GM Wine, Cultural and Scientific Notes on ML01
Ξ February 4th, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ A Day at a Time, Technology |
Products and ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are everywhere present in the American supermarket. But this is not because consumers are fully-informed as to the choices available to them. Indeed, consumer demand does not remotely drive the associated science. Precisely the reverse is true. A recent study funded by the USDA and carried out by Rutgers University, found that 89% of Americans want GM labeling. Current US law has no such requirement. Neither does the US conduct much in the way of independent testing of GM-derived foods and additives, deferring instead to the research done by biotech companies and their university proxies. To be sure, the FDA does conduct primary research in other fields, often with headline grabbing results. So, too, does the CDC monitor the safety of the food supply, though with mixed results. Whether spinach contaminated with e-coli, mercury levels in tuna, or the possible use of ‘downer’ cattle in the meat supply, Gov’t. inspection too often occurs only after the food supply has been compromised, when the public has already been affected. It hardly comes as a surprise consumers, by which I mean Americans, do not very much believe that their elected officials and federal monitoring institutions have their interests at heart. It goes without saying confidence in the truthfulness of corporations is virtually non-existent. From cigarettes to airbags, lead paint and lead water pipes, nuclear power, DDT to Thalidomide, consumers have long been witness to the historical spectacle of gov’t. indecision and corporate ’shortcomings’, shall we say. Cost/benefit analysis wins the day.
Yet despite this messy cavalcade, the biotech industry, certainly with respect to GM foodstuffs, gets a special pass. Why might this be? I’ll save comment for another post. Suffice it to say that protecting patented gmos is also an important piece of American foreign policy. Most recently, in Iraq, it was felt the matter important enough to include in the 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority’s 100 orders. The issue is clearly international in scope.
Into this hostile, noisy intersection of culture and science steps wine biotechnologist Dr. Hennie J. J. van Vuuren of the University of British Columbia, director of The Wine Research Centre. He has played a central role in the creation of ML01, the world’s first genetically modified yeast. Controversy has dogged his efforts despite his (implied) insistence that ML01’s make-up differs in significant ways from GM as generally practiced. Dr. Hennie claims ML01 does not serve corporate but consumer interests, that, unlike Monsanto’s GM corn MON863, for example, wherein a bacterial pathogen has been added to corn, ML01 contains no foreign bacterial or DNA component, but only genes already wholly present within traditional winemaking. He is unusually forthcoming, seeming to promote transparency with respect to his research, a characteristic rather rare in the biotech field.
A few details. ML01 yeast is designed to collapse the traditional two step fermentation, sugar to alcohol by yeast, typically done by a species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and harsh malic acid into the softer lactic acid (hence, MLF), by the bacteria, Oenococcus oeni, into one stable winemaking addition. The novelty of Dr. Hennie’s ML01 is that he has combined or added to the genes of the widely used S. cerevisiae yeast strain Prise de Mousse-S92 the malolactic gene from the bacteria Oenococcus oeni, via the malate transport gene from S. Pombe. It is now possible, he argues, to inoculate a must with ML01 from the very beginning to perform both fermentations simultaneously. There is no need to add a second ML inducing bacterial culture.
And all of this is done to promote health. Dr. Hennie suffers from migraines which he says are brought on by histamine sometimes found in wine, usually red wine (since MLF is not used for all white wines). It is estimated 13% of Americans are so afflicted. Further, Dr. Hennie claims a whole host of health threats may be blamed on traditional MLF, especially, but not exclusively, when done in cooler climates. The problem is the unreliability of Oenococcus oeni starter cultures which can lead, he writes, to “sluggish or stuck-fermentations”, the by-products of which are the “spoilage of wines and the production of biogenic amines” (emphasis added). Histamine is one such biogenic amine. And there are many others found in wine, virtually all producing “undesirable physiological effects in susceptible individuals”. Among the health problems he includes are headaches, palpitations, flushing, oedema, diarrhea, vomiting, both hyper and hypotension. But there’s more. “Biogenic amines [in wine] are also linked to carcinogenesis.” (Are you scared yet?) ML01, however, will produce wines “free of allergenic bioamines and precursors to carcinogens produced by lactic acid bacteria.”
One of the curious consequences of Dr. Hennie’s health concern is the inversion of the so-called ‘Frankenstein wine’ debate. In the case of ML01, biotechnology comes to the consumer’s rescue. I believe this is a deliberate strategy, for as one might expect, reception to ML01 has been chilly. To date only Canada, the US (of course), and Moldova have assented publicly to its use.
And here in California, despite the California Wine Institute’s opposition to GMOs in wine, and strong support among California wineries, we do know from ML01 dealer American Tartaric Products, Inc. that since 2006 wines so treated have been reaching consumers. But of course we don’t from know which wineries. Remember that labeling whether a product contains GMOs is not required in the US. Neither is it in Canada. So, a rather grim though amusing irony emerges: Dr. Hennie may never know which wines he may safely drink. And neither will the 13% biogenic amine sensitive souls. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how this labeling matter might be resolved, especially in light of some nation’s (Japan and the UK come to mind) requirement that imported products containing GMOs be so marked.
My sense of the man, Dr Hennie, is that he is honest and thoroughly convinced of the benefits ML01, 14 years in the making, brings to consumer and winery alike. But until the winds of controversy with respect to GMOs die down, until biotech companies and universities take a greater public responsibility for their science and the cascade of social and environmental costs which sometimes follow, until governments are more forthcoming about their compromising intimacy with big money, there is little hope for the public acceptance and commercial success of ML01, or for any other wine-related GMO on the horizon.
Admin
Please also see my interview with Dr. Hennie above.
