Genetically modified yeast

To take the scientific view, Mercury seems to be in retrograde on all the wine boards.

It is totally possible to imagine harmful genetic engineering of foodstuffs. You could introduce amatoxin genes, peanut allergen genes, cholera or botulinum toxin or ricin genes. No one would, of course.

As much as it pains me to say it, Hoke is right. Yeasts, grape cultivars, and pretty much any items of agriculture or animal husbandry are the products of primitive, imprecise genetic engineering. There is plenty of potential for unintended consequences as you're doing this, and anybody who's ever seen a chihuahua knows it isn't always benign.

The worry about GMO is that the manufacturer will do something easy but stupid (Roundup resistance), or rather to say that they will advantage themselves and their customers at the expense of consumers.

But there are many imaginable GMO programs that I could easily support. How about a small modification of Pinot Noir or Cabernet Franc to render them phylloxera resistant, but otherwise enabling franc de pied vines? (don't know what those genes would be, I'm afraid).

How about a small modification that would end the current necessity for application of a toxic heavy metal (copper) even in "organic" agriculture?

I could see things that would make me happy, and others that wouldn't, but they depend on the intent and care of the operator more than the method itself.

I just hope the Mercury thing sorts itself out soon.

Joe

Bravo on both points, Joe.

Regards, Bob

As much as it pains me to say it, Hoke is right.

That's all right, Joe. It only hurts for a little while. Walk it off.

It's not like you're saying Kane is right. That would leave a scar.

How about a small modification that would end the current necessity for application of a toxic heavy metal (copper) even in "organic" agriculture?

Yeah. I'd vote for that. And I'm an eager and willing shill for organic and biodynamic stuff.

you almost never remotely say anything in debates - you write in a world of implications to keep safe from ever having really said anything.

Here's one: That is a frickin' lie.

Bravo.

There's an insightful comment.

Ok, ok, David. We have moved on in this subject. Care to contribute?

I was preapred to leave it alone - thank Oliver for bringing it back up.

As for the topic - the issue to me is that almost nothing can ever be proven. You cannot prove that a GM strain of yeast will never out muscle the local strains, and you cannot prove that a winemaker can fully protect the wines from it. This is part of what is so frustrating about the whole GM argument. It's not unlike the screwcap debate in that however long a trial lasts I doubt it will ever be long enough to convince the sceptics.

So, now you're like...what, David the Re-Bueker?

[David M. Bueker]

Why not.

There is plenty of potential for unintended consequences as you're doing this, and anybody who's ever seen a chihuahua knows it isn't always benign.

A number of different ideas have been posted, mostly in favour of GM with most people not being too concerned. However there may be wider implications too. Namely if GM strains are dominant and spread to different wineries and become the norm in wine production because eventually thye can be designed to give resistance to various other undesirables with a more uniform quality, is there not a danger that with quality wine being more controllable there will be less variety and if every year is a top vintage year will that undermine the different values of wines etc? Would it bring down the price of quality wine to make it more affordable and would that have adverse consequences for a small winery that relies on producing a small amount of high quality, high price wine to exist?
Presumably also if GM yeast does produce a more guaranteeable product as a result it is useful label information - obviously some will select for the GM-production on the basis that the taste might be more reliable and others will select against on the basis that they don't like the idea of GM. Should consumers be denied that choice?
Roger

Roger,
I agree. Here is my post from Robins Netscape Poll regarding this topic.

I voted Adamantly Opposed. Why? Because I am already more or less opposed to yeast inoculation. I believe that the natural yeast thriving in vineyards and wineries to be an integral part of individual terroir and therefore individual expression and taste. What could possibly be the upside of using GM yeast? A more thorough, controlled, and consistent (to my point of view predictable and mundane,) fermentation? A wider range of chemical and phenolic compounds to greater enhance the flavor of wine? Encouraging ever-higher ABV? I don't want to muddle the issue, but what we are really talking about here is the eventual acceptance of GM vines. I'm not worried about health consequences nor am I anti-science. I am opposed to the de-naturalization of wine and the turning and twisting of an agricultural produce that has been made (basically) in the same way for for thousands of years into the end-product widget and commodity that some already see it to be. This Wine-Machiavellianism cannot stand if we wish to retain individuality, serendipity, and scarcity in wine. If we are against these things, why do we belong here?

A number of different ideas have been posted, mostly in favour of GM with most people not being too concerned. However there may be wider implications too. Namely if GM strains are dominant and spread to different wineries and become the norm in wine production because eventually thye can be designed to give resistance to various other undesirables with a more uniform quality, is there not a danger that with quality wine being more controllable there will be less variety and if every year is a top vintage year will that undermine the different values of wines etc? Would it bring down the price of quality wine to make it more affordable and would that have adverse consequences for a small winery that relies on producing a small amount of high quality, high price wine to exist?
Presumably also if GM yeast does produce a more guaranteeable product as a result it is useful label information - obviously some will select for the GM-production on the basis that the taste might be more reliable and others will select against on the basis that they don't like the idea of GM. Should consumers be denied that choice?
Roger

I think the average and most useful answer would be yes.

Would it bring down the price of quality wine to make it more affordable

Somehow, with history and humanity as the guide, I don't think you have to worry about prices coming down.

high quality, high price wine

Are you saying that those are the same thing?

Question, Hoke.

What's your view on the labeling question?

In general, I am all for labeling to aid the consumer. But, how much does it help the consumer to know the type of yeast that was used in making the wine? At least if there's an across the board requirement to label all wines with the yeast info.

Of course, if the labeling is restricted to GMO yeasts, there's an entirely different dynamic at work.

I don't see any real benefit to me as a consumer in either case, frankly.

Regards, Bob

FWIW, I don't see the need for labeling, Bob.

Of course, those who do see the 'need' feel pretty strongly about it, so there will be some militancy, and some pandering by politicians, so it could very well happen, I suppose.

If it were on the label, it wouldn't affect my buying decision in any way.

Right now I'm more interested in whether a label says (or should say but doesn't) "Made In China".

FWIW, I don't see the need for labeling, Bob.

Of course, those who do see the 'need' feel pretty strongly about it, so there will be some militancy, and some pandering by politicians, so it could very well happen, I suppose.

If it were on the label, it wouldn't affect my buying decision in any way.

Right now I'm more interested in whether a label says (or should say but doesn't) "Made In China".

I suppose when wine labels have to list ingredients, the yeast will be one of them, but I bet few consumers will know the difference between an S. c. and an S. hybrid--or care, either.

[David M. Bueker]

\

I voted Adamantly Opposed. Why? Because I am already more or less opposed to yeast inoculation. I believe that the natural yeast thriving in vineyards and wineries to be an integral part of individual terroir and therefore individual expression and taste.

The one issue here is that not all yeast strains in the air around wineries are benign creatures that provide acceptable much less predictable fermentations. Brett is a yeast. While in small doses some folks enjoy the nuance it adds to a wine I sure as heck wouldn't want some wild strain of brett infecting a chardonnay or riesling fermentation.

Some control is a good thing. Certainly one does not have to use a GM strain of yeast, but inoculating feremntations is a necessary tool IMO.

\

Some control is a good thing. Certainly one does not have to use a GM strain of yeast, but inoculating feremntations is a necessary tool IMO.

IMHO the winemakers that rely on wild yeast are idiots. They can, and do, get all manner of things showing up, with fermentations hard to start, or stopping too soon, or going in biochemically undesirable directions.

Why do they do it? Usually because they get to advertise on the label that they use wild ferment and that sets them apart from the competition. So let me revise my assessment of them - not so much idiots as gamblers, hoping that nothing bad will happen.

The whole thing about 'natural' (as if 'good' yeasts are somehow more 'natural' than 'bad' yeasts) being on the grape skins is also misleading. Studies have shown that much or most of the yeast that starts fermentation in a non-inoculation setting come not from the grape skins but from residual yeast present in the winery from previous vintages (also where much Bret comes from). Some winemakers following the natural yeast school have had a remarkably difficult time getting the ferment started in a new winery that has never been operational and has no presence of yeast from previous activity.

But the 'bottom line' is that the use of wild yeast, aside from being wildly unpredictable, has never been shown to be beneficial to the end product. It is sort of like the buzzword 'organic' (Lord save us from all that 'inorganic produce') - it sounds good to the Mom and apple pie and hug a tree today contingent but the tailored yeasts actually do a better job of getting you where you want to go.

There will always be people that base their buying decisions on how closely to their particular gospel the makers were. My gospel is wine that tastes good and I don't care if they use GM yeast if it improves the product.

\

I voted Adamantly Opposed. Why? Because I am already more or less opposed to yeast inoculation. I believe that the natural yeast thriving in vineyards and wineries to be an integral part of individual terroir and therefore individual expression and taste.

The one issue here is that not all yeast strains in the air around wineries are benign creatures that provide acceptable much less predictable fermentations. Brett is a yeast. While in small doses some folks enjoy the nuance it adds to a wine I sure as heck wouldn't want some wild strain of brett infecting a chardonnay or riesling fermentation.

Some control is a good thing. Certainly one does not have to use a GM strain of yeast, but inoculating feremntations is a necessary tool IMO.

David, I hear you. I drink many wines that have been made by yeast inoculation and they are often great wines (some of my favorites even). I do though, derive a lot of pleasure from drinking wines from the relatively few producers who decide to follow their own ideals (often not for marketing purposes) and make wine in a 'close' to natural or artesian way without giving much of a nod to technology. I love uncompromising people and winemakers and I love to drink wines made by them. Again, it just adds to my personal pleasure and appreciation of what's in the glass.

It is sort of like the buzzword 'organic' (Lord save us from all that 'inorganic produce')

Bill, you don't believe that organic food is better for you?

It is sort of like the buzzword 'organic' (Lord save us from all that 'inorganic produce')

Bill, you don't believe that organic food is better for you?

It does not follow, as night follows day, that food carrying the label 'organic' in the store is any better for you than anything else.

The label is one that many people put great store in - much of the time without just cause. But I do not want to turn this thread into the old organic discussion, so will say no more.

It is sort of like the buzzword 'organic' (Lord save us from all that 'inorganic produce')

Bill, you don't believe that organic food is better for you?

Far be it from me to put words in Bill's mouth, but here's my take: the label "organic" as defined by my government has little, if anything, to do with how good the food is for you and indeed has little to do with the overall practices used to get that food. Big corporate organic farms such as Earthbound in CA or Cascadian in WA just substitute manure for synthetic fertilizer and avoid the use of synthetic pesticides. They still, however, produce monocultures and transport their produce long distances after harvest (and hire scads of migrant laborers), so I have serious doubts whether a package of Earthbound spinach is better for me than the spinach I get locally from an Amish farmer who practices traditional, sustainable agricultural practices but cannot legally use the word "organic." There is ample evidence to suggest that organically grown produce does have greater nutrient content, but ripeness at harvest and days since harvest probably play a more significant role.

Mark Lipton

......,and some pandering by politicians......

Awwwww, Hoke......OUR duly elected politicians??? I am SHOCKED, I tell you!!
Tom

IMHO the winemakers that rely on wild yeast are idiots. They can, and do, get all manner of things showing up, with fermentations hard to start, or stopping too soon, or going in biochemically undesirable directions.

Why do they do it? Usually because they get to advertise on the label that they use wild ferment and that sets them apart from the competition. So let me revise my assessment of them - not so much idiots as gamblers, hoping that nothing bad will happen.

Bill, that is strong stuff. FWIW, I have no particular dogma, but I do find that many winemakers who do use native yeasts make some very compelling wines. For instance, many of the producers in Joe Dressner's portfolio (Dom. de la Pepiere, Clos Roche Blanche, J. P. Brun e.g.) make phenomenal wines with the use of natural yeasts. Are they idiots? Not in my opinion. Are they gamblers? Perhaps, but aren't all farmers gambling to some extent? Is lack of risk really compatible with agriculture? It sounds a lot like those Davis enologists who insisted on making stable wines by sterile filtration without regard to the flavor of those wines.

One could argue that native yeasts might be a component of terroir, so that if one pursues the goal of expressing terroir in one's wines, wild yeasts might make sense. Alternatively, diehard traditionalists will make wine from native yeasts since plenty of excellent wines were made before the introduction of cultured yeasts in the last century.

Still, your point about the dangers is an important one. I'd suspect that most winemakers wedded to using wild yeasts have to be fanatic about hygiene to keep brettanomyces out of the wines. It's also worth noting, though, that traditional cellar practices probably assure a healthy population of yeasts in the cellar that might help keep brettanomyces out of the wine. I'm sure that our winemaking contingent could elaborate.

Mark Lipton

It is sort of like the buzzword 'organic' (Lord save us from all that 'inorganic produce')

Bill, you don't believe that organic food is better for you?

Far be it from me to put words in Bill's mouth, but here's my take: the label "organic" as defined by my government has little, if anything, to do with how good the food is for you and indeed has little to do with the overall practices used to get that food. Big corporate organic farms such as Earthbound in CA or Cascadian in WA just substitute manure for synthetic fertilizer and avoid the use of synthetic pesticides. They still, however, produce monocultures and transport their produce long distances after harvest (and hire scads of migrant laborers), so I have serious doubts whether a package of Earthbound spinach is better for me than the spinach I get locally from an Amish farmer who practices traditional, sustainable agricultural practices but cannot legally use the word "organic." There is ample evidence to suggest that organically grown produce does have greater nutrient content, but ripeness at harvest and days since harvest probably play a more significant role.

Mark Lipton

I believe you're loading an awful lot of expectations on one designation, Mark.

I don't agree with how our government has confused and bollixed up the organics thing, either. On the other hand, just saying "organic" or "organically grown" does not include anythinge else...so yes, the megas can do what you described. And they can even do it with cunningly designed labels to make it look like they are not what they are.

But outside of knowledgeable, informed people (short supply, last time I looked), who know or care where their foods originate or how they are farmed, you'd have to have an incredible long list of definitive statements to keep those lazy people informed (about something they likely STILL wouldn't care about).

Think of the added carbon footprint!!!

It seems I've missed a very interesting discussion having been extremely busy over the last week.

GM yeast, I must say I'm not afraid of it, in any capacity. Genetic modification has been happening forever, first through evolution, more recently through crss-breeding and now in the lab. Who's to say that S.cerevisiae in one of it's strains may not decide to mutate in some small backcountry winery to increase alcohol (or whatever) then spreading throughout the winemaking world into wineries to kill off other yeasts, rendering all wines devoid of balance and undrinkable - Very naturally through the process of evolution. Very unlikely - yes. Increasing the possibility by GM - maybe, but genetic modification seems to be viewed as an awful, unnatural, "playing god" kind of manner and I can see the validity but all these GM products are heavily tested before release, as opposed to the afore mentioned mutation that is, however unlikely, still possible.

As for the wines and my preference - as a winemaker I would choose not to inoculate with yeast (depending on the wine style) knowing that eventually S.cerevisiae will take over the fermentation because it is ever present in the winery. If this GM yeast were to replace S.cerevisiae in all wineries - apparently it makes a pretty good wine anyway, so I would not have to worry (my point here being if one yeast strain was going to dominate all fermentations it would be happening already).

sorry if any of this has been mentioned previously - I didn't have time to read through all the posts.

I've just read some more posts, now organics hs been introduced - I'm sure biodynamics was probably mentioned and recently there was the post about using wild yeast and gambling winemakers - I can't keep up and have to go back to work but quickly.

In California you can buy reconstituted organic milk from NZ - better than the dairy farm up the road, I think not. Very valid point made Bill concerning large companies and organics.

Gamblers, maybe. I had a boss who after 10 years of producing wines with wild yeast (the first 8 in an old shed) had not had a single ferment go bad. I get frustrated working in a winery when just because a ferment smells a bit wrong DAP is added, or more yeast, or sugar or something else. The biggest mistake many winemakers make is that they try too hard to make the wine - it should make itself.

Sanitation is always important in a winery, wild yeast or not, but yes - if wild yeasts are commonly used then it becomes even more important simply because the cultures are not as strong in the beginning. In this way Brett can be controlled.

There's my two cents on a few more topics - I'll be back when I get time to add more - Did I see the T word somewhere linked with wild yeast?

Gamblers, maybe. I had a boss who after 10 years of producing wines with wild yeast (the first 8 in an old shed) had not had a single ferment go bad. I get frustrated working in a winery when just because a ferment smells a bit wrong DAP is added, or more yeast, or sugar or something else. The biggest mistake many winemakers make is that they try too hard to make the wine - it should make itself.

I'd agree with that. The humble winemakers admit that nature makes the wines, they just try to make educated decisions to help nature along. When they try to take over the process and manhandle it is when they often come to grief.

OTOH, it is their livelihood, and understandably they don't want to sit on the sidelines and watch a significant investment go to blazes - they can't always afford to allow nature to take its course, and feel that they must intervene. I always respect the ones that do - one California winemaker comes to mind - a hung ferment in a Pinot Blanc ended upo being marketed as a 'late harvest' wine


Mark -
I'll be having lunch with Hennie van Vuuren, author of that UBC piece on Friday and can run any questions by him if anyone has a particular query.