Would You Buy a Genetically Modified Apple that Doesn’t Go Brown?

Such a product recently cleared federal regulatory hurdles.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
Brian Resnick
Feb. 20, 2015, 7:17 a.m.

Big news in the apple world: The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has ap­proved the plant­ing of ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied apples that won’t turn brown when sliced. These apples, branded the “Arc­tic Apple,” could ap­pear on store shelves in just a few years.

But why does the world needs a brown­ing-res­ist­ant apple? Sliced, it ap­pears, is bet­ter than whole.

Crit­ics will al­ways point to the holes in the re­search, but those holes aren’t eas­ily filled.

“A whole apple is too big of a com­mit­ment,” says Neal Carter, the pres­id­ent of Okanagan, the small Ca­na­dian com­pany be­hind the GMO apple. “We watched ex­plos­ive growth in the fresh-cut busi­ness. Ready-to-eat salads and sliced-and-diced fruits and ve­get­able have be­come a sig­ni­fic­ant part of the pro­duce busi­ness. And apples don’t par­ti­cip­ate that much.” He’d like to change that.

Carter says he has spoken to around 40 or 50 re­port­ers since the USDA an­nounce­ment. Clearly this story isn’t a scoop. It’s a sen­sa­tion. But it re­mains to be seen if the me­dia in­terest in Arc­tic Apples is due to its gee-whiz ap­peal or if there is genu­ine ap­pet­ite for these fruits. It will take at least un­til 2016 for the first batch of Arc­tic Apples to be ready for sale. (It takes a few sea­sons for a tree to pro­duce high-qual­ity fruit.) And Carter is not ready to an­nounce dis­tri­bu­tion plans.

When apple flesh is ex­posed to air, it re­leases an en­zyme called poly­phen­ol ox­i­dase (PPO). Just as iron ox­id­izes in­to rust when it comes in con­tact with wa­ter, white apple flesh turns brown when in con­tact with PPO. Okanagan sup­presses the apple gene that codes for PPO. The pro­cess was dis­covered in 1995, de­rived from the ge­net­ics of a spe­cial grape that doesn’t go brown. The res­ult: an apple that has 90 per­cent less PPO activ­ity when sliced com­pared with non-GMO vari­et­ies. Carter se­cured the world­wide li­cens­ing rights for the tech­no­logy in 1997. Since then, the com­pany has been work­ing on per­fect­ing the pro­cess and clear­ing the fed­er­al reg­u­lat­ory hurdles.

Meet­ing reg­u­la­tions, however, is not so simple.

Three agen­cies share the re­spons­ib­il­ity of reg­u­lat­ing ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied foods and products — the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion, the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency, and the USDA. Be­cause the Arc­tic Apple is tech­nic­ally a plant, and more spe­cific­ally, the tech­no­logy it uses is de­rived from meth­ods to make pesti­cide-res­ist­ant crops, it falls un­der the pur­view of the USDA.

The USDA is primar­ily con­cerned about the im­pact a GMO plant has on the eco­sys­tem — wheth­er the GMO plant will be­come a pest, af­fect in­sects, or dis­rupt eco­sys­tems if taken across state lines. In its de­term­in­a­tion, the USDA found that the Arc­tic Apple is “un­likely to pose a plant pest risk and there­fore are no longer sub­ject to our reg­u­la­tions gov­ern­ing the in­tro­duc­tion of cer­tain [ge­net­ic­ally en­gin­eered] or­gan­isms.” The USDA veri­fied Okanagan’s claim of re­duced brown­ing, de­term­ined that the Arc­tic Apples were the nu­tri­tion­al equi­val­ent of a sim­il­ar non-GMO vari­ety, and found that the apples “pose no more of a plant pest risk … than con­ven­tion­al apple fruit.” What the USDA is say­ing, es­sen­tially, is this: The Arc­tic Apple is no more dan­ger­ous to the en­vir­on­ment than any oth­er apple. It can be grown and sold.

But groups that op­pose the in­tro­duc­tion of more ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied fruit in­to the U.S. mar­ket aren’t con­fid­ent in the level of over­sight. “The USDA glossed over the pos­sib­il­ity of un­in­ten­tion­al ef­fects as­so­ci­ated with the tech­no­logy used to en­gin­eer these apples,” Wen­o­nah Haut­er, the dir­ect­or of the Food and Wa­ter Watch, an ad­vocacy group, wrote in a press re­lease im­me­di­ately after the USDA made its de­cision.

Jen­nifer Kuzma, the co-dir­ect­or of the Ge­net­ic En­gin­eer­ing and So­ci­ety Pro­gram at North Car­o­lina State Uni­versity, ex­plains that the cur­rent reg­u­lat­ory frame­work in­vites such cri­ti­cism. “USDA’s whole as­sess­ment pro­cess is really centered around wheth­er it is a plant pest or not, and that’s where the crit­ics have prob­lems,” she says. “The USDA doesn’t ne­ces­sar­ily look for the in­dir­ect eco­lo­gic­al ef­fects or the hu­man health ef­fects, be­cause their law is to look at the plant pest prop­er­ties.”

But the eco­lo­gic­al as­sess­ments can only go so far: Should the USDA test every bird who might come to eat a piece of this apple? Crit­ics will al­ways point to the holes in the re­search, but those holes aren’t eas­ily filled. “It’s im­possible to test for every single in­dir­ect eco­lo­gic­al ef­fect,” she says. “It’s really com­plic­ated.”

And crit­ics can find more fuel in the fact that the FDA’s pro­cess for reg­u­lat­ing GMO foods is com­pletely vol­un­tary (as is a pro­du­cer’s de­cision to la­bel a food a GMO). Okanagan says the com­pany star­ted the vol­un­tary con­sulta­tion pro­cess with the FDA in 2011, and they ex­pect the re­view to fin­ish this year.

GMO foods can carry neg­at­ive con­nota­tions. In a re­cent Pew sur­vey com­par­ing the views of the gen­er­al pub­lic with those of sci­ent­ists, 57 per­cent of the gen­er­al pub­lic say ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied foods are “gen­er­ally un­safe to eat.” Eighty-eight per­cent of sci­ent­ists, however, said they were safe. “This is the largest opin­ion dif­fer­ence between the pub­lic and sci­ent­ists,” Pew noted in the sur­vey.

Com­pan­ies are aware that GMO makes for bad mar­ket­ing. In Novem­ber, Mc­Don­ald’s passed on the op­por­tun­ity to use sim­il­ar brown­ing-res­ist­ant pota­toes. “Mc­Don­ald’s USA does not source GMO pota­toes, nor do we have cur­rent plans to change our sourcing prac­tice,” a Mc­Don­ald’s rep­res­ent­at­ive told Cap­it­al Press, an ag­ri­cul­ture-in­dustry pub­lic­a­tion. When Her­shey’s ex­pan­ded in­to Europe in 2010, the candy man­u­fac­turer omit­ted GMO in­gredi­ents from products on the con­tin­ent (where GMO la­bels are re­quired). Whole Foods takes pains to la­bel products as GMO-free.

Though both pro­ponents and op­pon­ents of GMO foods tend to be vo­cal about food safety, a large part of the pop­u­la­tion has not made up their minds, Kuzma says. In a 2014 study on con­sumers’ thoughts on ge­net­ic­ally mod­i­fied rice, Kuzma and col­leagues found that about 40 per­cent of people “do not care about what tech­no­logy is ad­op­ted dur­ing pro­duc­tion as long as cer­tain be­ne­fits can be brought by the tech­no­logy.” But an­oth­er 25 per­cent of the par­ti­cipants, dubbed “New Tech­no­logy Re­jecters,” won’t budge in their thoughts to avoid GMO food. (Kuzma says she can’t say for sure if the rice find­ings would gen­er­al­ize to GMO apples). A sim­il­ar study on apples in 2009 found that con­sumers would be more likely to eat them if their pro­duc­tion was ad­vert­ised as hav­ing a lower en­vir­on­ment­al im­pact.

Arc­tic Apples are one of the the first GMO foods to be mar­keted dir­ectly to­ward con­sumers’ tastes. Most of the time, plants are en­gin­eered to res­ist pesti­cides or to re­duce waste. The most com­monly en­gin­eered foods — corn and soy­beans — are usu­ally pro­cessed in­to oils or be­fore they make it to the table. With the Arc­tic Apple, con­sumers will be eat­ing a whole GMO product. Aside for a failed GMO to­mato in­tro­duced in the 1990s, there have been few tests of such a product in the mar­ket­place.

“There’s go­ing to be sig­ni­fic­ant back­lash, but wheth­er it is go­ing to be more or less than these pre­vi­ous GMO foods,” Kuzma says. “I’m not sure.”

What We're Following See More »
Rubio Says McCabe Should Have Been Allowed to Retire
5 hours ago
Trump Asking for Bill to “Break the WTO”
5 hours ago

"Trump is asking for a bill" that would effectively break the WTO. One of the core WTO principles — which has underpinned globalization and trade for 70 years — is an idea called 'most favored nation status.' Countries that belong to the WTO have all agreed to charge the same tariff rate for imports from all other WTO members." But Trump covets reciprocal tariffs "nation-by-nation, product-by-product." The GOP free-traders in Congress are unlikely to support such an effort.

Barry McCaffrey Calls Trump “Serious Threat to National Security”
1 days ago
Trump to Fire McMaster
2 days ago

"Trump is ready to oust Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and find a new national security adviser before the North Korea meetings in May, multiple sources told CNN Thursday. The move may be delayed because there's no final decision on a replacement, sources say. The timing of an announcement is unclear -- one source said it could come as soon as Friday, though others say that is unlikely."

Mueller Subpoenas Trump Organization
3 days ago

"Robert S. Mueller III has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter. The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses." The subpoena is proof that the investigation will likely drag on "for at least several more months," and also indicates Mueller may be "broadening his investigation to examine the role foreign money may have played in funding Mr. Trump’s political activities."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.