Study Finds Oregon’s 2020 Wildfire Smoke Weakened Wine Sales for Years

Wildfire smoke from Oregon’s 2020 fire season was tied to weaker wine sales for years afterward, according to a new study that found measurable losses in both retail channels and tasting room business.

The paper, published online Thursday in the Journal of Wine Economics by researchers at Oregon State University, examined how smoke exposure varied across winery locations during the 2020 fires and compared that with later business results. The authors found that a one-standard-deviation increase in September 2020 PM2.5 exposure was associated with a 15% to 23% drop in retail wine sales volumes over the following three years.

The researchers said those yearly estimates were not equally precise. They reported that conventional statistical significance was reached only in 2023, even though the broader pattern pointed to persistent losses after the fires. That timing matters because it suggests part of the economic damage from smoke can emerge well after the fire season ends, when affected vintages are already moving through distribution and reaching consumers.

The study focused on Oregon, where the 2020 wildfire season brought unusually severe smoke during a critical period just before harvest. That is when grapes are especially vulnerable to smoke exposure, which can alter the sensory profile of finished wine. The paper argues that wineries were hit through at least two separate channels: possible quality-related effects that can shape retail demand over several years, and immediate tourism and hospitality losses as poor air quality keeps visitors away from wine country.

To measure those effects, the researchers combined multiple datasets. One included annual retail sales and price information for about 300 wine brands sold in Oregon, including 171 Oregon wineries, from 2018 through 2024. A second dataset tracked monthly tasting room sales, visitor counts, and wine club membership at roughly 160 Oregon wineries from 2019 through 2024. They also matched winery locations with high-resolution pollution data and local weather information.

The study found that smoke-related losses were especially visible in Pinot Noir and Pinot Grigio, two of Oregon’s most important varietals. The authors said the strongest estimated retail sales losses appeared in 2023, three years after the smoke event, which fits earlier industry expectations that the financial effects of the 2020 fires would continue to build over time rather than end with the harvest.

The paper also found a more immediate blow to winery operations. Smoke exposure reduced tasting room visits and on-site revenue in the month following a smoke event, according to the authors. That part of the analysis points to a different kind of damage than the slower retail effects. Even before a bottle reaches store shelves, wineries can lose business if tourists cancel trips, avoid outdoor activities, or spend less time in affected regions.

Oregon’s wine industry is a major part of the state economy. The study cites previous estimates placing the industry’s statewide economic impact at $8.1 billion in 2022, with agri-tourism contributing about $758 million. It also notes that more than 60% of Oregon wineries reported being directly affected by wildfire smoke in 2020, rising to 76% in the Willamette Valley, according to earlier industry reporting cited by the authors.

The researchers said Oregon’s heavy concentration of wineries within established American Viticultural Areas adds to the risk. Because wine depends heavily on place-based reputation, smoke can create problems that go beyond a single vineyard or producer. If consumers associate a whole region with a smoke-affected vintage, the commercial effects may spread across nearby wineries, including some that saw less direct exposure.

The authors said their results address a gap in previous damage estimates. Surveys conducted soon after fires can capture immediate disruptions, but they do not always isolate the economic effect of smoke exposure itself or track how losses emerge over time. By using differences in smoke levels across winery locations and following business performance before and after the 2020 season, the study attempts to identify a more causal relationship.

The paper also raises questions for how wildfire damage is valued in agriculture and food businesses. If a major share of the losses does not appear until two or three years later, near-term assessments may understate the true cost. For wine producers, that can affect decisions about insurance, cash flow, inventory strategy, visitor operations, and future fire-prevention investments. More broadly across the beverage sector, the findings may inform how producers of premium, place-based drinks think about climate risk, brand protection, and dependence on tourism and direct-to-consumer sales.

The study’s retail analysis used September 2020 PM2.5 as the main measure of smoke severity during the pre-harvest period. In the dataset summarized by the authors, the mean September 2020 PM2.5 reading at Oregon winery locations was 68.057 micrograms per cubic meter, with a standard deviation of 11.513. That variation gave the researchers a way to compare wineries that faced heavier smoke with those that faced less.

The tasting room analysis drew from monthly data and found that the hospitality side of winery business can react faster than retail sales. Visitor counts, tasting room revenue, and direct-to-consumer activity are all sensitive to conditions on the ground, especially when smoke affects air quality and travel decisions. That matters because many wineries rely on those sales channels not only for income, but also for customer retention and wine club growth.

The authors said wildfire smoke is becoming a growing threat to wine regions as fires increase in severity and frequency. Their paper does not argue that every smoke event will produce the same financial pattern, and it notes limits in the available sales data, including the lack of direct vintage-year information in the retail records. But the evidence from Oregon’s 2020 fires adds to a growing body of work suggesting climate-related shocks can move through agricultural markets in delayed and uneven ways, including through consumer demand, regional reputation, and tourism-driven sales.