Wine and Environmental Justice Confernce Summary
The Vinguard held a wine and environmental justice conference on June 9, one day before WINeFare 2023. There are many ways the wine industry - in both rural and urban areas – must be more responsible about practices affecting workers' and local communities' sense of well-being. The goal was not to solve all the problems or even come up with a solution but to discuss some glaring issues and set a next step.
The conference began with a panel discussion including community leaders: Janaki Anagha, an attorney who works with Community Advocacy for Community Water Center/El Centro Comunitario por el Agua Director of Community Advocacy, Irene de Barraicua, Director of Operations and Communications for Lideres Campesinas, Rocio Jimenez who works as a liaison for Lideres Campesinas, connecting farmworkers with resources, and Charlie Toledo, the Executive Director of Suscol Intertribal Council. I also asked Megan Bell of Margins Wine and Diego Roig of Les Lunes Wine to join the panel because of their work helping growers convert to organic farming. Several vineyard workers attended, providing first-hand insight into the difficulties, dangers, and stressors accompanying vineyard labor, especially during harvest. Speaking their truth in a room filled with strangers takes courage. We owe them our utmost respect. They are the first link in the supply chain and their contribution to the wine industry cannot be overstated.
The panel discussed three interrelated topics: pesticide usage, water overuse, and wildfires. It lasted an hour and a half, and then we broke out into smaller groups after lunch to discuss what we heard, and then everyone came back together to come up with potential next steps.
Panel Discussion
If more wine growers farm organically, we'd diminish the impacts of pesticides, so I directed the first question of why there is resistance to organic farming to Megan and Diego. They gave several reasons:
1) Resistance to change.
2) Organic farming looks messy.
3) Organic farming renders lower yields.
4) The perceived increase in cost.
5) Chemical companies are always trying to sell growers pesticides.
6) Uncertainty about selling their fruit.
We didn't spend much time on these points during the conference, but as an industry, we should wage a campaign to eliminate glyphosate and other pesticides, not only in viticulture or in California but in agriculture throughout the country. Glyphosate and other synthetic inputs have serious health consequences, including cancer, and disrupt natural ecosystems necessary to bring our planet back into balance. This goal is not a pipedream, but it will take a decades-long movement. Diego mentioned that 2% of California's vineyards are certified organic. Even if we add those practicing organic viticulture, we're still looking at a small fraction. Grapes are not even the most sprayed crop; strawberries take the top award, with spinach getting the silver and kale, collard, and mustard greens sharing the bronze. American agriculture has inverted priorities. The USDA subsidizes big farmers that pollute and inhumanely treat humans and other animals yet requires organic growers to pay hundreds of dollars for certification. Why not enact a “Pay to Spray” policy, using the funds from pesticide usage to subsidize the costs of organic conversion?
I next asked Irene and Rocio if vineyard workers knew what they were spraying or were aware of the pesticide residue in the vineyards where they work. Only sometimes; trainings, if they happen at all, are often very basic, compromising the safety of the workers. Picking often occurs at night, so if workers cut themselves, they can be contaminated and not realize it. Also, workers often don't know the symptoms of pesticide contamination, and they are turned away by doctors who don't know enough, either.
Less than half, 48% of farmworkers have health insurance, adding to their stress load. In addition to unsafe work conditions, provided housing is usually substandard. Workers who live alone or with their families often live far from the vineyards. Vineyard workers in the Central Valley might have less of a commute, but their proximity to sprayed land (the Central Valley is the largest winegrowing region in California) puts their communities at risk. Long commutes, lack of health insurance, poor housing, unsafe work conditioners, and lack of safe drinking water are factors that take a toll on workers' mental health, which according to Rocio, is an increasing problem.
The California Department of Pesticide Management (CDPR) created a road map, in consultation with farmers and community-based organizations, calling for, among a few other things, a "pesticide alert system" where local communities are notified when vineyards will be sprayed. On its website, the CDPR says that its goals by 2050 are:
1) To stop using Priority Pesticides by transitioning to sustainable pest management practices.
2) Sustainable pest management has been adopted as California's de facto pest management system.
These goals beg several questions we did not have the time to get into during the conference but should address during future discussions.
1) What are priority pesticides, and what are not?
2) What does sustainable mean in this context?
3) How will the workers and communities exposed to “priority pesticides” over the next 27 years be assisted and cared for when they become sick? Will their families receive financial assistance when someone dies from pesticide exposure?
4) Why not go directly to organic farming? Certified organic farming is not the end goal either; regenerative or eco-farming is preferable, but shouldn’t zero tolerance for synthetic pesticides, priority or not, be the objective?
The other problem with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is the runoff into water sources, especially nitrates. Surface water in some parts of California have 70 micrograms per liter of nitrate in their water, 60 mg over the 10 mg limit considered “safe.” Nitrates suffocate your cells, blocking oxygen transfer to the blood. Boiling water concentrates nitrates, so farmers recycle their water for free fertilizer, hardly a silver lining. Janaki reported that nearly one million people in California do not have access to clean drinking water, mostly farm workers living in small communities surrounded by agriculture on all sides. Many are unincorporated towns, so there’s ambiguous accountability, or in areas with underfunded local governments ill-equipped to address water contamination.
Charlie reminded us that the water crisis is global, not regional. Other states and countries are experiencing water shortages, fueling migration, and we must address the big picture; it is one of the ramifications of climate change. Nonetheless, on a regional level, agriculture uses 80% of the water in California. Wineries use potable water for irrigation and cleaning. She mentioned strides made in Monterey, which set an ordinance requiring greywater for agriculture or outside watering. This policy works at least in parts of the county, so why don’t other regions adopt similar measures? Charlie, who worked closely with people on the state's water board, said it comes down to fear of a mass panic; government officials are afraid that if they level with people about the urgent need to use recycled water in agriculture and landscaping, people will freak out. Are the wildfires and extreme heat not already scaring us? As Janaki said, there are two things we can do: change our leaders and demand that potable water is used only for drinking and food. But let’s face it, if people don’t know the severity of the water shortage, they are unlikely to act. Even if there is a mass movement, will it come in time to offset the effects of climate change?
Wildfires were not part of the original program, but it's impossible to discuss wine and environmental justice without including them. As Charlie reminded us, tribal people have been managing the state of California for more than 10,000 years. That’s 20 times longer than the history of European colonization of the land. The tribes have deep knowledge of forest management and believe that the fires are a way of the earth healing itself. Why does the planet need to heal? Given the environmental problems all over the world, that might seem like a rhetorical question, but it’s one that would be worth exploring in a future Vinguard forum. There’s something Charlie told me a while ago that doesn’t get enough attention; California has native trees that are hundreds and even thousands of years old, but there are also non-native species, such as firs, that create uncontrollable fire. We do hear more about cultural burnings, which Indigenous people in many countries have long practiced. Every state and locality needs to collaborate with the tribes in their region and compensate them for their knowledge and work. We also need to change the mindset; it's not about fire prevention but managing the forest, clearing the understory, and laddering the trees.
Learning how to manage the forest is critical, as many would now agree, but with several disastrous fire seasons in the recent past and likely more on the horizon, we also must protect those on the front lines: the vineyard workers. Over the last few years, workers faced the difficult decision of working in dangerous conditions or losing a day's pay and maybe their job. North Bay Jobs with Justice developed a Five for Farmworkers plan in 2021. Last summer, the Sonoma Country Board of Supervisors greenlit three of their proposals – language justice, disaster insurance, and clean bathrooms and water. NBJWJ is still pressing to get community safety observers and hazard pay for the workers. Irene said that hazard pay is a good step, but the workers need unemployment benefits – for all – including undocumented workers.
Diego mentioned that some companies ask workers to sign a waiver so that they know about the hazards, which would mean signing away their rights to assistance or compensation if they’re harmed. While this might have the advantage of letting them know about the perils, we can wonder if it's written in a language they understand – many vineyard workers speak indigenous languages – and the circumstances under which workers are asked to sign. Forcing workers to choose between putting themselves in a risky position, knowing that if something happens, they are on their own, or forfeiting their livelihood, is inhumane.
Megan said there should be a type of insurance that still needs to be created, compensating winemakers for loss of revenue. Three thousand dollars in grapes might translate to $15,000 in wine, so the people making the wine and demanding that people put themselves in unsafe working conditions feel a lot of pressure to harvest, even during hazardous conditions. Irene pointed out that there's a difference between workers employed by contractors vs. those who work directly for farmers. When a contractor is involved, it's easier for a farmer to say that any abuse is not their doing or problem. When contractors are involved, people are more dispensable. As Janaki noted, they're in the books "as a line item," not as human beings.
Furthermore, the wage a winemaker or grower pays a contractor differs from what the laborer gets. Winemakers might pay $40 or $50 an hour in Napa, but the worker only gets some of it. Diego suggested that winemakers ask vineyard managers/winemakers for an accounting of workers' pay. There's also the issue of the guest worker visa programs, which end up displacing workers already here.
So, we covered a lot but, in summary, the main takeaways from the panel were:
1) Vineyard workers do not always know they are spraying toxic substances, and the training is inadequate.
2) Pesticide usage impacts the worker's physical and mental health.
3) Doctors need to learn the symptoms of pesticide poisoning.
4) While the pesticide management roadmap might be better than doing nothing, eliminating pesticide usage through organic farming is the goal.
5) Pesticides and synthetic fertilizers get into water systems, especially in rural areas where vineyard workers live.
6) Government officials are afraid to take meaningful action to promote recycled water because they want to avoid setting off a panic.
7) To prevent wildfires, we need to hire tribes to consult on forest management techniques.
8) There needs to be an unemployment benefit for all vineyard workers, so they do not have to put themselves in harm's way to make a living.
9) Winemakers should ask more questions about vineyard workers' pay and conditions.
During the breakout group sessions, we discussed much of what he heard during the panel and from the vineyard workers in attendance. There was agreement among the groups that our industry needs much more education and exposure to worker safety, which includes pesticide use, access to potable water, and wildfires. The suggestions that came up in each group were:
1) People who profit from wine should know about the vineyard laborers' work conditions. In other words, winemakers, growers, importers, distributors, salespeople, and buyers are responsible for getting information about vineyard workers' conditions. Since distributors and winemakers are the next link on the supply chain after workers pick grapes, they should provide this information to salespeople and buyers. It would be helpful to have more forums to speak directly with vineyard workers, independent of farmers and vineyard management contractors.
2) We need to educate buyers and consumers to ask who farms the grapes. What we prioritize as important information changes. Ten years ago, buyers rarely asked about sulfur, even in natural wine circles, and now it’s a bigger concern. If we make workers’ rights a bigger part of the conversation - in other words, start getting loud - it will get more attention.
3) Consumers need to understand the costs of winemaking.
4) There needs to be greater transparency in worker wages.
5) Wine back labels should include information about the workers who made farmed the grapes.
During the group discussion, the overriding sentiment was that vineyard workers could no longer be treated like a separate, dispensable part of the wine industry. No one else in the industry could earn an income without their work. There might be a language barrier, but that is not an excuse for diminishing their value. It is incumbent on winemakers, distributors, salespeople, and buyers to proactively remove the wall between vineyard workers and the rest of the industry.
So, what’s next?
1) Let’s have more forums where distributors, salespeople, and buyers can meet vineyard workers.
2) Let’s visit vineyards and volunteer to help us during harvest and pruning so we can get a sense of the difficulties of this work.
3) Start a wine label - "Who farms this?"- to get people thinking.
4) Have wine classes in Spanish and possibly indigenous languages.
5) Invite vineyard workers to wine-tasting events.
While these steps will require work, they are doable. The Vinguard can take the lead, but we will need assistance from others in the industry, vineyard worker leaders, and organizations like Lideres Campesinas that work directly with vineyard workers. Like other fields, exploitation has dehumanized those who make up the backbone of our industry. If we want to make the world around us more equitable, we are best positioned to act within the area of our chosen profession. That's why we decided to have the conference in the first place and why we should, as wine professionals, incorporate environmental justice as it relates to the wine industry into business plans and practices. We invite anyone interested to join our work.