NVR Logo
The dangers of genetically modified wine yeast
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Save and Share Share
Despite the Wine Institute’s recent statement that no genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be used in winemaking, the Sacramento Bee recently reported that, according to American Tartaric Products, the first wines made with a genetically modified wine yeast, ML01, will be released this year.

This yeast is available only in North America where GMOs are unregulated. It was modified by inserting two foreign genes, one from the pombe yeast, a yeast found in Africa and used to make beer, and one from the bacteria O. oeni, so that the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations, normally a two-step process, occur at the same time. While this may be a convenience to winemakers, especially those producing large quantities of wine, I am concerned for both consumers and our local economy.
The FDA’s designation of this yeast as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) is questionable for a few reasons. First of all, the FDA approved the yeast based on data supplied by the developer, not based on its own study or an independent study. A developer has an interest in getting its product to market as soon as possible, whether it has been proven safe or not. Secondly, according to Professor Joseph Cummins, emeritus genetics professor at the University of Western Ontario, wine yeasts are unstable, and genetically altering them can lead to unexpected toxicity in the final product. He states that there is no evidence that the developer did any animal feeding studies to test for such toxicity and that there is no proof that the yeast and yeast DNA will not be present in the wine.

A few wineries’ decision to use this yeast could affect the entire North American market. Since these wines are unlabeled, the only way people can avoid them is to avoid all wines from North America, except those labeled organic, and few wines are labeled organic, due to the addition of sulfites during the winemaking process. Consumers in Europe and Asia are very informed regarding GMOs and have resoundingly rejected them. American consumers are becoming more aware, and polls show that a majority of Americans would prefer to avoid them.
A few wineries’ choice to use ML01 could also be a nuisance to other wineries, because this GM wine yeast could contaminate native and traditional wine yeasts through the air, surface waste and water runoff. Many wineries here in the Napa Valley are very particular about their choice of wine yeast, and contamination of these various yeast strains would truly be a shame.

I contacted many of the large producers of Napa Valley wine asking whether or not they have used this GM yeast or plan to in the future. All that responded stated emphatically that they have not used it and do not plan to. To help consumers who would prefer to avoid consuming genetically modified products make an informed wine choice and to provide an avenue for our local wineries to distinguish their wines from wines that may be using GM yeast, those that responded were listed, with their permission, on a “Shopper’s Guide to Buying Non-GMO” at www.preservenapasag.org on the FAQs page.
In our society, we often talk about our rights and discuss very little our responsibilities — to our neighbors, to the environment and to the community as a whole. In considering the issue of GMOs and their use, all of these factors should be taken into account.

(Martenson lives in Napa.)
20 comment(s)

Response to Wineglut wrote on Dec 16, 2006 10:14 AM:

" Actually, genetic engineering is an extension of the view that man is separate from nature. It implies that man can control and dominate nature, and make nature suit us, instead of the view that man must work with nature and live in harmony with nature, and that we must to some extent adapt ourselves to it. If we don't, it will always backfire and end up coming back to haunt us. Having a certain reverence for nature is not backward; it is wise. Unfortunately, American culture lacks a certain wisdom that is found more in older, more mature, and more evolved cultures. "

Sinclair once wrote wrote on Dec 13, 2006 8:31 PM:

" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair "

Wino wrote on Dec 13, 2006 12:01 PM:

" If "Winelady" is so concerned about grapes and our wine industry, instead of being against the labeling of GMOs, she should be protective of our grapes and be against any field testing of GM grapes that could be going on as we debate this issue, which could be putting growers' wine grapes at risk of genetic contamination through cross-pollination. If that came to light, markets would close immediately in Europe and Asia. It happened this year with the rice farmers. It came to light that US long-grain rice has been contaminated by a field trial of GE rice from back in 2001. Markets closed in Europe and Asia, and these farmers have lost 100 million dollars this year alone. "

informed wrote on Dec 12, 2006 9:35 PM:

" We need an impartial commission set up by the county and city to determine how we can require labeling of gmo products, control of gmo products, and scientific control that gmo products have the utmost security guards that they will not escape into the environment, create invasive species uncontrollable even by pesticides, damage organic crops, will not compromise or put in jeopardy other farmers and their livelihoods, and will not threaten the health of those who consume the products. "

Kevin wrote on Dec 12, 2006 8:49 PM:

" Anyone know where I can buy some of this ML01? This double fermentation is a pain.... "

Quote wrote on Dec 12, 2006 8:00 PM:

" "Genetic power's the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid who's found his dad's gun.... and before you even knew what you had, you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it." Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park "

Consumer who was raised in Napa wrote on Dec 12, 2006 7:11 PM:

" Returning to a one-horse buggy town has nothing to do with regulation. As an educated(UC Davis) consumer of wines and a home owner of several napa valley properties I understand the importance of regulation. Wine just so happens to be a part of the agriculture in Napa, but not all of it. There are several wineries that are changing to organic practices in case you haven't noticed. So, the trend is to move toward organic, not to GMO's. I appreciate all that the wine industry brings to Napa, but I also would like the farmers to practise integrity when farming and developing their final product. Being a conscientious consumer is all about being grown up thank you for noticing. "

GMO Solution wrote on Dec 12, 2006 4:44 PM:

" Requiring a label on GM products would not have the apocalyptic outcome on the Napa Valley the "Winelady" describes. One only has to look to Europe and Asia to know that. Those countries require that GM products be labeled, and what happened was that consumers didn't want them, and they got pulled off store shelves. Now, producers simply do not use GM ingredients in products slated for Europe or Asia. So, people in Europe and Asia aren't eating genetically modified products, and we, Americans, are. Mandatory labeling of GM products in the U.S. would solve the GMO problem here as it has in other parts of the world. "

concerned chemist wrote on Dec 12, 2006 4:05 PM:

" to winelady: not labeling will do the same thing if GM foods become a bigger issue if one winery uses GMO and there's no labeling, it might as well be all of them. But with labeling, wineries would be able to speak for themselves. to common sense: I fully agree, however, it's the "responsibly and ethically" part that worries me. Also, the difference between genetic engineering and Luther Burbank's work is that GE allows us to force things that wouldn't happen in nature. "If I had known, I would've become a watchmaker" -Albert Einstein "

winelady wrote on Dec 12, 2006 3:38 PM:

" People in Napa obviously don't have enough real issues to discuss. If you want to destroy all that IS Napa, then force wineries to label their products as "concerned (uneducated) consumer" suggests. Then watch all the other ignorant consumers freak because they think if they drink wine they'll have four-legged children and, Hallelujah!, Napa turns back into a dirty little one-horse Central Valley town with no wineries to draw tourists and add $$ to its economy. Bet you'd all love that, huh? Napa would disappear without the wine industry. That's ALL there is......remember that. And grow up, huh? "

Common Sense wrote on Dec 12, 2006 2:43 PM:

" Perhaps we should ban mathematics, electricity, and medicine as well. They were also accused of interfering with the natural order of things. As far as the similarities between corn and genetic engineering, there is a direct connection when you step through the intermediate links. Luther Burbank's experimentation with plants was clearly way beyond what was done with corn, but about as far as one could go without knowledge of RNA. Genetic engineering, when done responsibly and ethically, is simply the next step. We must not turn our back on science and technology...the potential is too great. "

concerned chemist wrote on Dec 12, 2006 2:26 PM:

" There may or may not be a risk with this yeast, but as was stated, there isn't much need for it. Technology and progress is great, but as seen all throughout history...just because you can, dosen't mean you should. We didn't see the health effects of hydrogenated oils for years after they were in use. Removing modified oils from processing is a lot easier than isolating genetics in the food supply. If we have a GMO health scare, that could mean isolating and destroying plants and livestock. That could mean a huge loss for the farmer, but not for the corporation that holds the genetic patent. why privatize the food supply? "

Environ-wacko-nature-health-nut wrote on Dec 12, 2006 2:09 PM:

" Since when is it not a good thing to question what is in our food source. Should we let big industries like Monsanto be our main food suppliers and not question their practises, I think not. I guess I'm one of those wacko consumers that enjoys my acre in the country, who just so desires to be aware of what is happening in the wine industry. I would like to be able to grow grapes and make wine and not be worried about contamination from my neighbors. I would like to be able to go to the local farmers market and know that all the produce available by local farmers are grown organically. This is not just a personel preference, we need to watch out for our local childrens future. They are what they eat and based on the looks of several 7th graders, we really should be alarmed about what is in our food supply. To not question what is in our food source is just plain stupidity. I'm sure "commen sense" doesn't believe in Global Warming either.PLease get out from under the rock you have been living under. "

Concerned consumer wrote on Dec 12, 2006 1:27 PM:

" Thank you for submitting the information regarding GMO's in the wine industry. I'm a consumer of local wines and feel that it is in the publics best interest to know what they are eating and drinking. Public awareness like this letter, will force the FDA to require labeling that will then lead to the elimination of GMO's in our food chain. The government obviously isn't looking out for the best interest of the consumer if they are not requiring labeling on all consumed products.Its too bad that we are so far behind Europe and Asia on this topic. Why wouldn't the public want their food and beverages to be clean of GMO's. What wacko would want to intentionally consume something that hasn't been tested on animals? Its the questioning of large business actions that makes America so great, so continue your efforts on educating the local population. Support local organic farmers by buying local organic wine and vegetables. We live in a small valley and we should care about what is being made in our backyard, don't turn a blind eye, because you're afraid of "big business" the little voices matter. "

Caveat emptor wrote on Dec 12, 2006 1:15 PM:

" Thomas Paine would be rolling over in his grave if he read the GRAI (Generally recognized as idiotic) "Un-Common Sense" below. "

A.A. wrote on Dec 12, 2006 1:12 PM:

" Why Wisconsin? Why not contact Dr. Linda Bisson at UCDavis? "

PHWYLIE wrote on Dec 12, 2006 12:19 PM:

" "We're moving too fast". Jurassic Park. "

Voice of reason wrote on Dec 12, 2006 11:46 AM:

" Yes. These products should be labeled, so the consumer can decide. To say that what ancient civilizations did with corn thousands of years ago (notice random mutations and replant seeds from corn that had desirable traits) and the genetic engineering of the past ten years (inserting foreign genes) are the same is ignorant and a myth the biotech industry has promoted to sell it products and make them more palatable to the public. Scientific capabilities in and of themselves are not necessarily progress and can be detrimental if applied irresponsibly. They need to be looked at on a case by case manner with the risks weighed against the benefits. How many products have been approved prematurely by the FDA and then have been recalled after the fact? One cannot recall GMOs once they've been released into the environment, so the precautionary principle should be upheld to the nth degree in this particular case. "

wineglut wrote on Dec 12, 2006 10:56 AM:

" Behind this alarmist's view is the basic attitude that man is somehow separated from nature, therefore any random mutation is good, any intentional mutation by man is bad. The fact that this author had to rely on a retired professor from Western Ontario (one who has a consistent slant against all GMO's) for an opinion on the safety of a wine yeast speaks to the distance these views are from the mainstream. I would like to hear the author back up the statement that wine yeasts are more unstable than any other yeast or microorganism. Or that the ability to metabolize malic acid makes a yeast likely to produce anything toxic. These are blanket generalities with nothing but the author's imagination behind them. Also the reason the FDA approved the yeast based on the developer's data is that this is the way it is always done for any drug or new product. This was no exception. That said, this product will find little use in the wine industry as it is quite easy to conduct an ML fermentation concurrently with the primary using existing organisms that were also genetically modified...only by chance rather than intentionally by man. I'm surprised winemaker's aren't criticized for isolating and propagating these mutants as well. "

Common Sense wrote on Dec 12, 2006 7:53 AM:

" Sounds to me like people need to get off their high horse and join reality. If things are genetically modified, then label them...and let the consumer decide. Corn was modified over a few hundred years here in the Americas...certainly slower than our current genetic modifying, but it is the same exact thing. If there is greater risk, then we should require more thorough testing, but we can not turn our backs on science and technology...it is what continues to make Western Civilization the greatest force of improvement of humanity. I grow increasingly weary of enviro-extremists who constantly make issues out of non-issues...remember the asbestos scare that ended up not being anywhere near as bad as the media hype? How about the silicon breast implants that were recently reapproved for use since they actually are safe? Or the person who planted endangered plants in a proposed housing development lot to prevent construction, only to be discovered by biologists and soil experts? There are too many examples enviro-wacko-nature-health-nuts in all areas of society right now. I sincerely hope that these extremists are stopped before they cause damage to the more practical efforts that have actually improved our health and the environment. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy