pesticide-free, nutrient-rich food. However, restoring the earth’s damaged ecosystems requires more nutrient cycling, ground cover, water cycling and infiltration, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity than organic farming currently delivers. By focusing on the symptoms — synthetic chemicals — rather than the root cause — soil health and biodiversity — organic agriculture, as it is now practiced, fails to live up to its promise. Regrettably, it offers only a partial solution to complex environmental problems, excluding most farmers in the process. In its place, producers and consumers alike desperately need a more inclusive, holistic approach that can be adapted to diverse conditions, regions, and landscapes, assesses all methods and outcomes, and promotes a just, healthy, ecological planet.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author. If you would like to write a reply, contact Editor-in-Chief Anja Zimmer: zimmer@meininger.de
