Genes, vines and wines

The bio-economy seems to be on its way – to the fear (and non-comprehension) of many. Genetic modification could be a major factor shaping the future of wine. We spoke to two of its foremost researchers and proponents, Professor Sakkie Pretorius and Dr Florian Bauer.

GRAPE It seems we talking here about one small aspect of a global development of immense significance?
Historically, there have been few occasions when a vision of the future was shared by most experts across all fields of scientific and social exploration. Today, a vast majority of such experts appears to agree that this century will see the arrival of the bio-economy. Our direct environment will be changed profoundly, in a way similar to the changes experienced during the shift to our current communication and information society.
     Medical and agricultural biotechnology will be a major contributor to these developments. There is huge investment in this area, and no other technology holds as much potential to create an environmentally sustainable future. It is up to us to use biotechnology in a responsible and transparent way (as with any other technology).

GRAPE How close are we to using genetically modified (GM) grapevines or wine microorganisms in the production of South African wines?
No GM grapevine or wine microorganism is used in SA wines. And this will be the case unless both the consumers and the industry are satisfied that they are safe, of high quality and beneficial. Although the local wine industry supports our research, it does not believe in forcing GM wine down its customers’ throats. Further-more, SA law on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is as strict as anywhere. The policy here has always been to be honest and open about our research (including projects that involve gene technology), but we are also clear that SA will not be the first to produce GM grapes or wines commercially. This industry is very dependent on the highly sensitive European market, and it would be suicidal to ‘pioneer’ GM products there. We also cannot see that any other country would take this risky leap within the next decade.

GRAPE What then is the point of developing genetically engineered grapes and wine microbes at this stage?
Firstly, building a resource base of people who are able to understand, evaluate and contribute to these scientific fields of investigation is a long-term investment. It will mean that the SA wine industry can get maximum benefit from future scientific development. Science is about understanding and providing flexibility for all possible developmental scenarios.

There are some specific reasons, though, for us making use of gene technology in the wine industry. For example, in the research laboratory it is a very powerful tool to gain information about fundamental aspects of the grapevine and the wine yeast. This is hugely different from applying GM products in the market. It is also often much faster to develop GM prototype grapevines or yeasts for various laboratory purposes than to use conventional breeding technology. This helps us to unravel complex issues and test hypotheses. Then we can go back to try and solve the same problem via a non-GM strategy.

GRAPE Presumably you also want to be ready for a situation or time when it became necessary or acceptable for GM technology to be put into wider practice.
The rest of the wine-producing world is investing massively in grape and wine biotechnology and we must protect the local industry against possible future intellectual property issues. If a phylloxera-like disaster struck, for example, (it could be something like California’s Pierce’s Disease), our prototypes must be available as well-tested, ready-to-use technology, grape varieties or strains. Otherwise we could find ourselves having to pay unaffordable royalties on patented technology, varieties or strains that have been developed elsewhere.

GRAPE Could you summarise what you see as the clearest potential benefits of GM (for the moment leaving aside any complications involved)?
In short: providing a profitable, environmentally sustainable basis for the future of the SA wine industry. It must be stressed that current practice is not environmentally sustainable (look at water use, for example). Technological innovations (from wherever they come) are vital for producing wine on an environmentally and economically sound basis. Of all currently available technologies, genetic modification has the broadest resource base and the widest potential for future application. At the risk of repeating myself – it would be irresponsible if this tremendous potential was not investigated and developed today.

GRAPE And specific aims at the Institute?
They would certainly include the following: First: to develop grapevines, wine yeast and wine bacteria whose metabolic activities lead to a reduction in the use of water, fertilisers, pesticides, chemical preservatives and other additives. Second: To develop healthier products. For example, we could produce wine that contain increased levels of beneficial constituents (resveratrol would be a well-known example). Or wine with reduced amounts of less attractive, even harmful, natural constituents, or wine that required less use of preservatives like sulphur dioxide. A third specific aim would be to help increase product diversity and develop new grape-based products.

GRAPE Taking just one point out of that list – the idea of vines that do not need the pesticides that present ones do has obvious appeal. But will the circle ever end? Won’t your healthy transgenic vines simply develop new diseases? Wine is not a matter of quick crops – a seven-year old vineyard is young, and the best wines come from much older ones (though perhaps you can change all that!) New patented versions with genes newly tweaked to deal with new problems cannot be continually and quickly introduced....
The circle will, of course, never end. Evolution continues. New threats to agricultural production will continue to emerge (new parasites, diseases, increasing salt content in irrigated fields, etc), and this will happen independently of whether organic, bio-dynamic or classical industrial agriculture predominates, or whether GM or non-GM plants are used. However, of all scientific developments, biotechnology has by far the biggest potential to provide lasting and sustainable solutions (not ever-lasting ones) to specific problems. The reason: contrarily to most traditional improvement strategies (let’s say breeding), biotechnological strategies require a profound scientific understanding of the problem to be solved. The scientific understanding generates rational approaches that make biotechnology uniquely powerful.

GRAPE You have suggested elsewhere that improving wine quality through GM could, with appropriate marketing approaches, help with the present world situation of overproduction of wine – much of it of admittedly poor quality. But existing agricultural knowledge could deal sufficiently with quality issues – and is in fact probably doing so at present. Yet overall per capita consumption continues to stagnate, and plenty of technically good wine presently goes unsold and undrunk. Surely there is no evidence to suggest that more wine would be sold if it were of the ‘better quality’ you envisage?
lWhether improved quality would lead to more wine being sold is a moot question. In the wine market of the future, quality will certainly not be enough to guarantee sales, but will be essential for the survival of any wine industry. Anything that will help to maintain high quality should be welcomed. Furthermore, several of the projects in our laboratory, while generally about increasing quality, would give SA wines specific marketable advantages (such as increased health benefits). In addition, research also focuses on developing new grape-based products, which would create their own, new market niche.

GRAPE Talking of marketing – you have acknowledged many hurdles to be overcome before designer grapevines and yeasts would be acceptable. Many of these apply widely – scientific, legal and regulatory, intellectual property, political and marketing ones – and we can’t deal with them all here. One particularly relevant to wine is varietal names: it is unlikely that any commercial breakthrough with GM products would ever be really plausible unless they were allowed to use established names – cabernet, shiraz, chardonnay, etc. How do you see the argument on this issue going?
lThe naming issue is complex and entails a number of factors, such as the source of gene(s) introduced into a grapevine, and the ‘truth-to-type’ of the transgenic vine when compared to the original. In most cases, GM grapevines would be little different to grapevine clonal selections, which have been selected on the basis of spontaneous genetic variations that benefit plant performance. When clonal selections are used, the identity may be known to the grower, but the wine is  marketed under the varietal name, not the clonal one (typically specified by a clone number). This would become much less clear-cut when transgenic grapevines exhibit altered fruit qualities, such as improved colour and flavour. Perhaps in such cases one would have to consider a specific distinguishing designation in addition to the original varietal name.

GRAPE You mention ‘improved colour and flavour’, of more obvious interest to most wine-drinkers than details of yeast structures. Let us discuss ‘better wines’ in that sense. At present, the more ‘serious’ end of wine production depends on the notion of wine as a natural product. The idea that such wine should express its origins (terroir) is crucial. But vines could presumably be designed to give pre-determined flavour and structure profiles in conditions ranging from, I suppose, irrigated vineyards in the Northern Cape to hydroponic farms under plastic in Holland.
        Once one starts down the GM track, can one artificially stop for any reason? Would such an extreme conclusion be unavoidable? And would it not destroy the whole basis of serious excitement in wine – the cooperation and conflict between human beings and nature on an annual basis? Once nature has been comprehensively defeated, and the character of wine is largely determined in laboratories, we might have rivers of cheap wine indistinguishable from Romanée Conti, but would anyone care about it any more than they now care about Coke? There was a fable about a goose that laid golden eggs....

The question can be answered by correcting assumptions and misperceptions suggested in the question. Firstly, the association of GM with industrial production methods is one of the most consistent public misperceptions (or misrepresentations by some media). We find this rather odd. The majority of scientists who are working in the field of biotechnology are very environmentally aware, and would share a horror of ‘vine hydroponics under plastic in Holland’. The probable reason for this persisting misperception is that most GM products on the market today are industrially produced commodities (maize, soybean, etc). Nevertheless, please accept that the introduction of GMOs in any of these markets has not changed traditional production practices or quality standards. It should be stressed that biotechnology does not intrinsically support any specific type of agriculture.
     There is no ‘GM track’. In fact, the contrary is true. All GM projects currently underway aim at making wine production more environmentally sustainable, providing more variety or increasing the potential health benefits. Good wine will continue to be made in the vineyard and the cellar (sorry for the stereotype). It may surprise you, but we are pretty confident that the best eco-bio-wines of the future will be derived from GM grapes and yeast – grown without pesticides and fertilisers, SO2 free, and without addition of other chemical additives (such as nitrogen, to mention just one). 
     Secondly, we are flabbergasted by the persistent accusation that scientists would like to make wine in the laboratory. What a waste this would be! Trying to better understand what makes a good wine or to increase the options available to the wine maker appears to automatically generate this type of response. Thirdly, to repeat, our aim is not to standardise wine, but rather to increase the options available to winemakers. The aim is more, not less, variety. Notions of terroir, local traditions and specific production practices will not be affected by the GMO issue. Indeed, the local wine industry may be better able to express the characteristics typifying its wines by using specifically adapted yeasts.

GRAPE To pursue this a bit. You are perhaps finding accusation against scientists where there is mostly distrust of the use made by others of their research. The suggestion is not that scientists want to make wine in the laboratory, but that wine big-business might want to make millions of litres of wine that tastes like, say, Kanonkop Paul Sauer 1998, and that the route to achieving this would be through the biotechnology laboratory – however sincere and vine-hugging scientists might be! If such wine-engineering were possible, all aspects of wine would ‘be affected by the GMO issue’. Much wine at present is already ‘industrial’ rather than ‘agricultural’. Scientists can seldom dictate what happens to the fruit of their research. Simply, leaving aside your opinions of any consequences: how likely is it that biotechnology could enable industrial reproduction of ‘agricultural’ wine?

Firstly, as scientists – perhaps this is a professional defect – we struggle to understand the concepts of ‘industrial’ and ‘agricultural’ wines. It seems to us that all wines are a little bit of both. But let us reassure you. As bio-technologists, we are working with living organisms – meaning all the vagaries and unpredictabilities that characterise such complex systems. We may enhance certain aspects of an organism, make wine production more environmentally sustainable, improve the health benefits of wine, and generally contribute to new tools for winemakers to achieve certain aims – yet we lay no claim to ever be able to control all aspects of such a tremendously complex process. There is no need to be worried about us (or anybody else) being able to reproduce a specific wine – the closest you will ever get to a Paul Sauer 1998 is another Paul Sauer 1998 (and even then the two bottles may prove not to be identical after all...).

GRAPE Without going into all the potential environmental and other problems that may exist creating and propagating transgenic plants, just one question. Are you really confident that the scientific community, regulatory authorities and commercial interests, the forces that gave us thalidomide, Chernobyl (and tasteless bread!), are to be trusted with making such fundamental decisions, when the dangers are so great?

Now, this is strong tobacco. The question suggests a rather obscurantist (or perhaps Luddite) agenda. It becomes a little tiresome to reply to this type of misguided allusion. For starters, the same forces gave you more or less everything that makes your life easier, safer and longer today. Chernobyl, thalidomide etc are apparently here supposed to represent science gone wrong or progress running riot. These disasters, however, occurred when scientific protocol was disregarded, not because of it.
     There is no doubt that technology is powerful. Yet, when it comes to the bottom line, I cannot see how anybody could doubt the tremendously positive contribution of scientific progress to human society. Should we discard one of the most powerful technologies because of irrational fears? This is not to say that scientists and biotechnologists should decide on what is done or not done. Historically, in any case, they never have. In a democratic society, it is only after rational debate (a vain hope?) that such decisions are taken by all stakeholders involved. We are confident that, if decisions were taken based on rational grounds alone, biotechnology would receive much stronger support than it does now.

GRAPE You are obviously impatient with what you see as ‘ignorance’, ‘political meddling’, ‘vested interests of protectionism’, ‘consumer confusion’, etc, when it comes to GM products. But wine – no longer part of a staple diet, more of a luxury – is different from soya or wheat. Most of those who genuinely care about it, its vagaries and variety, the incomprehensible delights and disappointments of different bottles, do not want any more significant meddling in it – not just GM meddling. We are basically satisfied with the resources available now. Can scientists not leave a few little islands for human beings to have a slightly mysterious relationship with?

lWould you suggest that wine be left untouched by science, pure and unadulterated? A small, mystery-filled playground for artists (who may also be called grape-growers and winemakers), who, of course, only use the most natural ingredients? From what exactly you want to be left alone? Do you want to be protected from the demystifying understanding of how wine is made? Let’s blame Pasteur – he was the one who started it, after all. Or perhaps you want to be protected from any improvements in winemaking technology? We should never have allowed cold fermentation (ah, the delightful mystery of the disappearing fruitiness). Must we leave alone the little islands of traditional agriculture, their pesticides and fertilisers, their SO2 and off-flavours? Stagnation means death, in life as in science (and biotechnology). Do some residual Luddite desires underly this question? Why is the act of understanding such a threat to some? Science and biotechnology allow us an insight into the beauty of natural systems. Biotechnology will provide new answers to problems that most grape-growers and wine-makers have been trying to solve for a long time. It will be challenged, sometimes lead to tremendous progress, sometimes disappoint. It will not demystify wine.

GRAPE  Touché! Professor Pretorius, a personal perspective please: to what do you feel committed in this whole process? To science? To economic progress? To wine? Do you, in fact, have any deep interest in wine?
lIn our Institute we believe that wine production is both art and science, individual creativity and innovative technology. But we also realise that wine production is business too, with economic factors driving manufacturing practices. As a scientist, I am firstly interested in obtaining new knowledge on the fundamental aspects of wine yeasts and grape cultivars within the framework of the ethical norms of our society.           
         As a winelover and someone who holds the rich tradition and art of winemaking in high regard, I am driven particularly to direct research towards the needs of the wine community. I have an intense interest in wine and am fascinated by the science on which this product is based. Just as the craftsman continuously tries to improve the quality of musical instruments so that the musicians in an orchestra can play their music for the even greater enjoyment of music lovers, I see my task as being to make all possible information, knowledge and technological tools available to our grapevine cultivators and winemakers in order for them to be able to improve the style, quality, purity, diversity and uniqueness of their wines for the enjoyment of wine lovers.       
         Winemakers will remain wine-artists, for theirs is the decision that is taken on which tools they will employ for a specific product aimed at a specific market. However, to be successful in the modern marketplace, today’s winemakers will have to integrate the artistic, technological and economic aspects of wine production.

***  Professor Isak (Sakkie) Pretorius is Director of the Institute for Wine Biotechnology at Stellenbosch University, and Professor in Micro-biology and in Wine Biotechnology. He is widely recognised as a world authority in his field. He was joined in this email-conducted interview by Dr Florian Bauer, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Wine Biotechnology.