This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Could a pink powder sabotage California wine’s organic goals?
Firefighters battling the Los Angeles blaze are dropping a pink, powdered flame-retardant from planes in a bid to contain the disaster. But experts say such chemicals may have long-reaching consequences for agriculture. db investigates.
According to LA officials, “thousands of gallons” of a pink and red powder have been dropped onto the American city in the last two weeks as firefighters battled to stop the inferno that began on 7 January.
Photos have emerged of cars, pavements and driveways covered with a thick dusting of the pink powder, which works by depleting the fire of oxygen, slowing the path of the flames. The powder, called Phos-Chek, also serves as a visual aid for firefighters to see which areas have been treated and which areas still need their attention.
However, while the pink powdered flame retardant may prove successful in limiting further damage caused by the fires, there are concerns about the ramifications it (and flame retardants like it) could have on soils and waterways as strong winds blow it across California.
Sensitive environmental areas
It’s worth noting that Phos-Chek is among the most commonly used fire retardants in the world, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire has been deploying it for some time.
But in 2022 a lawsuit was filed by the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics against the US Forest Service, which said that the use of Phos-Chek had “violated” the clean water laws of the United States by effectively dumping chemicals. These chemicals, the lawsuit said, killed fish and other aquatic life.
As reported by the BBC, a US district judge found in favour of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, but curiously still ruled that the Forest Service could continue using the powder as long as it applied for a permit.
There is already a ban in place to prevent Phos-Chek from being dropped on “sensitive environmental areas” such as those which contain endangered species, but this, too, can be overruled if “human life and safety are endangered”.
Perimeter, the company that manufactures Phos-Chek, says the powder is made up of 80% water, 14% fertiliser-type salts, and 6% colouring agents and corrosion inhibitors.
According to Perimeter, Phos-Chek retardants are “the safest, most effective, and environmentally friendly products available”. However, a comment on its website reads: “Please consult with your regulatory expert to understand the restrictions and regulations that may be applicable to your state or locality”.
Partner Content
How safe is it?
“The fires in Los Angeles, and the controversies surrounding this product, haunt everyone’s minds,” says Valérie Pladeau, economic project manager of SudVinBio, the organiser of Millésime Bio, the world’s leading marketplace for organic wines, ciders, beers and spirits, in an exclusive db interview.
According to Pladeau, the equivalent fire retardant to Phos-Chek that is currently used in France, where Millésime Bio is headquartered, contains around 80% water. “The remaining 20% contains ammonium phosphate, iron oxide, gum or clay and other components in small quantities,” she says. “The gum, or clay, serves as a thickener, and allows firefighters to drop the retardant with more precision.
“The whole question, therefore, perhaps lies in the ‘other components…”
Pladeau confirms that while they have not seen “any reliable scientific references” to suggest that Phos-Chek is harmful to the environment, the accusation “relates to the presence of heavy metals” in the substance.
Regarding whether Phos-Chek could materially alter a vineyard’s organic status, or hinder a vineyard currently under assessment for organic certification, Pladeau believes it to be unlikely.
“Environmental contamination that does not come directly from an application of a product on the plots, or derive from neighbouring treatments, but from diffuse pollution (smoke, air pollution, heavy metals, etc.) is not specifically evaluated by the organic certifying body…but by the organisations measuring air and water pollution,” she reveals.
Downgrading of the harvest
However, the INAO, the organisation responsible for regulating French agricultural products, mentions that the following shortcoming applies in the event of the presence of a fire retardant on organic plots:
“This is a breach corresponding to ‘proven accidental pollution’ of a plot by substances not authorised in organic farming. In fact, these products, often composed of ammonium polyphosphate, are not authorised by organic regulations,” it said.
“This breach of regulations results in a downgrading of the harvest to conventional. However the plot [itself] is not downgraded.”
The above information relates specifically to French regulations, and not to those currently in place in California. Speaking to db, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) said it “does not have enough information” to comment at this time.
db has contacted the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance for comment, as well as the Salmon-Safe certifying body, based in Portland, Oregon, whose regulations are applicable across the United States.
Related news
Champagne's organic growers undeterred despite difficult vintage