As crop trashers target the vines, scientists leading trials hide their GMO status. By Claire Robinson
“Vandals destroy experimental vines in Italy amid GMO confusion” is the headline of an article in the wine industry magazine Vinetur. The subtitle adds, “Chardonnay vines using assisted evolution targeted in attack; researchers clarify they are not genetically modified organisms. Investigation ongoing”.
The Vinetur article says, “In northern Italy, vandals have destroyed experimental Chardonnay vines developed through ‘assisted evolution’ techniques. These vines, studied by the University of Verona, were uprooted in San Floriano di Valpolicella. The incident occurred during the night of February 12 and 13. The vandals targeted 10 small plants, including five experimental and five control vines. The motive remains unclear, but there is speculation that the attack might have been aimed at genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A sign at the site, authorised by the Minister of Environment and Energy Security on September 5, 2024, mentions GMOs, which could have led to confusion.”
The article adds, “Researchers clarified that the vines are not GMOs but represent ‘assisted evolution’ technology (AET). This method aims to create disease-resistant vines, reducing the need for pesticides.”
A story of silly luddite vandals and poor victimised researchers? Think again. Just as we thought we’d learned all the euphemisms for the new generation of GM techniques – the EU has opted for “new breeding techniques” and “new genomic techniques”, whereas the UK favours “precision breeding techniques” – along comes another. In Italy these new GM techniques have been dubbed “technologies for assisted evolution” or “assisted evolution techniques”. Anything to avoid the dreaded “GM” word. And, if the GMO industry succeeds in its aim of exempting these genetically engineered gene-edited products from the GMO regulations, including the requirement to carry a “genetically modified” label, people won’t know where these GMOs are being grown or if they are consuming them.
So these are GMO vines. An article in the journal Nature announces the field trials of what are almost certainly the same vines that were destroyed by the activists: “Europe’s first field trial of gene-edited vines began in northern Italy on 30 September 2024. Developed by EdiVite, a spinoff from the University of Verona, these Chardonnay vines have undergone gene inactivation to enable them to better defend themselves against downy mildew, an oomycete disease.”
One of the researchers, Professor Mario Pezzotti of the University of Verona, admitted to Vinetur that “some people oppose such innovations” but claimed that was just because they didn’t understand them.
Silly luddites again. Even the Italian government gets it wrong, according to Vinetur and their scientific source, Prof Pezzotti: “The vineyard’s signage, required by Italian law, includes a reference to GMOs, which Pezzotti acknowledged as misleading but unchangeable. The experiment was approved by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and funded publicly.”
Except that the government is correct and is not “misleading” anyone. Under EU law, these GM gene-edited vines are indeed GMOs. It is Prof Pezzotti and his colleagues who are misleading the public, in true Orwellian style. It is unscientific, dishonest, and patronising to use euphemisms like “assisted evolution”.
Commenting on the episode, the molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou said: “I challenge Prof Pezzotti to make a public statement in which he explains exactly what he and his colleagues did to produce the ‘assisted evolution’ vines. Then the scientific community and the public can decide whether these are GMOs or not.”
Prof Pezzotti, incidentally, is not exactly a disinterested expert. He is named in the Nature article as a “co-founder of EdiVite”. His company’s aim is “to attract financial investments and facilitate the commercialisation of genetically edited grapevines resistant to downy and powdery mildews”. And needless to say, EdiVite owns a patent on the supposedly powdery mildew-resistant gene-edited grapevine that was targeted by the activists. So while the research was publicly funded, any profits will go to the company.
The authorisation of the open-field testing of these genetically engineered vines is highly controversial and is being fought in the courts. This is part of a wider Italian campaign against the liberalisation of new GMOs and in support of municipalities across Italy remaining entirely free of them.
Evolution vs gene editing
The more technically minded among our readers may be interested to know how GM techniques such as gene editing differ from “evolution”. (You can read more about this here and here.)
In nature, mutations (DNA damage and/or events like the introduction of foreign DNA) happen rarely, in a localised context, and their results are selected for over evolutionary time. In plants, spontaneous mutations in nature have been found to be not random but “by design”, enabling the plant to better adapt to its environment, with those areas of the genome that are important to the plant’s survival being protected from mutations. In contrast, in gene editing, no area of the genome is protected and all areas are accessible to mutations brought about by the genetic engineering processes used. Gene editing-induced mutations occur not through evolutionary processes, but to suit the purposes of the GMO developer, with many unintended mutations being randomly thrown into the mix.
Also, in conventional breeding, any mutations or genetic variations that resulted in harmful effects, such as toxicity or allergenicity, would have been spotted and selected out by farmers and crop breeders before they can do much damage. But with techniques such as gene editing, large numbers of deliberately mutated crops can be widely planted and consumed across the globe in a relatively short space of time, with little possibility of tracing the cause of any ill effects due to the globalised nature of the food supply and (in some cases) a lack of GMO labelling.
In this regard, Prof Jack Heinemann and colleagues have explained how gene technologies entail a significant upscaling of risk, as compared with the risks posed by mutations that nature or conventional breeding can produce.
In conclusion, it’s not Prof Pezzotti’s gene-edited vines that merit the description “assisted evolution”, but conventional breeding, which is “assisted” by that master designer, nature.