Genetically-Modified Rootstocks: Public Relations or Science?

In recent news, wine research and development has taken an innovative turn. The French National Institute for Argonomic Research planted vines as an experiment to fight off a virus that affects grapevines. The disease, spread by roundworms, reduces the amount of grape yields by almost 80 percent. The gene implanted in these grapevines was said to be resistant to the disease.

In every controversial research project there will no doubt be environmental or social groups ready to attack the experiments. Vive la Revolution! Attacks from a French environmental group known as Les Faucheurs Volontaires (The Voluntary Reapers) completely decimated an experimental vineyard in Colmar, France. And by decimated, I mean 1.2 million Euros ($1.56 million for you non-Europeans) and 7 years research worth of damage. They dug up and hacked apart about 70 vines on August 15th.

The research being conducted was a controversial topic for Europe, considering they were essentially creating gene sequences that could create disease-resistant faster growing vines.

If you are research and science minded, you are probably asking what the big deal is:

Well, according to Les Faucheurs Volontaires here is the "big deal":

GM Crops have not be sufficiently tested for safety, both in the field and into your glass. This could also disrupt eco-systems, and ruin plants that are unmodified. Lastly, it's a recipe for GLOBAL DOMINATION of agriculture. (I hope you shouted global domination! like I did)

So these self proclaimed reapers, activists from winegrowers in France and winemakers, question the validity of the research versus the public relations of corporations.

"The vines GMO (genetically modified organisms) field test was more of a sociological experiment, to see how far a profession and a population were willing to perform tests designed fo endorse the PGM" activist Jean-Pierre Frick says in Wine Spectator. Interestingly enough, a biologist and head researcher for the vineyard agrees that more research is necessary, though they have the key to fighting the pathogens now.

So as Public Relations professionals, do we agree that the Institute was overstepping the genetic boundaries, without completed research, in order to promote their own name? Is this a faulty public relations effort or an attempt to further wine science? We know that research is key in implementing any experiment, yet research also takes time. Yet isn't the point of "experimenting" to see what will actually happen? Let us not forget the ethics of this debacle, present in every good PR case. Do the ends (successful grape production on a large scale) justify the means (altering nature and disrupting the ecosystem)??

Here's my question to you:

What are YOUR feelings about the destruction of the GM rootstocks??
Is it a great idea to ruin the rootstock, do you somewhat agree, do you completely disagree, do you have no opinion?
Do you think the scientists are right in their research or terribly wrong?

All of these questions, and more, should be taken into consideration and could be turned into an interesting research project.

An activist reaping destruction

In a slightly comical note, the project was a taxpayer-funded research project. The activists are taxpayers, and believe that the French are overwhelmingly against the GMO project. Perhaps then, they should have objected to paying for this million euro project before it's creation??

Click here to learn more about a Non-GMO Project.