Top 5 Objections to the Boycott of Herbicide Wine

Addressing the Glyphosate Push-Back

Herbicide burn. Credit @weinplus

Since posting a call for a global boycott of all wines grown with glyphosate or any herbicide, and a few subsequent social media posts, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Many people already have a personal boycott for themselves and the wine that they grow, make, and purchase, and my campaign has catalyzed and focused their commitment. “About time!” “Already doing it!” “Yessss!!!” have been some typical responses. But… others have raised objections.

Most of these objections have been well-meaning. Most have come from a place of wanting to not do unintentional harm to wine or to efforts to move viticulture in a more ecological direction. I deeply appreciate this kind of feedback, and I’m always willing to admit if I’ve been wrong and had a blind spot and approached something without considering important information. With each objection, however, I’ve found the need for the boycott to be strengthened, and my arguments for it honed to finer edges.

You may have some of the same objections, or you may find your participation in this boycott bringing you into conversation with others who have them. So let’s explore them:

1. Boycotts don’t work.

Considering that there are some very famous examples to the contrary (one in particular involving grapes comes to mind), I think this objection comes from a place of misunderstanding the intent of this boycott. This is a boycott of wine that was produced from vineyards or farms on which herbicide was/is used. This is not an attempt to ban glyphosate in agriculture or even just in viticulture.

Bans are top-down. Boycotts are bottom-up. Bans say, “Thou shalt not,” and are destined to fail by trying to use power to force compliance. Boycotts generally come from those without direct power (except, importantly, as a collective) and say, “Do whatever you want, but I won’t support you if you use herbicide.” Behavior change becomes a choice rather than an obligation, so the motive structure is very different.

Even more importantly, Boycotts work by asymmetric leverage - the tail wagging the dog. Consider what happens when you host a dinner party and one of your honored guests has celiac disease - total gluten intolerance. Most often you’ll plan a menu which is mostly or totally gluten-free and any gluten options are clearly designated and segregated, like a side of bread or pasta. You might even opt to buy gluten free bread or pasta so that your celiac guest gets to enjoy all parts of the meal. Why do you do this? Because there isn’t a serious compromise for your other guests if they have to eat gluten-free food (though some might prefer “real” bread or pasta). People who aren’t gluten intolerant can and very often do eat gluten-free foods, but it doesn’t go the other way.

And we, collectively, have now trained most public food service experiences to be sensitive to dietary restrictions. “Do you have any dietary restrictions?” is now a common question in most dining situations. I ask this of anyone I invite for dinner… because what’s the point of spending time making a bunch of food that won’t be enjoyed or even eaten, of making carnitas for vegans? The point of this boycott is to influence the majority by being a vocal and intransigent minority who refuse to drink wine that was grown with herbicides.

In the future when asked about your dietary restrictions you can say, “I don’t drink wine grow with herbicides.”

2. There isn’t sufficient or sufficiently robust evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

This reservation has mostly, as far as I can tell, come from a seeming sincere desire to be sure that we are basing this boycott on a scientific foundation. So I’ll characterize this as the “Avoid a witch hunt” objection, and I appreciate that sentiment.

My first response is that this boycott isn’t against glyphosate alone. It’s against all wine produced with any herbicides… glyphosate just happens to be the most used herbicide in viticulture because it isn’t as harmful to the vines as some of the other herbicides. Notice I say it isn’t “as harmful” … not that it’s safe for vines.

Even if this objection has some merit - which I don’t think it does - the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate, or generally the direct, negative effects on any aspect of human health aren’t the only reason for the boycott. Herbicides degrade soil health and therefore vine health, reduce potential wine quality, allow for more erosion, and decrease biodiversity. These are all really great reasons to boycott their use in wine, and, coincidentally, most of these reasons happen to be upstream of human health.

It would be the odd person who added herbicide to their vineyard to enhance ecosystem health and resilience, or to bolster vine health. Herbicides are the most used pesticides on earth. They have all have varying, negative impacts on the environment, especially when you consider they get added to it at nearly unimaginable rates - hundreds of millions of pounds per year. Using herbicides supports a global industrial, fossil-fueled chemical production and transportation infrastructure, and a few very large corporations who have profit rather than human health and wellness as their bottom line objectives. All of this is more than sufficient reason to boycott the use of herbicides in wine.

If you are uncertain about whether glyphosate causes cancer, it’s understandable. The massive corporation who created and sells it, Monsanto/Bayer, has spent enormous resources on disinformation, misinformation, and suppression of information efforts. (When their trolls begin targeting this boycott, we’ll know we’re having an impact.) To begin researching the “science” behind this question is to engage in a herculean effort to parse truth from falsehood, legitimate intentions from corruption. It’s overwhelming, and that’s Monsanto/Bayer’s intention.

The path I would suggest would be to learn how glyphosate works, and the mistakes that were made in assessing its impact on mammals. (Hint: the shikimate pathway may not be part of our biology, but it’s definitely part of our microbiology.) Resources to get started: Mimi Casteel did a fantastic presentation for viticulturists almost a decade ago. And please get to know Nick Dugmore, of Stoke Wines in Australia, and his story. His website has several great resources and links to peer reviewed studies.

When I hear someone say that we shouldn’t take extreme action, like a boycott, because “there isn’t enough evidence” to support it, or “we can’t prove it’s carcinogenic,” I’m reminded of the quote by Toni Bambara: “What are we pretending we don’t know today?”

3. This is a bad time for wine. You’re kicking wine while it’s down.

We all love wine. I get this. That’s why you’re reading this. I love wine too. In fact that’s the motive for this boycott. But wine doesn’t get a pass just because we love it. Wine isn’t entitled to success, and I’m not obligated to advocate for the success of this beautiful liquid culture at any cost, just because I love it.

Because you know what? I love the earth much more. I love life more. If a genie offered to grant me the wish of a completely ecologically healthy earth, and the cost was that there would never again be wine… I’d agree to that condition without hesitation.

If you can’t make wine without herbicide, then don’t make wine. We don’t need producers with that little imagination or willingness to think ecologically and act creatively. Good riddance to the wine that needs herbicides to exist. We don’t need that wine and never have. Wine culture is better off without it.

4. A boycott over-simplifies a very complicated issue.

It’s really not that complicated. Herbicide use in wine is a choice. Wine has been grown without herbicides for the entirety of its ancient history, and it continues to be grown without herbicides in every context on earth. Some of what are considered to be the world’s greatest wines have been, and continue to be, grown without herbicide.

There are many short and long term, low and high cost alternative steps vintners can take to manage under-vine growth. (A post with resources about this will be coming soon!) And that’s IF you choose to do anything with those non-vine plants. Some people actually just let them grow! (GASP!)

Wine doesn’t need herbicides. Your version of capitalism may require you to cut-corners and make compromises about the health of the world in favor of your personal, short-term material gain. Your choice of trellising may incentivize management challenges from excessive competition between the vines and other plants. Your choice of varieties may incentivize mildew when non-vine plants surround your grapes. But none of that obligates you to use herbicide. Maybe rethink your more basic viticultural choices first.

5. Boycotts are negative and performative. We need to focus on positive, substantive change.

First, see above about how boycotts can catalyze substantive change and awareness. Secondly, we need both. This isn’t either/or. Please continue your efforts to be amazing examples of positive viticulture, showing how regenerative organic herbicide-free farming approaches can help the triple+ bottom line… And let’s also start being very vocal and intransigent about the herbicide wine boycott.

There is an old truism that you can be too open. “Too much liberty leads both men and nations to slavery,” Cicero said over two thousand ago. We should be intolerant to intolerance. It’s a paradox that must exist to ensure that we actually protect the freedom and beauty that are the reasons why we get up every day. And I think we live in a time, and I live in a country, where the patient, tolerant approach to preserving the good in life will not work by itself. We need to both do the good work… and confront the bad.

And maybe that’s a bit grandiose sounding for a boycott against herbicide wines, but I think that confronting the kind of thinking that prioritizes convenience and short-term profit over the health and deliciousness of the world and its inhabitants has reached an urgent and critical moment in the history of the earth. There has never been a better time to take a stand for prioritizing sanity, creativity, and humility in our relation to the living world.