Wines by modern Prometheus?

I recently read an article entitled 'Frankenstein wine' warning over French supergrapes.

Apparently, French wine scientists have developed some vines that are impervious to fungal attack, specifically downy mildew and powdery mildew, and therefore requiring little or no fungicidal chemicals.  You'd think that this was a good thing and would be welcomed.  But no, some people, who may have a vested interest in turning back innovation, are claiming that the "lab-grown creations" combine genes from around the world and could lead to dumbed-down, low-grade "Frankenstein wine", whatever the hell that means.  The implication is that the new varieties are somehow unnatural.  As far as I can tell, genetic engineering has not been involved; conventional cross breeding has been used.

Let's just step back from this hysterical attack on scientific improvement in winemaking.  As a result of claimed cancer links among grape growers, the French are under intense pressure to reduce the amount of fungicides used.  The use of these new varieties would therefore seem to be a good move.  However, a winemaker and researcher from western France has claimed that these vines, which are  hybrids, would lead to "artificial and unnatural 'Frankenstein wine'."  According to the article, he likened the development of the new vines to crossing a monkey with a man - technically feasible but going against nature. That is a completely over-the-top reaction, but I'd be keen to see the resulting animal!

The development and growing of hybrid grape varieties has in fact been going on since the 1950s in the northeast and Pacific Northwest of North America.  Those varieties have enabled production of wines in these short season, cooler and more humid areas.  They also have greater resistance to disease and therefore require less use of chemicals.

Though rare, natural interspecific hybrids do occur as a result of cross-pollination, the earliest known was discovered in 1740 near a vineyard planted in Vitis vinifera.

More food scare mongering

I recently read an article in New Zealand Farmer entitled "The stomach-churning truth about what's in synthetic food".  The writer, Jon Morgan was writing an opinion piece and quoted an article by a British food writer, Joanna Blythman.

She had apparently investigated the ingredients in the "Impossible Burger", which has been launched in the US.  The ingredients can be found in many foods already consumed widely in New Zealand and other countries.

She was upset that the major ingredient by weight was water, suggesting that "no quality product uses it as a bulk ingredient".  I had a look in our food cupboard and refrigerator, and found many processed foods with water listed as the main ingredient.  Practically any food manufactured in which powders, such as milk powder, are incorporated will require water to rehydrate the dry ingredients.  (What does she think is the major component of a beef steak cut from a cattle beast?)

She then got stuck into some of the other dry ingredients - textured wheat protein, potato protein and soya protein isolate, claiming that these were produced using high-tech. chemical and physical processes veiled in secrecy.  The konjac and xanthan gums used in food manufacture were described as industrial hydrocolloids, the latter used in oil drilling muds.  In my opinion, this reference is totally irrelevant - there are many materials found in foods that are also used in unrelated industrial processes, such as starch used in paper coating.

The ingredient that caused Joanna the most heartache appeared to be soy leghemoglobin, which is a protein produced in genetically modified Pichia pastoris and which imparts a meat-like flavour profile onto plant-based foods.  I found a number of scientific studies that tested its safety for consumption at up to 0.8% in ground beef analogues.

Overall, I came to the conclusion that this was just another scare mongering beat up of modern food technology.  It is worth noting that Sir Peter Gluckman, the New Zealand Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, has stated that synthetic foods will have a major impact in 10 to 15 years, and that great strides are being made in the commercialisation of synthetic milk and meat.

I also tried to find information on Joanna Blythman's qualifications to comment on the safety of foods.  All I can find is that she graduated from City, University of London.  City is focused on business and the professions, so I can only assume that she has no food or science qualifications (if she does have some, then perhaps I am doing her an injustice) but at the moment, it appears that she is yet another journalist who has set up to criticise the food industry.

The wonder fat?

This press release came to me via the NZIFST FaceBook Group of the same name.  See

The bad oil on coconut oil.pdf

The original article was released by a marketing, PR and communications consultancy consultancy, AMG.

Like many snake oil adverts, this release contains some grains of truth.  However, it also make many unsubstantiated health claims, which is illegal in New Zealand.
I'm not going to comment on the release; suffice it to say that I shall not be buying any of the product.  Have a look and decide for yourself whether this is the sort of oil that you want to use for cooking and treating your family.

To flush or not to flush ...

This post was originally published on 7th February, 2011.  I accidentally deleted it while trying to answer a question from a reader.  Here it is again.



No, this one isn't about faecal bacteria, at least not directly.

Our major TV news broadcaster was guilty over the weekend of a dreadful beat-up on the use of gas mixtures to extend the shelf life of fresh meat.  Under the banner of "How safe is your meat?", the channel made a big deal of the use of gas mixtures containing carbon dioxide to inhibit bacteria on the meat.  They implied that suppliers were trying to pass off old meat as "fresh" and that the process was used to make the meat look redder and thus deceive the consumer into thinking that the meat was fresher.  A further implication of the banner was that gas flushed meat is unsafe.  Must have been a slow news day.

Meat technologists and microbiologists have known for many years that gas mixtures containing carbon dioxide inhibit bacteria, such asPseudomonas, which are responsible for the development of slime and odours on meat stored under refrigerated conditions.  The gas also inhibits many pathogens, which may potentially cause disease.  

Consumers interviewed in supermarkets said that the meat should be labeled to indicate that it had been gas flushed.  Of course, one supermarket chain said they would do this if customers wanted it, while another tried to take the high ground and claim that they would never gas flush meat.

This is all playing on the ignorance of many consumers about food technology and food safety.  Certainly the meat keeps longer when gas flushed. Why does meat normally have such a short shelf life?  Because some bacteria can grow under refrigeration conditions and turn the meat slimy or produce odours that consumers find objectionable.

Should we ignore and reject the many years of research on food preservation?  Should we perhaps go back to taking meat home wrapped in paper and cooking it the same day?  That's "natural".  Should we reject vacuum packaging - it's not natural, but in fact works in a very similar way to gas flushing.  Consumers have demanded longer shelf life in all sorts of foods - meat, strawberries, smoked mussels, cakes and pastries.  In response, food technologists have developed ways to deliver such foods and these techniques involve preservative chemicals, vacuum packaging, pasteurisation and gas flushing (modified atmospheres).  If we are prepared to go back to foods with a shelf life of just a few days, we can reject gas flushing and other technologies.

If consumers are really concerned about gas flushing, they can recognise flushed packs by the fact that the film is sealed to the tray, or in some cases, such as gas flushed bakery goods, the package looks like a pillow.

Me?  Well, I'll happily buy carbon dioxide flushed meat - it keeps longer and in some cases looks better.