Vol. 14 No. 2 (2025)
Original Research Article

Barriers and Drivers in the Adoption of New Genomic Techniques for Grapevines

PDF
  • Lara Agnoli,
  • Efi Vasileiou,
  • Federica Demaria
Lara Agnoli
Université Bourgogne Europe, Burgundy School of Business, School of Wine & Spirits Business, CEREN EA 7477, Dijon, France
Efi Vasileiou
Université Bourgogne Europe, Burgundy School of Business, CEREN EA 7477, Dijon, France
Federica Demaria
Council for Agricultural Research and Economics - Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy Center (CREA- PB), Rome, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-18295

Published 2025-10-10

Keywords

  • New Genomic Techniques,
  • grape growers,
  • barriers,
  • drivers,
  • producers,
  • technicians
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Agnoli, L., Vasileiou, E., & Demaria, F. (2025). Barriers and Drivers in the Adoption of New Genomic Techniques for Grapevines. Wine Economics and Policy, 14(2), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-18295

Copyright (c) 2025 Lara Agnoli, Efi Vasileiou, Federica Demaria

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Severe climate conditions and fungal diseases have significantly impacted global wine production, bringing it to its lowest levels in decades. The development of resilient grape varieties with strong quality standards becomes therefore essential for the industry’s future. This study examines how European producers perceive New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), innovative methods that enhance plant traits without adding foreign DNA, improving grape resistance to environmental and biological stresses while promoting more sustainable production. Employing qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews were conducted across six major wine-producing countries. Thematic analysis revealed a complex and diverse range of opinions. Growers recognized NGTs’ potential to optimize resource management, enhance climate resilience, and reduce production costs, directly contributing to more sustainable practices. However, significant barriers were identified, including ethical concerns, consumer acceptance, misinformation and fear of new technologies, and legislative uncertainties. Furthermore, farmers’ knowledge gaps and adherence to traditional methods posed internal barriers. The need for transparent communication was highlighted as a critical factor, as well as the importance of addressing these multiple challenges through stakeholder engagement and informed policymaking.

PDF

References

  1. OIV, ‘State of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2024’, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/2025-04/OIV-State_of_the_World_Vine-and-Wine-Sector-in-2024.pdf
  2. Y. Chen et al., ‘Winegrowers’ decision-making: A pan-European perspective on pesticide use and inter-row management’, J. Rural Stud., vol. 94, pp. 37–53, Aug. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.05.021.
  3. M. Schmidt, T. Strack, H. Andrews, L. T. Hickey, P. A. Crisp, and K. P. Voss-Fels, ‘A new climate for genomic and epigenomic innovation in grapevine’, Mol. Hortic., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 44, May 2025, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43897-025-00171-1.
  4. E. Pomarici and R. Vecchio, ‘Will sustainability shape the future wine market?’, Wine Econ. Policy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–4, June 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2019.05.001.
  5. X. Wang et al., ‘Whole-genome sequencing reveals rare off-target mutations in CRISPR/Cas9-edited grapevine’, Hortic. Res., vol. 8, p. 114, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00549-4.
  6. Z. Migicovsky and S. Myles, ‘Exploiting Wild Relatives for Genomics-assisted Breeding of Perennial Crops’, Front. Plant Sci., vol. 8, Apr. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00460.
  7. C. Pirrello et al., ‘Grapevine DMR6-1 Is a Candidate Gene for Susceptibility to Downy Mildew’, Biomolecules, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 182, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12020182.
  8. D.-Y. Wan et al., ‘CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of VvMLO3 results in enhanced resistance to powdery mildew in grapevine (Vitis vinifera)’, Hortic. Res., vol. 7, p. 116, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-020-0339-8.
  9. A. Charrier, E. Vergne, N. Dousset, A. Richer, A. Petiteau, and E. Chevreau, ‘Efficient Targeted Mutagenesis in Apple and First Time Edition of Pear Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System’, Front. Plant Sci., vol. 10, Feb. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00040.
  10. S. Najafi, E. Bertini, E. D’Incà, M. Fasoli, and S. Zenoni, ‘DNA-free genome editing in grapevine using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes followed by protoplast regeneration’, Hortic. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, p. uhac240, Jan. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac240.
  11. R. Lassoued, P. W. B. Phillips, D. M. Macall, H. Hesseln, and S. J. Smyth, ‘Expert opinions on the regulation of plant genome editing’, Plant Biotechnol. J., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1104–1109, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13597.
  12. A. Meldolesi, ‘Eco-vandals target gene-edited Chardonnay in Italy’, CRISPeR FRENZY. Accessed: Feb. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://mycrispr.blog/2025/02/16/eco-vandals-target-gene-edited-chardonnay-in-italy/
  13. M. Borrello, L. Cembalo, and R. Vecchio, ‘Consumers’ acceptance of fungus resistant grapes: Future scenarios in sustainable winemaking’, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 307, p. 127318, July 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127318.
  14. G. Mian, F. Nassivera, S. Sillani, and L. Iseppi, ‘Grapevine Resistant Cultivars: A Story Review and the Importance on the Related Wine Consumption Inclination’, Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 390, Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010390.
  15. L. Nesselhauf, R. Fleuchaus, and L. Theuvsen, ‘What about the environment?: A choice-based conjoint study about wine from fungus-resistant grape varieties’, Int. J. Wine Bus. Res., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 96–121, Aug. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-09-2018-0049.
  16. M. Borrello, L. Cembalo, and R. Vecchio, ‘Role of information in consumers’ preferences for eco-sustainable genetic improvements in plant breeding’, PLOS ONE, vol. 16, no. 7, p. e0255130, July 2021, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255130.
  17. R. Vecchio, E. Pomarici, E. Giampietri, and M. Borrello, ‘Consumer acceptance of fungus-resistant grape wines: Evidence from Italy, the UK, and the USA’, PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, p. e0267198, Apr. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267198.
  18. C. Kiefer and G. Szolnoki, ‘Consumer Acceptance of Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties – An Exploratory Study Using Sensory Evaluation Test Among Consumers in Germany’, May 2023, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202305.1733.v1.
  19. EU Regulation 2117. 2021. Accessed: July 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2117/oj
  20. S. Sillani, F. Marangon, G. Gallenti, S. Troiano, F. Nassivera, and M. Carzedda, ‘Designation and Certification Strategies for Fungus-Resistant Grape Wines: An Exploratory Study in Italy’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 22, p. 14871, Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214871.
  21. R. Finger, L. Zachmann, and C. McCallum, ‘Short supply chains and the adoption of fungus‐resistant grapevine varieties’, Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1753–1775, Sept. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13337.
  22. L. Zachmann, C. McCallum, and R. Finger, ‘Determinants of the adoption of fungus-resistant grapevines: Evidence from Switzerland’, J. Wine Econ., pp. 1–33, Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2023.36.
  23. O. Sambucci, J. M. Alston, K. B. Fuller, and J. Lusk, ‘The Pecuniary and Nonpecuniary Costs of Powdery Mildew and the Potential Value of Resistant Grape Varieties in California’, Am. J. Enol. Vitic., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 177–187, Apr. 2019, https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2018.18032.
  24. A. Molitorisová et al., ‘New genomic techniques in organic production: Considerations for science-based, effective, and acceptable EU regulation’, Cell Rep. Sustain., vol. 2, no. 6, June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100405.
  25. L. Bartek, N. Sundin, I. Strid, M. Andersson, P.-A. Hansson, and M. Eriksson, ‘Environmental benefits of circular food systems: The case of upcycled protein recovered using genome edited potato’, J. Clean. Prod., vol. 380, p. 134887, Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134887.
  26. S. Chatzopoulou and S. Chatzopoulos, ‘Livestock farmers’ perceptions towards genetically engineered methods and genetically modified organisms in Denmark and Sweden’, J. Rural Stud., vol. 111, p. 103414, Oct. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103414.
  27. M. A. Schnurr and B. Dowd-Uribe, ‘Anticipating farmer outcomes of three genetically modified staple crops in sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from farming systems research’, J. Rural Stud., vol. 88, pp. 377–387, Dec. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.08.001.
  28. L. Basinskiene and B. Seinauskiene, ‘Gene Editing Versus Gene Modification: Awareness, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Lithuanian Consumers, Producers, and Farmers’, Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 87, pp. 433–438, July 2021, https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2187073.
  29. E. Woźniak-Gientka et al., ‘Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security’, GM Crops Food, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 218–241, Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2111946.
  30. A. Bearth, G. Kaptan, and S. H. Kessler, ‘Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland’, Agric. Hum. Values, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1117–1131, Sept. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10311-8.
  31. S. Romeo Lironcurti, F. Demaria, R. D’Annolfo, and R. Sardone, ‘Consumer Evaluations of and Attitudes towards New Genome Editing Techniques: An Italian Case Study’, Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010051.
  32. T. Sprink, R. Wilhelm, and F. Hartung, ‘Genome editing around the globe: An update on policies and perceptions’, Plant Physiol., vol. 190, no. 3, pp. 1579–1587, Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiac359.
  33. S. Nawaz and T. Satterfield, ‘Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing’, PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 3, p. e0265635, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265635.
  34. M. M. Andersen et al., ‘Feasibility of new breeding techniques for organic farming’, Trends Plant Sci., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 426–434, July 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.04.011.
  35. M. Robbins, C. Calabrese, J. D. Featherstone, and G. A. Barnett, ‘Understanding knowledge and perceptions of genome editing technologies: a textual analysis of major agricultural stakeholder groups’, J. Sci. Commun., vol. 20, no. 5, p. A07, Sept. 2021, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20050207.
  36. L. Ferrari, ‘Farmers’ attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice’, Agribusiness, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 175–194, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21717.
  37. Directive EU 2001/18/EC. OPOCE. Accessed: July 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32001L0018
  38. OIV, ‘State of the world wine and wine sector in 2023’. 2024. Accessed: July 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/2024-04/OIV_STATE_OF_THE_WORLD_VINE_AND_WINE_SECTOR_IN_2023.pdf
  39. V. Squires, ‘Thematic Analysis’, in Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods: Selected Contextual Perspectives, J. M. Okoko, S. Tunison, and K. D. Walker, Eds, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_72.
  40. V. Braun and V. Clarke, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, Jan. 2006, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  41. E. Kovak, D. Blaustein-Rejto, and M. Qaim, ‘Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation’, Trends Plant Sci., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 627–629, July 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.01.004.
  42. K. Schneider et al., ‘Insights on cisgenic plants with durable disease resistance under the European Green Deal’, Trends Biotechnol., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1027–1040, Aug. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.02.005.
  43. EU Wine Market Observatory, ‘Prospects of the EU wine sector’, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/83588b14-0c75-43a4-b8ab-c5718bee6b01_en?filename=future-prospects-of-the-eu-wine-sector-june-2024.pdf&prefLang=hu
  44. T. Reinhardt, Y. Ambrogio, L. Springer, and Tafel, ‘Wine law, sustainable innovation and the emergence of a wine constitution.’, Wine Econ. Policy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–124, 2024.

Most read articles by the same author(s)