feature / Aki Kaji / Montrachet from gene-edited Chardonnay?


two applications were required for the PiWi variety. So, the impact is obvious. Moreover, at least in theory, knock-in editing should be able to address not only fungal diseases but also grapevine trunk diseases—which are currently the most damaging grapevine diseases in the world—and viral diseases.6


Not only that, but


its ability to help with drought, phylloxera, and other pests could be immeasurable. Additionally, by knocking-in conventional vinifera varieties, it should be possible to develop varieties that are resistant to all risks while maintaining all their sensory qualities. Mercier nursery is the biggest vine nursery in France that develops both mutagenesis and knock-in varieties. The chief researcher there, Dr Olivier Zekri, is working on Merlot and other varieties that are tolerant not only of fungal diseases but also of drought and extreme heat, which are ever-growing threats in our climate-change times. The possibilities for knock-in technology seem endless. But this is certainly a more radical technique compared to knock- down. Concerns about such technologies are high, arousing strong consumer opposition. On the other hand, climate change, combined with global population growth and the risk of food and water shortages, are engendering a sense of crisis all around the world. Solutions of one kind or another are required.


The EU boundary Europe accounts for half of the world’s wine production and leads the global wine industry. There is debate in the EU over the extent to which genetic engineering should be explored, and where to draw the line. The European Parliament publishes guideline papers on new genomic technologies for agriculture. On the basis of these, the EU appears to exempt mutagenesis and some knock-in techniques from being classed as genetic modification, instead placing them on the same footing as traditional breeding and improvement techniques. According to the 2024 document compiled by Ms Ivana Katsarova of the European Parliament (European Parliament, 2024), genetic editing that occurs in nature and in less than 20 genes is not considered to be genetic modification.7


In particular, if a resistance gene from an


American vine species is inserted into a vinifera vine, it is not considered a GMO because that can happen in nature. This vine is called a gene-edited variety and does not have to be labeled as GMO when it is commercialized. But to complicate matters, gene-edited varieties are considered as GMO in organic agriculture and are thus prohibited under organic farming. This complex regulation is a result of the need to balance concerns about genetic engineering with the necessity of averting a possible agricultural crisis. Opinions on genetic engineering vary widely, of course: Some people want to advance the technology, while others want to halt it immediately. At Mercier, Zekri believes that grape growers and wine producers face an existential threat due to climate change and the risk from various diseases, and that genetic engineering should be an alternative tool in their toolbox. At VCR, De Luca is also in favor of gene editing and believes that development of the knock-in technique between the same and closely related species will be beneficial to human society. I must confess to having my own anxieties about genetic engineering, but I can see that it might be reasonable to explore knock-in gene editing between the same and closely related species, as proposed by the EU.


132 | THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 87 | 2025


Where do other wine consumers stand on these issues? I conducted a questionnaire with 46 participants of the PiWi seminar I organized at the Caplan Academy in Tokyo in August 2023. They were mostly non-professional wine lovers but also included a few wine professionals. The questionnaire asked whether they would choose PiWi varieties or genetically edited varieties as sustainable grape varieties in the future, after attending the 90-minute seminar and a tasting of five PiWi wines. Nearly half (20) of the respondents replied that the distinction between PiWi and edited varieties did not matter to them, which indicates that resistance to genetic engineering may be decreasing. But the second-highest number of respondents (15), chose PiWi, which suggests that a significant number of people are unfavorable to genetic engineering. The seminar did not address, however, differences within gene-editing technologies. Even those who countenance gene editing differ as to whether they accept knock-out editing, knock-in editing between the same species, or free knock-in editing (GMO). For consumers to be able to choose food or wine products based on their own opinion, they need accurate and current information to form their view. To this end, it would surely be better to legislate gene editing on its own, rather than regarding it as equivalent to conventional plant breeding and improvement techniques. There seem to be political considerations at play. For example, the EU has set a target of zero environmental impact by 2050 as part of its policy known as the Green Deal. One aim is to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides to zero on all agricultural land in the EU. Another is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the production of chemical fertilizers to zero. These would cut chemical pollution for those living near farmland, as well as reducing the risks posed by climate change. In agriculture, the basis for achieving these goals is gene-editing technology, behind which there would need to be a broad consensus in favor. If all gene-edited crops needed to be labeled as GMO, the Green Deal policy might well not be realized due to the backlash among consumers. The reason for treating certain gene-editing techniques as conventional breeding, and for not imposing a labeling requirement, may be to avoid consumer resistance as discreetly as possible. There is no labeling requirement for gene-edited crops in Japan because these products are treated the same as conventional plants. Sanatech-Seed and other companies have voluntarily labeled their products as gene-edited. It is likely that the EU will choose a similar framework to that of Japan. That said, it is also conceivable that gene-edited crops would not be labeled as such, but an interface such as a QR code might be introduced to enable consumers to trace their origins if they wished. This may turn into a tug of war between governments and the public.


How will gene-edited varieties affect wine? In theory, gene-edited Chardonnay could produce Montrachet (and other Burgundy grands and premiers crus) with much less chemical input and labor, without the need for rootstocks and without the risk of vine-trunk diseases. Surely vine growers and wine lovers would welcome the new techniques? In reality, it seems unlikely to happen, at least not any time soon. The impact that new genetic techniques will have on the wine industry will depend largely on the rules adopted. In the case of the EU, certain gene-editing techniques will likely be regarded as conventional breeding. This would mean that growers would be


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220