(Editorial team)
Viticulture has long been understood as a system that functions autonomously, driven by nature itself. Vines, soil, climate – that’s all it takes, according to the traditional narrative. Everything else was regarded as a disruption. Or as a corrective measure that was kept as invisible as possible. This narrative persists to this day, partly because it sounds particularly appealing in the context of natural winegrowing. It resonates with people; it sells well. And it is coming under increasing pressure. And with it, conventional ‘green’ plant protection products are also coming under pressure.
The Grape4vine project at the University of Milan shows just how far reality has already strayed from this narrative. The project is led by, amongst others, molecular biologist Vittoria Catara and agricultural scientist Giovanni Perazzolli, supported by a consortium of research institutions and industrial partners, including the Italian research centre CREA as well as several biotech companies and wine-growing enterprises.
The approach is as pragmatic as it is radical. What has hitherto been regarded as waste in viticulture – pomace, vine cuttings, processing residues – is no longer disposed of, but instead forms the starting point for a new production model. So-called dsRNA molecules are extracted from these residual materials. These molecules specifically interfere with the genetic processes of pathogens. They ‘switch off’ certain genes that are necessary for the spread of fungi and other pathogens. Cancer patients and those interested in research are familiar with this process. And Grape4vine is a by-product of cancer research – as absurd as that may sound.
The aim is clear: fewer conventional plant protection products, fewer chemical interventions, greater precision. In an industry where vines have to be treated up to twenty times per season, depending on the region, that is a significant promise. And it is part of a broader vision that the project is explicitly pursuing: the transition to a circular economy in viticulture. Nothing should go to waste; everything should be utilised.
That sounds like progress. And it is.
At the same time, this shifts the very concept of naturalness. The intervention is no longer visibly applied to the plant, but takes place at a molecular level. The focus is no longer on the product itself, but on its effect within biological processes. The vineyard becomes a place of control that eludes immediate perception. It is precisely this – the technical approach – that will meet with suspicion amongst nature-loving natural wine makers, for it is here that the dreaded term ‘genetic engineering’ looms large.
However, the scientists involved emphasise that this is not conventional genetic engineering. No genes are altered, and no organisms are permanently modified. The dsRNA molecules have a temporary effect; they break down and leave no lasting traces in the vine’s genetic material. That is the crucial difference – and, at the same time, the point at which the debate begins.
For the question is not merely what is technically possible, but also what is acceptable.
Initial reactions from the industry paint a mixed picture. Some larger estates and cooperatives see such methods as a necessary development. Climate change, disease pressure, regulatory requirements – all of these are forcing the wine-growing sector to find new solutions. More precise, targeted methods appear to be a logical next step here.
Others express doubts. Representatives of biodynamic and traditionally run vineyards, in particular, question whether such intervention is still compatible with the very essence of their work. Not out of hostility towards technology, but because of a different understanding of intervention and process. When viticulture begins to exert control at a genetic level, the boundaries of what is meant by ‘working with nature’ shift.
On the consumer side, too, the situation remains open. The market reacts sensitively to terms associated with biotechnology. At the same time, pressure to produce more sustainably is growing. Fewer pesticides, less environmental impact, greater efficiency – these are expectations that cannot be ignored. Grape4vine finds itself right at the heart of this tension. Between technical innovation and cultural self-definition. Between the desire to reduce interventions and the introduction of new, more complex interventions.
For wine, this signifies a quiet but profound shift. The narrative of an unaltered product, derived solely from soil and climate, is increasingly being supplemented by knowledge originating from laboratories. Not as a replacement, but as an extension. Yet this extension alters our perspective. This does not make viticulture any less demanding. On the contrary. It is becoming more complex. And it calls for a new way of understanding it – one that does not pass immediate judgement, but seeks to understand what is happening here. For the question is not whether viticulture is changing. It has long since been changing.
The question is how we talk about it.