Press
Napa Valley Grapegrowers Hosts Genetic Engineering in the Wine Industry Seminar
By Mary-Colleen Tinney
From Daily News Links, 06/21/2007
The issue of genetic engineering has long been a controversial topic in the wine industry. With genetically modified yeasts now being made available to winemakers and an untold number of wine research projects exploring new genetic combinations, the Napa Valley Grapegrowers saw a renewed need to address the debate. Similar to an event held by the organization two years ago, the Napa Valley Grapegrowers yesterday hosted a seminar on the topic, "Discussing Genetic Engineering in the Wine Industry," at COPIA: The American Center for Wine Food and the Arts.
The five-speaker program, comprised mostly of academics, addressed the history and potential for genetic engineering in the wine industry, current research being conducted, opposition to the technology and ethical issues surrounding the controversial practice.
Although the Napa Valley Grapegrowers were hosts of the event, executive director Jennifer Kopp stressed that the organization neither condones nor condemns genetic engineering, but is merely hoping to encourage an atmosphere of open discussion.
The event was opened with a thorough presentation from Carole Meredith, Ph.D, professor emeritus in the Department of Viticulture and Enology at the University of California , Davis and owner of Lagier Meredith Vineyard in Napa . Meredith, a longtime proponent of genetic research and technology advancement, discussed the fundamentals of genetic engineering in the wine industry.
After pointing out the reasons for genetically engineered grapevines--which include, of course, disease and pest control, improving quality and efficiency in the vines and even meeting increased market demand--Meredith pointed out that "genetic modification is as old as agriculture."
However, previous genetic modification methods, such as clonal selection and cross-breeding, can take decades to produce a desirable result. "It is very, very difficult and very slow to recover something with just one trait you want," she said. "The new method is to isolate what you want and introduce it in a single step."
Unlike traditional crossing methods, which were restricted to grapevines, genetic engineering allows researchers to use isolated traits from any type of organism, whether it is a fish, a vegetable or another grape variety. Meredith pointed out that both traditional and molecular genetic modification methods require years of evaluation and testing before they can be considered viable.
Of the current field trials, Meredith estimated that "very few of them are going to have some sort of lasting commercial interest." As is the case with traditional methods, promising theories and laboratory results don't necessarily mean success in actual vineyard scenarios.
Further, even if field trials are successful, the end product must find a market in a wary and distrustful consumer environment. "People are very hesitant to accept wine that is made with this technology," said Meredith. "There are tremendous amounts of advances being made, but we all belong to this community and we need to respect each other's views."
Meredith acknowledged that she has "some concerns" about genetically modified foods, but she has far greater concerns about issues currently plaguing the food supply. "I am more concerned about my spinach leaves than I am about eating genetically modified foods," she said.
In terms of grapevines, she is not satisfied that genetically modified vines would still be considered true varietals. "Would my Cabernet Sauvignon still be able to be called Cabernet Sauvignon?" she asked. "If you can't use the names of traditional varietals, then why bother?" She said that although the issue has been hotly debated for years, "there has been no satisfactory answer to that question."
"I wouldn't object to planting genetically modified grapevines in Napa if there were valid economic reasons for it and it has been discussed with the community and they understand why we are doing it," she said. However, she would be reluctant, at this point, to plant genetically modified vines in her own vineyard. "The consumer reluctance is too great right now."
Thomas Miller, professor of entomology at the University of California , Riverside , addressed how genetic modifications could change pest control methods. He pointed out that there are about 60 new pests being brought into California every 60 days and, more worryingly, humans have never before been able to eradicate any pest.
Miller is a pioneer in his work focused on genetic modification of symbionts, naturally occurring bacteria that, when modified, interact with the host to eventually decrease cases of infection. In the case of Pierce's Disease, a bacterial pathogen, Xylella fastidiosa, is known to clog the xylem of the plant. Current research has identified a symbiont for genetic modification that would deliver an anti-Xylella product to the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the most worrisome PD vector.
After the genetically modified bacterium is introduced, it is hoped that it would eventually inhibit the dangerous Xylella bacteria in significant numbers of the vector, thereby inhibiting the introduction of Pierce's Disease. The advantage of symbionts to control PD is that there is no genetic modification to the plants whatsoever, thus eliminating some of the more common concerns about pollination drift or whether the plant remains a "true" variety.
However, Miller also addressed several regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before such research is commercially viable. Federal regulatory agencies have stalled progress for similar research, including a symbiont control of the vector that carries the deadly Chagas Disease (which is found throughout Central and South America ). Miller seemed to express some frustration with the governmental requirements that his PD research vines be uprooted and burned after a single season.
Marc Fuchs, assistant professor of plant pathology at Cornell University , presented the results of research he has conducted on fighting grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV). Initial research discovered that the nematode vector could survive without any food source for up to four years or more, each still carrying GFLV.
Fuchs cross-protected research vines by inoculating them with a small amount of one of two forms of mild GFLV. Though the method was very successful--reducing infection rates by as much as 80 percent--yields were also significantly decreased, by about 11 percent over the course of the study. "Cross-protection shows great potential right now," he said, "but this strategy is of no use to the grower society" unless yields can be improved.
Another project Fuchs is working on is pathogenic-derived resistance to GFLV. He has engineered five different genetically modified rootstocks, and thus far under greenhouse conditions the study has been successful. There are still concerns with the method, especially if the disease-resistant rootstocks then become susceptible to a different virus. Because the genetic modifications are restricted to the rootstock, however, there are no issues with pollen or seeding transfer to un-modified vines.
The only non-academic speaker, Dave Henson, executive director of the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center , served as an opponent to the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. "There are profound potential ecological and agricultural effects of genetic engineering in agriculture," said Henson. "I am not a critic of research. It's a question of when do we release that out into the public? We need much more publicly financed research so that we have much more democratic control over the use of these technologies.
"To me, the point where we take the thrill and excitement from the research and turn it over to the private market, where a couple large chemical corporations can make private market decisions about the worldwide release of these technologies--that is unacceptable," Henson continued. "It's not about science, it's about democracy and about governance."
Henson never criticized the research or the reasoning behind the research, and in fact seemed open to the use of genetically modified organisms in certain circumstances. He did, however, repeatedly urge caution in how and where genetically engineered crops are used. "Caution should lead the day," he said. "Yes to research, no to the commercial release of crops."
He cited several instances where genetically modified plants, such as corn or rice, infected nearby farms. Because foreign markets are largely opposed to genetically modified foods, many of these farmers struggled to cope with a contamination they could not control. He believes there should be greater oversight into genetically modified crops, suggesting that local and state agriculture officials be notified where there are genetically modified crops.
David Magnus, Ph.D, and director of Stanford University 's Center for Biomedical Ethics, rounded out the day with a discussion of the ethical and social concerns about genetically engineered agriculture. After discussing the anxieties and concerns that consumers have with genetically engineered foods (such as health risks, cross-pollinations or escape of the organisms, risks to organic growers and economic concerns), he addressed how companies and individuals could allay those fears.
Magnus stressed community input before proceeding with genetic engineering programs. "Local and state scientists and regulators are not necessarily worried about people's values and concerns. That falls elsewhere, and we need to be aware of that," he said. "Communities should have a right to decide what sort of agriculture will exist in their neighborhoods. Consumers are entitled to information they care about."
He urged companies to allow consumers to judge the risks and make decisions on their own. For example, plainly labeling genetically modified foods (such as cloned meat or wines made with genetically modified yeasts) rather than the consumers eventually discovering that they were unwittingly purchasing modified products. "People expose themselves to risks all the time," he said. "The key is to allow people to weigh the benefits for themselves."