# Sensory and prospective analyses revealed the interest of the wine industry for fungus-resistant grape varieties in the South of France

Marc-Antoine Dolet, Elie Maza, Olivier Geffroy, Yves Y. Le Fur, Caroline Paire, Foued Cheriet, Hervé Hannin, Isabelle Ferrané, Soline Caillé, Alain Samson, et al.

► To cite this version:

Marc-Antoine Dolet, Elie Maza, Olivier Geffroy, Yves Y. Le Fur, Caroline Paire, et al. Sensory and prospective analyses revealed the interest of the wine industry for fungus-resistant grape varieties in the South of France. 2025. hal-05132859

HAL Id: hal-05132859

https://hal.science/hal-05132859v1

Preprint submitted on 27 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
1 Sensory and prospective analyses revealed the interest of
2 the wine industry for fungus-resistant grape varieties in the
3 South of France

4 Marc-Antoine Dolet¹, Elie Maza¹, Olivier Geffroy², Yves Le Fur³, Caroline Paire²,⁴, Foued Cheriet⁴,

5 Hervé Hannin⁴, Isabelle Ferrané⁵, Soline Caillé⁶, Alain Samson⁶,⁷, Valérie Olivier¹*, Christian Chervin¹*

6 ¹LRSV, AGIR, Université de Toulouse, AgroToulouse INP, Castanet-Tolosan, France

7 ²PPGV, Université de Toulouse, Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan, Toulouse, France

8 ³CSGA, Université Bourgogne Europe, Institut Agro Dijon, France

9 ⁴MoISA, Université de Montpellier, Institut Agro Montpellier, Montpellier, France

10 ⁵IRIT, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse INP, Toulouse, France

11 ⁶SPO, Université de Montpellier, Institut Agro Montpellier, France

12 ⁷INRAE, Unité expérimentale de Pech Rouge, Gruissan, France

13

14 *corresponding authors: [valerie.olivier@toulouse-inp.fr](mailto:valerie.olivier@toulouse-inp.fr); [christian.chervin@toulouse-inp.fr](mailto:christian.chervin@toulouse-inp.fr)

15

16 Abstract

17 The adoption of fungus-resistant grape varieties (FRGs) represents a promising pathway for steering
18 viticulture towards more sustainable production methods by reducing the use of phytosanitary inputs. In
19 the early 2020's, the dissemination of these varieties remains limited, partly due to constraints within the
20 wine industry.

21 This study was conducted with commercial wines made from two types of grapes, either *Vitis vinifera* or
22 FRGs. A panel of 96 participants from the wine industry in the Occitanie region (Southern France) ran
23 sensory evaluations. These were performed both blind and with information about the type of grape, using
24 a combination of short CATA (Check-All-That-Apply) sessions followed by questions exploring their
25 interest for FRGs and the expected plantations in the coming years.
The results of the sensory analyses underlined the absence of any notable difference in liking or in the sensory profiles of the wines, whether tasted blind or not. Indeed, disclosure of the type of grape used to make the wines did not alter participants' perceptions or evaluations. Furthermore, the analysis of questionnaire data revealed a typology of three adopter profiles: “sceptics”, older professionals from private wineries, generally unfavourable; “receptives”, cooperative members, showing measured support for innovation; and “observers”, young, non-decision-making individuals with heterogeneous opinions. This industry panel predicted that there could be 25 % of vineyard areas planted with FRGs in Occitanie within the coming 30 years.

This study offers insights into the future adoption of this new plant material within the wine industry.

35

Keywords: CATA, wine, fungus-resistant grapevines, sustainable production, producers

37

## Introduction

The development of fungus-resistant grapevine varieties (FRGs) has been underway for several decades, dating back to the first generations of non-spontaneous hybrid vines in the early twentieth century (Yobrégat, 2018). It has marked a significant shift in European viticulture; traditionally, *Vitis vinifera*, the species used for wine production, has shown high susceptibility to these pathogens, leading to a heavy reliance on chemical fungicides to ensure yield and quality (Töpfer and Trapp, 2022; Eisenmann *et al.*, 2023). In response to growing environmental concerns, regulatory pressure to reduce pesticide use, and increasing societal demand for more sustainable agricultural practices, European research institutions and breeding programs—particularly in Western Europe—have accelerated efforts to develop disease-resistant cultivars.

Countries such as France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland have been at the forefront of this transition, with long-term public research initiatives such as INRAE's ResDur program in France or the Julius Kühn-Institut's breeding efforts in Germany, and the movement promoting FRGs in viticulture known as PIWI, standing for Pilzwiderstandsfähige Rebsorten (Paire *et al.*, 2024). These new varieties are often the result of complex interspecific crosses between traditional *Vitis vinifera* and other wild species carrying natural resistance genes, followed by extensive backcrossing to recover desirable oenological traits. While initially met with scepticism, particularly in terms of wine quality and market acceptance (Teissedre, 2018), these resistant varieties have gained attraction due to their potential to drastically reduce fungicide applications—by up to 50 to 90 % in some cases—without compromising productivity (Töpfer and Trapp, 2022; Eisenmann *et al.*, 2023).

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57
Today, FRGs are increasingly being integrated into experimental vineyards, organic viticulture, and certain PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) frameworks, albeit still cautiously and unevenly across regions (Dolet *et al.*, 2024); in France, the Occitanie region stands at the forefront of this planting dynamic. As the leading region in terms of surface area planted with FRGs, it alone accounted for 70 % of the national plantings of these new varieties in 2021, representing about 860 hectares out of a French total of 1,200 hectares, driven in particular by vineyards along the Mediterranean coast. However, it is important to note that these figures remain marginal in comparison with the total French vineyard surface, which covers approximately 783,000 hectares (OIV, 2025).

The implantation of FRG is still in an early stage, as numerous challenges hinder their adoption by the wine sector. The most frequently cited are the naming of these varieties, the long-term effectiveness of disease resistance, the restrictive nature of specifications, and the current lack of clear market demand (Montaigne *et al.*, 2016, 2021; Geffroy et al 2024a). One of the main challenges to the FRG development could be their alleged sensory inferiority (Pedneault and Provost, 2016), one hypothesis tested in the present study.

Studies focusing specifically on the adoption process of FRGs by producers or upstream actors in the wine supply chain remain scarce (Finger *et al.*, 2023; Kiefer and Szolnoki, 2024a; Zachmann *et al.*, 2024), when there is already a substantial body of literature investigating consumer acceptance of wines made from FRGs, mainly in Germany, Switzerland and Italy (Borello *et al.*, 2021, 2024; Kiefer and Szolnoki, 2023, 2024b; Nesselhauf *et al.*, 2020; Paire *et al.*, 2025; Sillani *et al.*, 2022; Vecchio *et al.*, 2022).

We used a method combining a short CATA session (Check-All-That-Apply) followed by a questionnaire to characterise panelists. The CATA is a descriptive sensory method widespread and particularly adapted to non-trained panels (Buck and Kemp, 2018; Jaeger *et al.*, 2023) allowing them to tick predefined attributes to characterise a product. This method is often combined with a hedonic appreciation of the product positioned after the CATA questions (Geffroy *et al.*, 2024b). Because it has been shown for food products that revealing information about the process can influence hedonic appreciation (Reis et al 2017; Souza-Gonzaga et al., 2022), we investigated whether revealing that wines were made with FRGs would modulate liking by wine producers. We also asked them if they had recognised the wines made with FRGs. Finally, the post-CATA questionnaire was used to build a typology of our industry panel, according to their interest in FRGs and their estimation of FRG plantings in years to come.

89
90

# Materials and methods

91

## 1. Wine industry panels

92

Participants were recruited with the help of grower associations and managing committees of cooperative cellars. We aimed to ensure diversity in our sample by covering different Geographical Protected Indication (GPI) and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) areas and structures, such as cooperatives vs. independent wineries, size of structures, and quality approaches such as organic certification.

93

94

95

96

97

All sessions were carried out between July 2024 and January 2025. In total, we held 19 sessions across all Occitanie region, which was divided into two main climatic zones: Mediterranean and Oceanic, according to Joly *et al.* (2010). Using these authors' cartography, here we regrouped under "Mediterranean" the frank and altered Mediterranean climates, and under "Oceanic" the altered oceanic and south-west basin climates. The sample comprises 96 participants, including 73 winegrowers, 46 cooperative members and 27 independent winemakers, and 23 professionals who were viticulture and oenology extension officers, classified as "extension". Among them, 61 and 35 were sourced from the Mediterranean and Oceanic climatic zones, respectively.

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

## 2. Wine selection

107

Six wines, four whites and two reds, were chosen among commercial wines produced in the Occitanie region. This selection was based on an initial characterisation conducted by an expert jury in Montpellier (S. Caillé, article in preparation) on commercial and experimental wines. This short list of six wines was selected as follows: 2 white wines made of *Vitis vinifera* (one Chardonnay, one blend of Sauvignon/Chardonnay), and 2 white wines made of FRGs (one Floreal, and one blend of Souvignier gris/Floreal/Soreli), produced in the Occitanie region. We aimed at presenting similar quality wines, already available on the market, between 5 to 10 € / bottle. The number of FRG white wines marketed at the time of the study was greater than that of red wines. The chemical analyses of these wines are detailed in Supplementary Data. The restricted number of wines is inherent to the method we are proposing, in which wines are used as a fore step to the questionnaire.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

## 3. Session schedule and questionnaire

119

Each session lasting approximately 1.5 hours was performed in small groups consisting of 4 to 6 participants. To conduct our study, a questionnaire was designed to be administered during meetings organised with the wine industry panel. An English version of the questionnaire is provided in Supplementary Data.

120

121

122
At the beginning of the session, all participants were asked to provide written informed consent prior to participating in the study, and were assured that the data will be anonymised.

First, sociodemographic data were collected to characterise the participants. These variables included gender, age, place of residence, production mode or occupation (cooperative member, independent winemaker, or extension people), as well as years of experience in the profession and potential dual employment status (for those having another job). The term "extension people" was restricted to viticulture and oenology technical advisers, and decision-maker regarding planting,

## 3.1 First blind tasting of the wine samples

Following these initial questions, hedonic data stemming from a wine tasting exercise structured in two phases were gathered.

Participants were given the first part of the questionnaire. The 4 white wines, followed by the two red ones, were served monadically, and each sample of 20 mL was associated with a 3-digit code, using random orders of presentation. The wines were served at a temperature of 16 °C. For each sample, panelists were asked to characterise the wines with sensory attributes using the CATA method, and to score their liking on a scale from 1 to 9 (Geffroy *et al.*, 2024). A question was asked to investigate if they were able to distinguish wines made from FRGs or *Vitis vinifera* varieties. The first part of the questionnaire was then collected.

## 3.2 Second tasting, with disclosure of grape type, and second part of the questionnaire

The same procedure was followed, but participants were informed of the type of grape (*Vitis vinifera* or FRG), used to make the wine. The codes attributed to FRG wines were revealed prior to the second tasting, not giving the exact name of the variety to avoid bias due to preference of some panelists for a given variety. The goal of this disclosure was to explore whether such information could bias their ratings. After tasting, participants were asked to classify the sensory attributes, as positive or negative, selected for each wine on the CATA questionnaire.

## 3.3 Final questions

We collected a series of answers about (i) whether the panelists recognised the wines made from FRGs or not, (ii) the level of interest in FRGs, measured via an unstructured continuous scale, as in the exemplarity study by Loison *et al*. (2015), (iii) the expected percentage of vineyard surface planted with FRGs in 30 years in their area (using a discrete scale from 0 to 100 %), and (iv) whether participants' opinions changed after the session (a binary dichotomous variable).
At the end of each session, participants were provided with a wine analysis sheet. This document included precise information on the evaluated wines, including the grape variety which was used, the main chemical characteristics (alcohol content, acidity, SO₂, etc.). These data were provided as a return for the industry panellists, a counterpart for giving some of their time. However, the wine names, brands, or estates were never disclosed at any point.

## 4. Data analyses

The statistical analyses related to the CATA and hedonic evaluations of the wines were conducted using both R software (v. 2022.07.1) for correspondence analyses, ANOVAs and Tukey's post hoc tests, as previously developed in Geffroy *et al.* (2024b), and Excel for t-tests and chi-square tests. The raw data and R scripts are available as Supplementary Data.

The typological analysis of participant profiles was carried out using Modalisa software (v.9.1, KYNOS, Paris). To this end, we selected a set of ten variables: gender, age, production method (or occupation), decision-making status, years of experience, vineyard climate, engagement in multiple professional activities, personal interest in planting resistant varieties, the projected percentage they might represent in the participant's local vineyard environment in 30 years (i.e., roughly one vine generation), and whether participants changed their opinion about FRGs following the session. The numerical variables were transformed into qualitative variables by constructing classes of similar frequency, and a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and a hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) were performed. Chi-square tests were used to identify significant classes, aiming at interpreting the participant profiles. These latter and classes were then drawn onto the factorial map.

## Results and Discussion

### 1. No impact in hedonic rating related to information release

As a first step, to measure the overall perceived quality of the wines that these grapes can produce, and the impact of revealing information about the grape type that was used, we conducted a multiple comparison of the mean hedonic scores recorded for each wine, the first conducted blind (indicated as “1st”), and the second with disclosure of the grape type (indicated as “2nd”). The mean hedonic scores assigned to the 6 wines are shown in Figure 1. We noticed that there was never a significant difference between 1st and 2nd scores of an identical wine, thus the information about the grape type did not generate any changes in the liking score. In other words, participants did not systematically overrate or underrate the wines based on this contextual information. There was therefore no negative halo effect (Nisbet and Wilson, 1977) or expectancy effect associated with the varietal origin, whether it was perceived as innovative (resistant) or traditional (*Vitis vinifera*).
We were mindful of the fact that FRGs might still be subject to criticisms that stem from the collective memory of winegrowers due to the alleged lower quality of wines made with the so-called ‘hybrid’ varieties in the early 20th century, which preceded those now being marketed (Meloni and Swinnen, 2013; Tesseidre, 2018). Moreover, with this in mind, we had to take into account that information release prior to tasting could bias liking scores in the context of our experiment (Reis *et al.*, 2017), but it was not the case.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Liking scores as a function of the wine and the timing of the sensory evaluation, without or with information about grape type. “SaCh” stands for Sauvignon/Chardonnay blend, “Char” for Chardonnay, “Flor” for Floreal, “SoFS” for a Souvignier/Floreal/Soreli blend, “Merl” for Merlot and “CNoir” for Cabernet Noir. “1st” stands for initial tasting without information, “2nd” for second tasting after disclosure of the information about codes attributed to FRG wines. Values are means of n = 96 with error bars indicating standard error. Black error bars for *Vitis vinifera* and green error bars for FRGs, yellow symbols for white wines, red symbols for red wines. Different small letters indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05 (Tukey's test).</figcaption></figure>

The Figure 1 also highlights some variability between the wine colours, with red wines receiving lower scores than some whites, but it was not the purpose of this test. Indeed, given the limited number of
tested wines, it is difficult to draw any general conclusion between whites and reds, the aim of the test being to focus on information bias.

## 2. No distinction of wines made from FRGs in blind tastings

Furthermore, we aimed to assess whether wines from these FRG varieties possess a strong identity, particularly as previous studies show that some FRG wines are tagged as low-quality-wines (Pedneault and Provost, 2016). If this were the case, one could expect that participants would be able to recognise these wines at rates higher than would be expected by chance. To investigate this, after the first blind tasting phase, we asked participants whether they believed they had recognised the wines made from FRGs and those made from *Vitis vinifera*. These results are illustrated in Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Figure 2.** Number of responses as a function of the percentage of wrong answers to the question “What wine was made with *Vitis vinifera* and what wine was made with FRGs?”, n = 96 wine industry panelists, **A)** for white wines, “0” wrong answer meaning good distinction of the 4 wines, “50” for distinction of only 2 out 4, and “100” for no distinction, i.e. 100% wrong answers, and **B)** for red wines, “0” for good distinction of the 2 wines, “100” for no distinction.
Given that each session included 4 white wines (2 *Vitis vinifera* and 2 FRGs) and 2 red wines (1 *Vitis vinifera* and 1 FRG), the possible numbers of correct identifications were 0, 2, or 4 for white wines, and 0 or 2 for red wines. In Figure 2, we expressed these values as percentages of wrong answers, for example 0, 2, or 4 for white wines correspond to 100 %, 50 % and 0 % of wrong answers. These possible outcomes are shown on the X axes of the two graphs. The values on the Y axes represent the number of responses across all 19 sessions. The results of Figure 2 clearly show that wrong answers are predominant for the white wines (on right side of the graph), and that there was a slightly higher proportion of wrong answers for the red wines. The Chi-square Goodness of Fit tests of these observed distributions, compared to expected values under random answers, resulted in *p*-values of 0.0002 and 0.2207, for white and red wines respectively, showing that wrong answers are significantly higher for white wines and that answers aren't significantly different from random distribution for red wines. But these analyses distract the reader from the main information, namely: the percentage of errors was higher for both types of wine. It can therefore be deduced that the participants did not distinguish the FRG wines from the *Vitis vinifera* wines.

233

## 3. Three behavioural profiles regarding FRGs, determined among participants

The MCA and HAC led to the identification of three participant profiles: A, B, and C (detailed below).
The distance matrix, individual coordinates, and dendrogram are available in the Supplementary Data.
The list of contributions which helped us to interpret each profile below is shown in Table 1.

238 (i) **Profile A, named "Observers"**: Mostly composed of individuals with heterogeneous responses and levels of interest. Their main shared characteristics are that they tend to be young, female, and non-decision-makers.

241 (ii) **Profile B, named "Sceptics"**: Primarily composed of individuals who are older than the sample average, decision-makers, managing independent wineries, and located in Mediterranean climates. Both their interest in planting FRGs and the future they project for these varieties in their region are low.

245 (iii) **Profile C, named "Receptives"**: Mainly composed of members of cooperative wineries in oceanic climate zones, with a medium declared interest in FRGs, and a more optimistic outlook on their future compared to the other two profiles.

248

249

250

251
252
253
254
255
256

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Contribution of significant classes to participant profiles. Each profile is defined by variables, significant classes, the number of individuals in each class ("Freq." for Frequency), gaps between observed and expected frequencies under independence ("Deviat." for Deviation), percentage of maximum deviation (PMD), and the *p*-value of the Chi-square test assessing the independence of the profiles and the classes (** for *p*-value < 0.01; *** for *p*-value < 0.001)</caption><thead><tr><th>Profiles</th><th>Variables</th><th>Classes</th><th>Freq.</th><th>Deviat.</th><th>PMD</th><th>p-value Khi2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Observers</td><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>14</td><td>9</td><td>65 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Young (-38 years old)</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>44 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Occupation</td><td>Extension</td><td>19</td><td>14</td><td>82 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Decision maker</td><td>Non-decision-maker</td><td>19</td><td>14</td><td>82 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Years of exp</td><td>Short experienced (-10 years of exp.)</td><td>13</td><td>5</td><td>38 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Sceptics</td><td>Climate</td><td>Mediterranean</td><td>26</td><td>5</td><td>42 %</td><td>**</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>85 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Senior (50+ years old)</td><td>26</td><td>15</td><td>68 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Decision maker</td><td>Decision maker</td><td>31</td><td>6</td><td>75 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Years of exp</td><td>Long experienced (24+ years of exp.)</td><td>24</td><td>13</td><td>66 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Interest/10</td><td>Weak interest (less than 5.4/10)</td><td>22</td><td>11</td><td>56 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Receptives</td><td>Future/100</td><td>Future-Low (less than 20%)</td><td>16</td><td>7</td><td>38 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Middle aged (38 to 49 years old)</td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>52 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Occupation</td><td>Cooperative</td><td>29</td><td>9</td><td>44 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Decision maker</td><td>Decision maker</td><td>39</td><td>8</td><td>80 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Years of exp</td><td>Medium experienced (10 to 23 years of exp.)</td><td>22</td><td>8</td><td>45 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td>Interest/10</td><td>Medium interest (from 5.4/10 to 7.6/10)</td><td>23</td><td>10</td><td>59 %</td><td>***</td></tr><tr><td>Future/100</td><td>Future-High (30% and more)</td><td>29</td><td>10</td><td>45 %</td><td>***</td></tr></tbody></table>

262
The data projection shown in Figure 3 accounts for 51.38 % of the total inertia (Axis 1 = 35.65 %; Axis 2 = 15.73 %). Axis 1 primarily contrasts two general participant profiles based on characteristics such as decision-making status, gender (men vs. women), age (young vs. senior), climate (Mediterranean vs. Oceanic), and production role or occupation (cooperative vs. extension). Axis 2 more clearly differentiates individuals based on their estimation of future planting of FRGs (low vs. high).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Figure 3.** Typological analysis of participants. The sample of participants was classified according to the following criteria: vineyard climate, gender, age, number of years of experience, production method, decision-making role, multiple jobholding, personal interest in FRGs, projected future of FRGs in the region, and change of opinion following the session. These variables were pre-processed and grouped into equal-sized classes, ranging from 2 to 3 categories depending on the nature of the response (dichotomous qualitative, discrete or continuous quantitative, etc.), based on the data available in the file “Database with typology”, provided in the Supplementary Data. Classes derived from the same original variables appear in the same colour on the graph.

This typological analysis of the participants allowed to better characterise the panel, i.e. potential adopters of FRGs, and illustrates the heterogeneity of these potential adopters. This was emphasised by
Barham *et al*. (2014) stating that the process of technological adoption in agriculture is neither linear nor driven by factors of equal intensity, and that considering the heterogeneity of decision-makers is crucial to understanding the dimensions of learning and risk perception. Thus, these profiles can provide insights about growers who are open to FRGs.

According to Dressler (2024), age appears to be a significant factor in the adoption of new practices at work. Indeed, as indicated in Table 1, it serves as a determining factor across the three profiles. Additionally, the most receptive profiles may correspond, to varying degrees, to leader and follower roles., which have been identified as key actors in the adoption of new agro-environmental practices in the green behaviour literature (Javaid *et al.*, 2023). Moreover, these profiles include producers who are attentive to the future of FRGs, although we have not directly and thoroughly tested the extent of their interest in information about them. For now, these decision-makers are not necessarily the most prompt to plant FRGs. Indeed, as noted by Barham *et al*. (2018), receptiveness to advices can slow down adoption among individuals with high cognitive abilities, as such persons tend to delay integrating advices into their decision-making processes. Conversely, these advices can accelerate adoption among individuals with lower cognitive abilities, as they will learn more about the technology in a shorter period of time.

At the end of the questionnaire, we asked the following questions: "Did this sensory session changed your opinion about FRG wines? Why?" The sensory analyses changed the opinion of 13 % of participants, towards a better opinion of the FRGs, mainly because they were positively surprised by the quality of the FRG tasted wines. This aspect should lead to further research.

## 4. Liking scores varied according to the panelist profiles

Next, we drew on the results derived from the typological analysis of participant profiles to retrospectively reassess and compare participants' liking scores. We conducted a second ANOVA followed by a Tukey post-hoc test. The results are reported in Figure 4 and show that the ratings given by the "Receptives" and "Sceptics" groups are significantly different with the "Receptives" using higher liking scores than the "Sceptics". As for the "Observers", their average rating falls in an intermediate position, but is not significantly different from either of the other two profiles. This supports the idea that they represent a generally more passive or undecided group.
The typological profile significantly influenced the measured liking. This is not surprising as it has already been shown that liking scores depend on the context of the sensory analyses (i.e. laboratory or home tests), and the panelist profile (Sinesio *et al.*, 2021).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Liking scores as a function of the panelist profiles. Mean scores of 41 Receptives, 22 Observers and 33 Sceptics. Mean scores given for all wines, without distinction of grapes. Error bars show the standard errors. Letters indicate statistically significant differences with *p*-value < 0.05 (Tukey's test).</figcaption></figure>

**5. Measure of interest for FRGs by producers only**

The results reported in Figure 5 highlight the interest shown in FRGs by 74 producers, based on their type of production mode (Independent or Cooperative) and based on the climatic situation of their vineyard (Oceanic or Mediterranean).
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Figure 5.** Interest in FRGs among producers, measured using scores on a continuous scale from 0 to 10 cm, according to two variables: A) production mode and B) vineyard climate. Bars show means of n = 27, Independent; n = 46, Cooperative; n = 47, Mediterranean; n = 26, Oceanic. Errors bars show standard errors, asterisks indicate statistical significance levels, using t-tests, with a *p*-value < 0.05 (*) a *p*-value < 0.01 (**).

Regarding production modes, producers who are members of cooperatives showed a significantly

320
higher interest in FRGs than independent producers. The average interest score, above 6 for cooperative members, was significantly higher than an average score of 5 for independents. This suggests that cooperative members may be more inclined to plant FRGs in the coming years. Independent producers showed less interest in FRGs than cooperative producers (Figure 5), this could be due to the fact that the former may have more constraints to access markets with new products (Geffroy *et al.*, 2024), in comparison with the second ones who bring their grapes to a cooperative, taking care of winemaking and market access. As for vineyard climate, producers located in oceanic zones exhibited an even greater interest in FRGs (mean scores above 7). In contrast, those in Mediterranean zones showed more moderate interest (mean around 5.5). This geographical contrast may reflect different regional dynamics in terms of innovation adoption. Indeed, the more frequent wet springs and summers boosting fungus-disease development, as a consequence of climate change, may be a critical factor governing the need to adopt FRGs (van Leeuwen *et al.*, 2024).

333

## 6. Information disclosure did not alter sensory characterisation

While we have shown so far that the disclosure of information had no notable effect on the hedonic scores themselves (Figure 1), we questioned whether the same would hold true for sensory attributes, as suspected in other studies with wines and disclosure of information (Souza-Gonzaga et al., 2022). To investigate this, we conducted two correspondence analyses to explore the attributes qualifying the white wines by the panelists before (Figure 6A and 6B) and after the disclosure of information (Figure 6C and 6D). We observed no marked difference of the projections of attributes and wines before and after disclosure of the information regarding the type of grapes used to make wines, either FRGs or Vitis vinifera. The wines remain anchored around consistent groups of attributes. Chardonnay retains its acidic and mineral profiles, Floreal stands out for its sweetness, the blend of Sauvignon/Chardonnay for its fruity and floral character, and the blend of Souvignier gris/Floreal/Soreli for its citrus notes. The ellipses were rather small, suggesting a good identification of the wines’ differences. The *p*-values of Khi-2 tests went below 0.05 at 64 panelists, showing there was a strong dependency between wines and attributes in our sensory tests, in other words a reliable sensory characterisation, with a total number of 96 panelists. These results were performed with white wines only, as a correspondence analysis with only two red wines was not possible.

In short, we observed no changes: the disclosure of information had no effect on how industry members characterised the white wines.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Results of the correspondence analyses, linking the white wines presented during the experiment (in blue) and the attributes (in red) from the questionnaire, **A**) and **B)** show the CATA results of the tasting phase BEFORE disclosure of the information regarding the grape type (i.e. FRG or *Vitis vinifera*); **C)** and **D)** show the CATA results of the second tasting phase AFTER disclosure of the information. “SaCh” stands for Sauvignon/Chardonnay blend, “Char” for Chardonnay, “Flor” for Floreal, “SoFS” for a Souvignier/Floreal/Soreli blend. The ellipses indicate the variability or dispersion of the overall responses. The panels **B)** and **D)** show the p-value of the Chi-square test of independence between attributes and wines, as a function of the number of panelists, the red line shows the 0.05 limit.</figcaption></figure>

7. Expected proportion of FRGs in vineyard renewal

To the question “What percentage of vineyard area do you think FRG will occupy in your department in 30 years?”, this period corresponding to the lifespan of grapevine in the Oceanic part of Occitanie (Table 2), the average response was 26 %. Considering that the current total vineyard area of Occitanie is 245,869 hectares (Table 2), 26 % would represent 63,926 hectares FRGs to be planted. This would require an average planting rate of 2,131 hectares of FRG varieties per year over three decades. When compared to the current mean annual plantation in the Occitanie Region (around 6,295 hectares per
year, Table 2), this means that more than one-third of new plantings would need to involve these FRGs varieties to match the estimate put forward by professionals. This may be over-estimated, but it is based on industry representative declarations. The question of whether grapevine nurseries will be able to adapt remains open.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Vineyard renewal rates in the Occitanie region (2016-2021), Oceanic and Mediterranean zones defined according to Joly et al. (2010), see Material and Methods.</caption><thead><tr><th>Vineyard</th><th>Total surface (ha)</th><th>Mean annual removal (ha)</th><th>Mean annual plantation (ha)</th><th>Annual renewal rate (%)</th><th>Renewable surface over 30 years (ha)</th><th>Part of renewed vineyard over 30 years (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Oceanic</td><td>34,629</td><td>1,080</td><td>1,250</td><td>~3,1 %</td><td>37,500</td><td>~108 %</td></tr><tr><td>Mediterranean</td><td>211,240</td><td>5,129</td><td>5,045</td><td>~2,4 %</td><td>151,350</td><td>~71.6 %</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total for Occitanie</strong></td><td><strong>245,869</strong></td><td><strong>6,209</strong></td><td><strong>6,295</strong></td><td><strong>~2,56 %</strong></td><td><strong>188,850</strong></td><td><strong>~76.8 %</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

*Source: DRAAF Occitanie (2023, 2024, 2025). https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/viticulture-du-bassin-sud-ouest-une-diversite-de-vignobles-agreste-dossier-no1-a8764.html; https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/viticulture-du-bassin-languedoc-roussillon-agreste-dossier-no1-avril-2024-a9027.html; https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/memento-de-la-statistique-agricole-d-occitanie-2025-a9377.html.

## Conclusions and perspectives

This study, conducted with 96 industry participants in Occitanie aimed to investigate how FRGs are perceived within the wine industry. We showed that disclosing information about the nature of grape varieties based on their tolerance to fungal diseases did not lead to any bias in the evaluation of wines made from 100 % FRGs. In blind tastings, the wines produced with FRGs were not distinguished from wines made with *Vitis vinifera* grape. This was already observed in a recent study by Kiefer and Szolnoki (2024c) who showed no difference in liking on a 9-point scale between FRG and *Vitis vinifera* wines that received similar ratings. In our present study, neither the hedonic appreciation, nor the different sensory profiles of the wines appeared to be obstacles to adoption. Therefore, it seems more relevant to highlight other aspects related to relationships between actors within the sector or to vineyard work.

However, the typological approach allowed us to account for a certain plurality of attitudes towards the adoption of FRGs. In particular, we distinguished “Receptives”, “Observers”, and “Sceptics” profiles among participants, which were strongly driven by factors such as age, production mode, and the
vineyard's climate. Adopting FRGs requires the ability to project oneself into the long-term future of the vineyards, which might be challenging for producers who are at a later stage in their careers.

Given the limited number of participants, we did not seek to define the key determinants of FRG grape adoption from this study. This objective will be pursued through a broader survey. Defining these determinants among a larger number of wine industry representatives will provide a more precise understanding of the potential for dissemination of these grape varieties and the diversity of adoption pathways among different stakeholders in the industry.

## Acknowledgements

First and foremost, the authors would like to express their gratitude to all the wine industry representatives who agreed to participate in this study, for their availability and the interest they showed in our approach. As this study is part of the activities of the "RESSENTI" project, itself part of the Vinid'Occ research program, we would also like to thank the Occitanie region, Vignobles Foncalieu, and Grands Chais de France for their proactive and financial support.

## References

Barham, B. L., Chavas, J., Fitz, D., Ríos-Salas, V., Schechter, L. (2014). Risk, learning, and technology adoption. *Agricultural Economics*, 46(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12123

Barham, B. L., Chavas, J., Fitz, D., Schechter, L. (2018). Receptiveness to advice, cognitive ability, and technology adoption. *Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization*, 149, 239-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.12.025

Borrello, M., Cembalo, L., Vecchio, R. (2021). Consumers' acceptance of fungus resistant grapes: Future scenarios in sustainable winemaking. *Journal Of Cleaner Production*, 307, 127318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127318

Borrello, M., Vecchio, R., Barisan, L., Franceschi, D., Pomarici, E., Galletto, L. (2024). Is wine perception influenced by sustainability information? Insights from a consumer experiment with fungus resistant grape and organic wines. *Food Research International*, 190, 114580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114580

Buck, D., Kemp, S. E. (2018). Check-all- that- apply and free choice description. *Descriptive analysis in sensory evaluation*, 579-607. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781118991657.ch17

Dolet, M., Paire, C., Cheriet, F., Geffroy, O., Fur, Y. L., Hannin, H., Samson, A., Caillé, S., Nougarède, S., Olivier, V., Chervin, C. (2024). Resumption of the planting of grapevine varieties in France, referred to as « disease-resistant ». *IVES Technical Reviews Vine And Wine*. 8261. https://doi.org/10.20870/ives-tr.2024.8261

Dressler, M. (2024). Meeting Market and Societal Ambitions with New Robust Grape Varietals: Sustainability, the Green Deal, and Wineries' Resilience. *Agriculture*, 14(12), 2138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122138
426 Eisenmann, B., Wingerter, C., Dressler, M., Freund, C., Kortekamp, A., Bogs, J. (2023). Fungicide-Saving Potential and Economic Advantages of Fungus-Resistant Grapevine Cultivars. *Plants*, 12(17), 3120. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173120

429 Finger, R., Zachmann, L., McCallum, C. (2022). Short supply chains and the adoption of fungus- resistant grapevine varieties. *Applied Economic Perspectives And Policy*, 45(3), 1753-1775. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13337

431 Geffroy, O., Cheriet, F., Chervin, C., Hannin, H. Olivier, V., Samson, A., Vanden Heuvel, J. (2024a). Opportunities and challenges in the adoption of new grape varieties by producers: A case study from the Northeastern United. IVES Conference Series, OIV 2024. https://doi.org/10.58233/byeRkD9y

434 Geffroy, O., Maza, E., Lytra, G., Chervin, C. (2024b). ‘Liking then CATA’ or ‘CATA then liking’? Impact of the hedonic question positioning on the wine sensory description and appreciation. *OENO One*, 58(3) 8165. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2024.58.3.8165

437 Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Ryan, G. S., Ares, G. (2023). How do CATA questions work? Relationship between likelihood of selecting a term and perceived attribute intensity. *Journal Of Sensory Studies*, 38(4). 1283 https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12833

440 Javaid, M., Kumari, K., Khan, S. N., Jaaron, A. A., Shaikh, Z. (2023). Leader green behavior as an outcome of followers' critical thinking and active engagement: the moderating role of pro-environmental behavior. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*, 44(2), 218-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2021-0361

443 Joly, D., Brossard, T., Cardot, H., Cavailhes, J., Hilal, M., Wavresky, P. (2010). Les types de climats en France, une construction spatiale. *Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography*. 501. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.23155

445 Kiefer, C., Szolnoki, G. (2023). Consumer Acceptance of Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties—An Exploratory Study Using Sensory Evaluation Tests among Consumers in Germany. *Sustainability*, 15(13), 10664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310664

448 Kiefer, C., Szolnoki, G. (2024a). Adoption and Impact of Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties within German Viticulture: A Comprehensive Mixed-Methods Study with Producers. *Sustainability*, 16(14), 6068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146068

451 Kiefer, C., Szolnoki, G. (2024b). Exploring Market Potential and Consumer Preferences for Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties: A Discrete Choice Analysis in Germany. *Future Foods*, 10, 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100449

453 Kiefer, C., Szolnoki, G. (2024c). Influence of Information about Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties on Hedonic Ratings by Consumers – a Central Location Test in Germany. *Wine Economics And Policy*, 13(2): 43-57. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-16110

456 Loison, A., Symoneaux, R., Deneulin, P., Thomas-Danguin, T., Fant, C., Guérin, L., Fur, Y. L. (2014). Exemplarity measurement and estimation of the level of interjudge agreement for two categories of French red wines. *Food Quality And Preference*, 40, 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.10.001

459 Meloni, G., Swinnen, J. (2013). The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations. *Journal Of Wine Economics*, 8(3), 244-284. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2013.33

461 Montaigne, E., Coelho, A., Khefifi, L. (2016). Economic issues and perspectives on innovation in new resistant grapevine varieties in France. *Wine Economics And Policy*, 5(2), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2016.11.002
463 Montaigne, E., Coelho, A., Zadmehran, S. (2021). A Comprehensive Economic Examination and Prospects on Innovation in New Grapevine Varieties Dealing with Global Warming and Fungal Diseases. *Sustainability*, 13(23), 13254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313254

466 Nesselhauf, L., Fleuchaus, R., Theuvsen, L. (2019). What about the environment? *International Journal Of Wine Business Research*, 32(1), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwbr-09-2018-0049

468 Nisbett, R. E., Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. *Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology*, 35(4), 250-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250

470 OIV (2025). State of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2024. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/2025-04/OIV-State_of_the_World_Vine-and-Wine-Sector-in-2024.pdf

472 Paire, C., Dolet, M., Hannin, H., Samsom, A., Olivier, V., Chervin, C., Geffroy, O., Cheriet, F. (2024). History of breeding programmes for fungus resistant grape varieties in Europe, France and the Occitanie region. *IVES Technical Reviews Vine And Wine*. 8262. https://doi.org/10.20870/ives-tr.2024.8262

475 Paire, C., Cheriet, F., Samson, A., Chervin, C., Arino, A., Ruetsch, G., Ithurralde, E., Geffroy, O. (2025). A novel application of the consumer rejection threshold method to the design of binary red wine blends prepared from traditional and fungus resistant varieties. *OENO One*, in press.

478 Pedneault, K., Provost, C. (2016). Fungus resistant grape varieties as a suitable alternative for organic wine production: Benefits, limits, and challenges. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 208, 57-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.03.016

480 Reis, F., Alcaire, F., Deliza, R., Ares, G. (2017). The role of information on consumer sensory, hedonic and wellbeing perception of sugar-reduced products: Case study with orange/pomegranate juice. *Food Quality And Preference*, 62, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.005

483 Sillani, S., Marangon, F., Gallenti, G., Troiano, S., Nassivera, F., Carzedda, M. (2022). Designation and Certification Strategies for Fungus-Resistant Grape Wines: An Exploratory Study in Italy. *Sustainability*, 14(22), 14871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214871

486 Sinesio, F., Moneta, E., Di Marzo, S., Zoboli, G. P., Abbà, S. (2021). Influence of wine traits and context on liking, intention to consume, wine-evoked emotions and perceived sensory sensations. *Food Quality And Preference*, 93, 104268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104268

489 Souza-Gonzaga, L., Bastian, S. E., Capone, D. L., Danner, L., Jeffery, D. W. (2021). Consumer perspectives of wine typicity and impact of region information on the sensory perception of Cabernet Sauvignon wines. *Food Research International*, 152, 110719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110719

492 Teissedre, P. (2018). Composition of grape and wine from resistant vines varieties. *OENO One*, 52(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2018.52.3.2223

494 Töpfer, R., Trapp, O. (2022). A cool climate perspective on grapevine breeding: climate change and sustainability are driving forces for changing varieties in a traditional market. *Theoretical And Applied Genetics*, 135(11), 3947-3960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-022-04077-0
497

Van Leeuwen, C., Sgubin, G., Bois, B., Ollat, N., Swingedouw, D., Zito, S., Gambetta, G. A. (2024). Climate change impacts

498

and adaptations of wine production. *Nature Reviews Earth & Environment*, 5(4),

499

258-275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00521-5

500

Vecchio, R., Pomarici, E., Giampietri, E., Borrello, M. (2022). Consumer acceptance of fungus-resistant grape wines:

501

Evidence from Italy, the UK, and the USA. *PLoS ONE*, 17(4),

502

e0267198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267198

503

Yobrégat, O. (2018). Introduction to resistant vine types: a brief history and overview of the situation. *OENO One*, 52(3),

504

241-246. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2018.52.3.2220

505

Zachmann, L., McCallum, C., Finger, R. (2024). Determinants of the adoption of fungus-resistant grapevines: Evidence from

506

Switzerland. *Journal Of Wine Economics*, 19(3), 232-264. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2023.36

507