Wine Biotechnology: Background, Regulation and Commercialization

1. Wine Biotechnology: Background, Regulation and Commercialization Viresh P. Ramburan (PhD Agric MBA) PUB Wine GMO Round table SAS Radisson, Cape Town 25 June 2008

2. Scope • SA Wine Industry • Investment in Biotechnology • Position of the SA Wine Industry Council regarding GMO’s • International Regulatory perspective (EU and USA) • International Labelling perspective • Commercialization

3. SA Wine Industry • 102 000 hectares planted • Pinotage, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Shiraz • Chenin blanc, Sauvignon blanc, Chardonnay • 1044 million litres of wine produced • (28% export) • 9th largest producer in the world • Employment for 256,000 (2003) • 8.2% of W. Cape GGP (2003) Source: SAWIS (2003)

4. R&D in the SA Wine Industry • Winetech Mission: • To provide the South African Wine Industry with a sustainable basis of forefront technology and human resources in order to strengthen both local and international competitiveness and profitability • Winetech Programmes • Grapevine Virus Programme, Optimal Grape Composition, Terroir, Technology Transfer, Biotechnology Programme

5. Why Biotechnology? • Wine is a biotechnology product! • Tremendous Innovation potential: • Development of improved/new production practices and products (long term strategy) • Capacity development • Attract scientists from other fields to wine industry • Train/skill scientists in latest technologies • International competitiveness • Align research with global developments • Develop leadership position in certain areas • Aligned industry with national and international priorities: • National Biotechnology Strategy • International developments

6. fgfdg

8. Wine and Grapevine Biotechnology programme • Aims: • improvement of viticulture, wine yeast and bacteria for a quality focused, market directed wine industry • Not just GMO production! • Targets: • Grapevine: Virus resistance, disease resistance, abiotic stress • Yeast/Bacteria: Improved quality of wines, health benefits, process efficiency • Long term research outcome: • Assess GM yeast, bacteria and grapevine

9. SA wine industry position (October 2006) • The South African wine industry has supported GMO research through its Winetech programmes as it is important to remain on the 'cutting edge' of international research and technical innovation. Such research furthermore has to be strictly controlled through internationally accepted protocols. • The Council will not support the use of GMO organisms in the commercial production of wine until such time as it is clear that this practice is internationally acceptable.

10. Scope • SA wine industry • Investment in Biotechnology • Position of the SA Wine Industry Council • International Regulatory perspective (EU and USA) • International Labeling perspective • Commercial perspective

11. Regulation: USA/Canada • Philosophy: • No a priori reason to assume that GM is more risky than conventional methods. • Each case is considered on its merit-based on ‘substantial equivalence’. • Risk Assessment Organizations: • FDA-USA • Health Canada

12. Regulation: EU • Philosophy: • GM has an intrinsic level of risk beyond what is acceptable in non-GM products. • Reflected in stringent regulatory process, requirements and labelling • Risk Asssesment Organizations: • EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)

13. EU: Additives and Processing Aids • Directive 89/107/EC • Additives=Ingredients: substances added during processing with a technological purpose, representing a significant quantity and becoming an integral part of the final product, e.g., In wine: tartaric acid, citric acid • Processing aids: substances added during processing with a technological purpose and eliminated during the process or leaves technical residues which cannot be eliminated, e.g., In wine: enzymes, bacteria and yeast

14. EU Directives • Regulation 1829/2003 (GM Food and Feed Regulation) • Processing Aids • “when a GM micro-organism is used as a processing aid the food and feed resulting from such production are considered as not falling under the scope of the Regulation” • Implication: No labelling required • Being tabled again for discussion in July 2008: Will affect use of additives and processing aids in all food and feed

15. Labelling trends International GM Labelling trends Data adapted from Viljoen et al. (2006), EU Joint research commission, Gruere and Rao (2007)

16. Labelling in SA A foodstuff obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification shall not be sold unless such foodstuff is labelled to inform the consumer if: • the composition differs significantly from the corresponding existing foodstuff; • the nutritional value of such a foodstuff differs significantly from the characteristic nutritional value of the corresponding existing foodstuff, • the mode of storage, preparation or cooking of such a foodstuff differs significantly from that of the corresponding existing foodstuff; • the foodstuff contains an allergen; • a foodstuff is derived from: • plant material containing animal nucleic acid(s) or protein(s) derived from a human or from an animal; • animal material containing animal nucleic acid(s) or protein(s) derived from a human or from a different taxonomic animal family Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972).

17. Commercialization: Grapevine • Grapevine: no commercial releases. • GM grapevine research in countries listed and South Africa, Argentina, Chile GM Field Trials

18. Commercialization: Wine Yeast • US FDA in 2003 designated the GM yeast , Saccharomyces cerevisae strain ML01 to be a substance generally recognized as safe (GRAS) • Conducts malolactic fermentation-negates the need to add lactic acid bacteria • Available commercially in USA, Canada, Moldova

19. Commercialization: Wine Yeast • In January 2006, the USA FDA awarded GRAS status to Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain ECMo01 • GM Yeast degrades Urea. Urea+alcohol=Ethyl carbamate, a carcinogen in humans • Internationally patented technology • Plans to commercialize technology internationally