(Editorial team)
Viticulture has long understood itself as a system that functions from within, from nature itself. Vine, soil, climate – that was all that was needed, according to the classic narrative. Everything else was considered a disruption. Or a corrective that was kept as invisible as possible. This narrative persists to this day, partly because it sounds convincing, especially in natural viticulture. It is compatible, it sells. And it is increasingly coming under pressure. Along with it, conventional “green” plant protection products are also coming under pressure.
The project Grape4vine at the University of Milan shows how far reality has already moved away from this. Among those leading the project are 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 businesses.
The approach is as sober as it is radical. What has so far accrued as waste in viticulture – grape marc, vine prunings, residues from processing – is no longer disposed of, but becomes the starting point for a new production model. So-called dsRNA molecules are extracted from these residual materials. These molecules intervene specifically in 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 know this process. And Grape4vine is a by-product of cancer research – as absurd as that may sound.
The objective is clear: fewer conventional plant protection products, fewer chemical interventions, more precision. In an industry in which vines may need to be treated up to twenty times per season, depending on the region, this is a promise that carries weight. And it is part of a larger idea that the project explicitly pursues: the transition to a circular economy in viticulture. Nothing should be lost; everything should be utilised.
That sounds like progress. And it is.
At the same time, this shifts the concept of naturalness. The intervention is no longer visibly applied to the plant, but takes place at molecular level. The focus is no longer on the product itself, but on its effect within biological processes. The vineyard becomes a place of regulation that eludes immediate perception. This very thing, the technical approach, will encounter mistrust in nature-loving natural winemaking, because the sinister term “genetic engineering” is beginning to loom.
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 act temporarily, they break down, and they 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 only what is technically possible. It is also what will be accepted.
Initial statements from the industry reveal a divided picture. Some larger businesses and cooperatives see such processes as a necessary development. Climate change, disease pressure, regulatory requirements – all of this is forcing viticulture to find new solutions. More precise, targeted methods appear to be a logical step here.
Others express doubts. Representatives of biodynamic and traditionally run wineries in particular are asking whether such an intervention is still compatible with their understanding of their work. Not out of hostility towards technology, but because they have a different understanding of intervention and process. If viticulture begins to regulate at genetic level, the boundary of what is understood as “working with nature” shifts.
The situation is also open on the consumer side. The market reacts sensitively to terms associated with biotechnology. At the same time, the pressure to produce more sustainably is growing. Fewer sprays, less impact, greater efficiency – these are expectations that cannot be ignored. Grape4vine stands precisely within this field of tension. Between technical innovation and cultural self-description. Between the desire to reduce interventions and the introduction of new, more complex interventions.
For wine, this means a quiet but profound shift. The narrative of an unchanged product arising exclusively from soil and climate is increasingly being supplemented by knowledge that comes from laboratories. Not as a replacement, but as an extension. Yet this extension changes the way we look at things. This does not make viticulture any less demanding. On the contrary. It becomes more complex. And it calls for a new way of placing it in context. One that does not immediately pass judgement, but understands what is happening here. For the question is not whether viticulture is changing. It has been doing so for a long time.
The question is how we talk about it.