ML01, Dr. Hennie van Vuuren Interview
Ξ March 11th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
On February 4th I posted on this blog “GM Wine, Cultural and Scientific Notes on ML01″. My earlier effort concentrated on the work done on ML01 at the University of British Colombia’s Wine Research Centre under the direction of Dr. Hennie van Vuuren. 
For a full appreciation of Dr. Hennie’s remarks to follow I strongly suggest reading that post first, visiting the links, and only then returning to the interview below.
Though I did a competent job on the Feb. 4th piece given my limited understanding of the rigorous science involved, I nevertheless knew its greatest shortcoming was not technical but the absence of Dr. Hennie van Vuuren’s comment. To remedy that omission, I contacted the gentleman and he graciously agreed to answer my questions.
How does ML01 differ from other genetically modified organisms currently in the marketplace?
Dr. Hennie All genetically modified organisms currently in the market place contain a selectable marker gene, usually an antibiotic resistance marker gene. ML01 does not contain any antibiotic resistance marker genes. We had to do a significant amount of extra work to screen (colony PCR) and find colonies that contained the malolactic cassette; this is one of the reasons why it took us so long to construct this yeast. I believe genetically modified organisms should not be released into nature if they contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. Furthermore, ML01 contains two genes from microorganisms that are present in wine. ML01 therefore does not contain any genes or proteins that are foreign to the wine making process.
What has surprised you most about the public’s response to the development of ML01?
Dr. Hennie I have published all of the research data on ML01 and this yeast has been fully characterized; it is the best characterized living cell in the market place. It is better characterized than yeasts that have been produced by mutation and/or classic genetic breeding. Apart from scientific presentations at conferences, I have also presented numerous popular scientific talks to the public. I find that people are intrigued that a yeast produced by genetic engineering can produce wines that are free of biogenic amines that act as allergens in many humans. Once people realize what we have done and why we have done it (not for the benefit of big corporations), many of them are interested in finding out where they can buy wine produced with ML01 since they suffer from headaches caused by bioamines in wine.
What surprised me is that a few people continue to oppose the use of this yeast despite the fact that ML01 is safe and they simply ignore the benefits that this yeast will have for many millions of consumers.
What do you believe to be the greatest obstacles to ML01’s acceptance?
Dr. Hennie Fear mongering by those who oppose the use of genetically modified organisms; I have no doubt that most wineries will use ML01 if they can be assured that their wines will not be boycotted. I find it curious that some people will inject insulin produced by a GMO into their veins to treat diabetes but refuse to recognize that others who suffer migraines might benefit by consuming wine produced by ML01. Many of those who oppose the use of ML01 for commercial wine making refuse to examine the facts and often spread false claims to discourage others (see comments on my web site).
With respect to ML01’s current use in Canada and California, for obvious reasons wineries are reluctant to mention its use on their labels. How might a customer, one with a susceptibility to migraines for example, therefore discern which wine might be better for them?
Dr. Hennie Unfortunately it is not possible for them to do so at this stage. However, I believe that new laws that are being considered in the USA will force wineries to disclose on their labels if their wines contain bioamines and other contaminants that may cause health problems.
What is the most important feature(s) of ML01 the public should be aware of?
Dr. Hennie Four regulatory agencies (US FDA, Health Canada, Environment Canada and the Directorate Genetic Resources in South Africa) have examined the data and declared that ML01 is safe to use and that it poses no risk to the environment. ML01 has been fully characterized at the phenotypic and genetic level. It is very effective in conducting the malolactic fermentation in wine preventing spoilage and the production of neuro toxins by other wine microorganisms. Growth, ethanol production, fermentation kinetics and the metabolism of ML01 is unaffected compared to the parent strain. Wines produced by the ML01 yeast have lower volatile acidity and improved color properties than wines produced with the parental yeast and a bacterial malolactic starter culture. ML01 produces fruitier wines with an improved body and wines are of a higher quality.
How are the U BC Wine Research Centre’s Wine Library and Vinotheque coming along? Can you tell us of recent acquisitions?
Dr. Hennie It is coming on great! In a few weeks I will be able to tell you of a major acquisition, which includes many of the world’s best wines.
What are your current lines of research?
Dr. Hennie I am currently studying the stress response in wine yeasts and the aging of wine.
Thank you very much, Dr. Hennie.
In a separate communication Dr. Hennie referenced the results of a survey conducted by The American Vineyard Foundation. The survey concerned “how winemakers feel about biotechnology”. Results may be found here.
He also mentioned the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. They have “commended [our] work on the malolactic yeast for offering ideas for pilot experiments at wineries that can be tested under each unique environment”.
I encourage readers to consider the merits of Dr. Hennie’s work.
Admin
