This article was published on November 9, 2017, by Amy Maxmen in Nature magazine volume 551, pages 149-150 (2017).
The Success of Genetically Modified “Arctic” Apple Could Open the Door to a New Wave of Lab-Produced Foods
The “Arctic” apple is among the first foods processed and genetically modified to appeal to consumers rather than farmers, joining a small number of genetically modified organisms sold as a whole product rather than an ingredient. Since Okanagan Specialty Fruits in Summerland, Canada, planted the first test apple in 2003, the range of lab-modified foods has expanded to include plant-based burgers made from genetically modified yeast-produced soy protein, fish fillets grown from marine fish stem cells, and mushrooms modified using CRISPR technology. Most of these products have yet to reach the market.
Consumer Expectations for Genetically Modified “Arctic” Apple
Many biotech startups developing these foods are eagerly awaiting the launch of the “Arctic” apple, as they look to gain insights into how consumers will receive the fruits of their labor. Yiyong Yang, a plant scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who used CRISPR technology to develop a color-improving mushroom, says, “If the apple sells, it will pave the way for others.” Mary Maxson, program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, agrees, stating, “The apple is not the first genetically modified product that people will eat, but it may be the first product that consumers place value on.”
Challenges of Selling the Genetically Modified Apple in the U.S.
When Neil Carter, one of the founders of Okanagan, bought an orchard in 1995, he thought a lot about how to win the U.S. snack food market. He found his answer in Australia, where researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization discovered how to delete a gene that encodes an enzyme causing discoloration in plant cells when exposed to oxygen. Carter realized that suppressing the enzyme’s production in apples could allow him to sell them in edible slices without preservatives.
Later, he realized that if he wanted to entice consumers to buy, he needed to overcome Americans’ distrust of genetically modified products. Studies conducted by Okanagan on residents of New York and Washington, the two largest apple-producing states in the U.S., revealed that about 20% of people feel uneasy about genetically modified products. However, the company also found that many people changed their minds when informed that the apple was modified to prevent discoloration and was tested for safety.
Mike Selden, co-founder of Finless Foods in San Francisco, California, which is developing fish fillets from fish stem cells, agrees that providing more information helps attract consumers. Selden says, “We’re not going to repeat the mistakes of the genetically modified industry in the past and just put foods on the market without engaging in public dialogue,” adding, “If we did, a negative backlash could be expected – and it would be deserved.”
Selden recounts a similar story between the “Arctic” apple and the fish fillets his company produces, as both were created with traits intended to appeal to consumers. Finless Foods, which has created prototypes of bluefin tuna fillets, hopes that people will be convinced of the idea of eating fish without worrying about overfishing, animal slaughter, or environmental pollution.
However, some say that Okanagan has not gone far enough in informing consumers about how they made their apple. The company does not label the genetically modified product on the apple bags; instead, the bags contain a QR code – linking the information online when scanned with a smartphone. Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., says, “Not everyone has a smartphone, and even if you have one, will you scan every item with it?” He calls for clearly labeling the apples as genetically modified products.
Challenges
Marketing Genetically Modified Foods in the United States
Consumer backlash is not the only concern for developers of genetically modified foods or lab-made foods who wish to sell their products in the United States. One of the main challenges is the regulatory process in the U.S., which involves a complex maze of federal agencies – and for many companies, an unclear path forward. U.S. regulators evaluated the “Arctic” apple for five years before approving its sale, but spent only two years reviewing the non-browning GM potato developed by J. R. Simplot Company in Boise, Idaho.
Then there’s the case of CRISPR mushrooms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in 2016 that it would not evaluate the mushroom created using CRISPR technology to delete a gene. This seemed to open the door for the mushroom to reach the market. However, Yang says that after Nature News reported on the USDA’s decision, the FDA contacted him to ask if it could review the mushroom. He said, “I agreed to that because it would give consumers peace of mind.”
For investors, regulatory uncertainty may be a lesser barrier to the success of genetically modified foods than the uncertainty felt by consumers. James Hardiman, a partner at the venture capital fund Data Collective in San Francisco, California, says, “The overall narrative is much harder to control,” adding, “We know that the public can be irrational.”
However, Carter expresses optimism about how the “Arctic” apple is being received. He says, “We rarely get emails saying we are devils anymore,” adding, “Now we have people asking where to buy the apples.”
Leave a Reply