Do consumers care about sustainability?
...does it matter?
Here at AV we talk a lot about viticulture. It is, after all, in our name. But we certainly haven’t lost sight of the overall goals of our industry: to make wine. And we don’t just want to make wine, we want to make darn good wine, preferably wine that will benefit the farmer long term and not mess up the planet anymore than it already is (I’m trying Greta, please stop staring at me like that!).
Now there are a lot of people who write about the consumer side of the wine industry. Of course there are! Drinking wine is a lot easier than studying organic chemistry or climbing into soil pits. The readership you can tap into is much larger as well, albeit usually less educated on wine science and viticulture.
I don’t want to be a troll, but when someone writes something seemingly off-the-cuff about my line of work, I start wondering who’s tripping over my bridge.
The latest Billy Goat Gruff is W. Blake Gray who wrote an opinion piece for Wine-Searcher.com. He begins his article with:
Regenerative agriculture is supposed to be different and better, just like all the prior green-lite terms. One private company that makes its money from selling regenerative certification says that it is based on measuring “the health of the land as a living system”. This includes soil health, biodiversity and ecosystem function. That’s a lot less broad and more land-specific than “sustainable”.
He then goes on to say:
What I am, first, is a consumer. Second, I am a consumer advocate. And I simply do not care about your soil health. Sorry.
I understand that this is an opinion piece. I also recognize that Mr. Gray’s is writing from the perspective of the consumer. If I thought he were writing on viticulture, I’d be busying coopering him together a new bunghole. But again…consumer. So let’s hear him out:
YOU should care about your soil health. It’s precious– to you. To me, what matters is what you produce from it. Healthy soil should make the wines better and more consistent, which I do care about. Your work should show in your final product. (I believe this is true for biodynamic viticulture, which is why I like biodynamic wines even though I acknowledge that the philosophy is voodoo from a proto-Nazi.)
Well, cover blown. If you really think Biodynamic wines are of higher caliber than conventional wines, you either like drinking the Domaine de Montille’s of the world (duh) or you like Brett-bombs who use their Demeter certification to cover up lazy winemaking. The former makes wines that are meticulous and expensive to make at every level of production. Spreading horn manure is just gilding the lily. The latter, well, I can make some volatile acidity for you in my garage. Just give me a couple days. Is that enough Terroir for you?
But again, Gray is talking about the average wine drinker. So, I have to ask: are we in viticulture missing the mark with the end consumer? Do people really care?
True, there are a lot of buzzwords in the wine industry and for the average buyer this can be intimidating. I was once a young thang. I remember. But I seriously doubt that hearing that one wine is sustainable or regenerative or biodynamic is much of a hurdle. I also doubt that if Kaightlynn and her other rustic-sundress-clad girlfriends are going to choke down swill in the name of the environment. Most people hear the teenager behind the tasting room counter say “sustainable” and think “oh well that’s nice.” I can’t imagine that’s anymore terrifying than thinking you’re supposed to smell something in your glass that you aren’t. I mean, you can pick up on the dew-drenched Huckleberries, can’t you??
I think Mr. Gray overestimates how much of the new “regenerative” buzzword is meant for the consumer and how much of it is meant for those of us in the industry. There are people out there who educate themselves on this sort of thing and they are usually the people who buy high-end wine. This is because they believe, as I do, that paying attention to your vines creates better wine. Grapes that aren’t over-watered, or over-treated, or farmed on dead soil are tastier.
More than that, there are those of us who work in the vineyards and see the long-term effects of glyphosate. There are also those of us who look out the window and see tractor-pass after tractor-pass compacting the soil and polluting the air with burning fossil fuels. That’s why many of us in the industry are switching to “regenerative”, which is less dogmatic and more holistic than previous designations. We’re not doing this for you, Blake. We’re doing this because it’s the right thing to do.
I have, however, met scores of consumers who ask about sulfites. That should tell you a lot. Consumers care because sulfites are in the wine, and they care about what they’re putting in their bodies. I’ve had more inquiries about sulfites from consumers over the years than every sustainability issue combined.
Ugh. Are wine drinkers still worried about sulfites? If they are, you should tell them to stop drinking orange juice or eating dried fruit as well. You should also tell them to steer clear of organic or biodynamic wines, since elemental sulfur is used like crazy in these vineyards being the only defense against powdery mildew left for those who ascribe to either dogma (The relation between sulfur and sulfites is debatable. Still, sulfur is gross).
I don’t expect to ever reach the sort of consumer you’re advocating for. That’s ok. As you’ve said, there are different kinds of wine drinkers out there. “Regenerative” might just be for the nerds. I will say though, that if consumers want to prioritize their own health above all else, they might want to consider avoiding alcohol altogether. Just sayin’-
