Champagne reaps what it sows
On the last day of March, another update on this year’s excessive herbicide spraying in the Champagne vineyards.
About 10 days ago, after I did the Substack LIVE, I took the following video while I walked Pixie. For just under 8 minutes I filmed what I saw either side of the public road less than 500 meters from the village. I posted the video in its entirety to Instagram – despite the platform trying to dissuade me of doing so by telling me that videos over 3 minutes will not be shared widely – because I did not want to edit the reality.
Somehow, the video did quite well and managed to reach just over a third of people who do not follow me. I guess quite a few of these non-followers are current or ex members of the Syndicat Général des Vignerons (SGV), as the video’s insights tell me that 52% of the views came from France, and 64% of the viewers were male. Comments made by an ex-president of the Groupe des Jeunes (the “youth’ arm of the SGV) show the anger and disdain of grape growers who are well-aware that the nuked landscape isn’t a good look, but do not want to change their ways. It is clear that they take these types of video personal and their only response is bullying. Somehow, they seem to believe that the problem lies not in their illegal behavior, but rather is caused by the messenger who juxtaposes the rules with the reality. I have included screenshots of the comments to underline my point (these comments were made publicly)
While I have been laughing off the above comments, and answering them by putting the record straight, they also sadden me. For in the end, they show these growers’ unwavering belief to the status quo of Champagne’s glory years at the beginning of this century, a time when herbicide and pesticide usage was encouraged to meet the growing demand for grapes. Unfortunately for them, that era is long gone, and no amount of clinging to the past will bring it back. Furthermore, attention focused on the past generally translates into decreased efforts in innovation for the future, inferring that these growers are likely to be ill-prepared to face the current economic, social and ecological challenges. In other words, they are digging their own graves.
Nonetheless, it appears that my troll’s instinct to want to hide the nuked landscape were justified: a subsequent shorter reel (to meet intellectual property restrictions to use Peter Tosh’s Nuclear War audio) has gone semi-viral, something that actually caught me by surprise. I am a very small fish in the social media pond – I simply do not have the patience or interest to spend a lot of time and energy scrolling endlessly, never mind studying an everchanging algorithm. But it seems that reggae-cool herbicide blasts speak to the eyes and ears of champagne lovers, importers and educators, giving every champagne and nature lover an unexpected – but much needed -win.
Champagne has proven time and again that it will only reluctantly give up harmful habits ( eg dispersing Paris household waste in its vineyards, exploiting seasonal harvest workers,...) when the pain associated to maintaining said habit far outweighs its advantages. That pain has often been brought about by an image-crashing scandal. It is woeful and maddening at the same time, but to quote Trump: “it is what it is”
Returning to this year’s nuclear wasteland vine-scape: the situation is so bad, that even winegrowers – organic and conventional ones – are admitting that it’s worse than it has been in years. While most of the pictures I have posted have shown vineyards in Hautvillers, the village where I live, the situation is the same all over the appellation. For instance, the pictures above and below were sent to me by an organic grower in the Aisne. He had added “I have never seen as much glyphosate around here as this year”. To put his sentiments into perspective - he took over the family estate just around a decade ago. He also sent me a picture of a dire looking pond – the rusty color comes from soil and iron chelates washed away by heavy rain, pointing at severe erosion.
A conventional grower, pruning in a vineyard that was freshly 100% nuked – not with glyphosate apparently – told me this morning that it seems to get worse from year to year. The service provider that applied the herbicide apparently seems to believe that the 40 cm cahier des charges rule only applies to glyphosate, while the text clearly states chemical herbicides can only be used maximum 40 cm from the vine trunk (La largeur maximale de la bande pouvant être désherbée chimiquement est au maximum de 40 centimètres de part et d’autre du rang de vigne.) since he said as much to the grape grower, who had questioned the blank spraying for financial and ecological reasons.
On the other hand, if service providers still (claim to) believe that blank spraying is within the appellation regulations, something clearly went wrong with the communication of the new herbicide rule. Especially since it seems that most grape growers are not aware of the restriction either. It pays to point out that most of these people take their pesticide advice from pesticide providers, which is maybe why there is a is a collective feigning of ignorance.
However, this also implies that a grower or service provider relying on the advice of a pesticide sales person, will likely xceed or at least push the boundary of all pesticide limits. Indeed, if they do not care to illegally spray herbicides – something that is easily observed with the naked eye – they will have no qualms doing the same with insecticides or fungicides. Organic vineyards are often ideal testing places for this kind of behavior. While much has been said about neighbors engaging in the spraying of bordering organic rows with herbicides – again easy to observe for a lay person – the same happens with other sprays. When growers want to keep all their grapes (eg not sell off the grapes from rows bordering a conventional vineyard – they generally undertake residue test. These tests reveal again and again that in difficult years many conventional growers apply maximum doses multiple times, resulting in potentially accumulating pesticide residues in their musts and wines according to 2025 study. A different study on pesticides and winemaking concluded that many pesticide residues are dissipated by the alcoholic fermentation process but regularly traces remain in the final product. The PestiRiv study that came out last year, also proved that pesticide residues are present in the air and in human urine – in other words pesticides taint everything in their vicinity, yet they remain wildly popular in Champagne. Quick reminder, the PestiRiv study showed Champagne to be one of the largest pesticide consumers of the study, in an easy year like 2022.
Among pesticides, insecticides have a reputation of being the most toxic, and Champagne worked hard at eradicating them from its vineyards, before they made their comeback in the battle against Flavescence Dorée. Now that some insecticides have become a necessity, it seems some growers have embraced all of them with the same fervor. In the fight to protect young buds from Noctuidae or Geometridae caterpillars, some growers have been spraying insecticides these last few weeks. These are toxic to the extent that regulations prohibit entering the sprayed area for at least 6 hours after their applocation. Yet last week, an organic grower in the Aube sent me the video here below, taken while he and some of his staff were pruning. It is another perfect example of how regulations are flouted, and how little respect some growers have for their peers.
One could wonder why the Comité Champagne (CIVC) and houses continue to turn a blind eye to the herbicide and pesticide dependence of many grape growers, knowing that consumers prefer pesticide-free production. The herbicide addiction is impossible to miss at this time of the year, yet controls remain sparse. Even Viticulture Durable en Champagne (VSC) vineyards have been sprayed outside the cahier des charges regulation – that for the record allows vineyards to be doused at 73% to 80% (depending on the row width )– and when glyphosate is used, they also breach French regulations. This is mindboggling and goes against the VDC philosophy. It’s even crazier when one understands that grapes coming from these blank sprayed vineyards will make their way into most houses non-vintage cuvees, especially since these same houses have been heavily investing in regenerative practices in their own vineyards. Why bother at all if everything will be blended together in the end?
And what are consumers meant to believe? The ones visiting in spring do not need my pictures or articles to see the reality – it is impossible to miss. Others may read an article or see some pictures and many seem to have lost faith all together. Comments on both Instagram videos on the herbicide abuse – both public and private – show disgust, shock and even impatience at the lack of progress in this area over the years. People that have been following me for a while know that I have been exposing these types of practices for at least a decade now and it seems nothing changes for the better. I saw the other day that even a winegrower that I had included in my Terroir Champagne book – because they were herbicide free at the time – applied some herbicides this year. All I could think was why? Last year was relatively easy, the appellation is unlikely to exceed 9000 kg/ha, and even though the season has started early, it’s been dry enough to mow or hoe. It is just so sad when pioneers take the easy route, not to speak of the bad example they set for their peers.
As a final thought: it is a fact that herbicides are used in vineyards across the world, but none of these places committed to be herbicide free by last year. Not only did Champagne default on its widely publicized zero-herbicide promise, it does not even require its growers to abide by national or even the very lax cahier des charges rules. This will come back to bite the appellation in the long run. Consumers expect more; they have been sold an “exemplary” appellation, and they are fed up paying a premium for a wine produced cutting corners at every opportunity. And today they have a plethora of choice in the sparkling wine department; they can therefore demand more ecological and healthier production methods. And in case anyone is wondering, from what I have heard and read, they are.