Over the years, Okanagan Specialty Fruits has been working on the development of the Arctic apple, a genetically modified fruit engineered to resist browning. Company president Neal Carter recognized that this innovation might spark controversy among consumers. In light of the backlash against GMOs in the U.S., Carter informed Food Dive that the company chose to address this controversy with transparency. As the apples were set to be released to retailers last year, Okanagan launched a website detailing the genetic modifications made to the apples and their rationale. The packaging also featured a toll-free number for consumers seeking more information, along with a scannable QR code for easy access to further details. “If I recall correctly, only two people actually scanned the QR code for more information,” Carter remarked to Food Dive. “So while many assume that consumers are vehemently against GMOs, the reality is quite different.”
The experience with Arctic apples is not an isolated case. Despite widespread discourse and controversy regarding consumer opposition to GMOs, numerous food products on the market contain GMO ingredients. Brands that openly support GMOs have shared with Food Dive that consumers are receptive to their products, particularly when they articulate the benefits of using GMOs. “I don’t think it’s the primary concern for consumers,” stated David Lipman, chief science officer of Impossible Foods. “People are drawn to the [GMO] Impossible Burger because it closely resembles the taste of meat.”
Earlier this year, the International Food Information Council Foundation conducted a study aimed at gauging consumer attitudes toward various proposed labeling symbols for GMO or biologically engineered (BE) foods. While the study indicated that consumers prefer more detailed information on packaging, it also revealed that approximately half of them somewhat avoid GMO foods due to health concerns, according to Alexandra Lewin-Zwerdling, IFIC’s vice president of research and partnerships. However, when asked what label claims they prioritize when selecting products, Lewin-Zwerdling noted that consumers ranked non-GMO as their top choice, ahead of all-natural and antibiotic-free options. “It appears to be a lesser priority,” she indicated.
Carter and his wife have cultivated apples and cherries in British Columbia for many years. During this time, he observed that 30% to 40% of their produce went to waste, often failing to reach the market due to bruising or scuffing, while apple prices continued to decline. He felt there had to be a solution to this issue.
Carter discovered that scientists in Australia had pinpointed the gene responsible for the browning of cut apples. Inspired by the transformation of baby carrots into a popular snack, he envisioned growing apples with the browning gene disabled and marketing them as pre-cut snacks. Although Carter was aware of the rising anti-GMO sentiment, particularly in Europe during the 1990s when they began cultivating GMO apples, he believed that the Arctic apple could sidestep this backlash. “As a small company, we aimed to be transparent about our methods,” Carter explained. “We also utilized the technology differently from previous applications, employing the apple’s own DNA to deactivate one gene. Ultimately, an Arctic apple remains an apple, with no foreign proteins involved. We felt this distinction would help us stand apart from the more contentious segments.”
While protests have occurred, Carter noted that they have not been excessively disruptive. At one conference, a small group demonstrated with overturned wheelbarrows filled with apples and signs opposing Arctic apples, which attracted some media attention. He has become accustomed to people leveraging social media to organize petitions against the company, with new ones emerging roughly every couple of months. “Anyone can start a petition against your actions,” he remarked.
From a business perspective, Carter reported mixed reactions. However, he pointed out that other well-known GMO products, such as Rainbow papayas, Simplot’s Innate potatoes, and virus-resistant summer squash, have been successfully marketed for years. Arctic apples made their debut in the mass market last year, albeit in limited quantities—150,000 apples available in about 100 stores for six to eight weeks. This year, consumers can expect to find a larger supply of GMO apples—approximately 1.5 million pounds across around 1,000 stores for 20 to 24 weeks, encompassing eight SKUs. Carter stated that they are expanding their orchards and anticipate steady growth in product availability year after year.
Now owned by the biotechnology firm Intrexon, the brand is also considering extending its non-browning formula to other fruits. Carter acknowledges their role as market disruptors and pioneers in the active promotion of GMOs. “Many companies are hesitant to take the lead, but they are eager to follow,” he noted. “In today’s food industry, numerous large corporations are risk-averse due to their significant investments and are reluctant to be perceived as the pioneers of Arctic apples, fearing consumer backlash. We consistently assure them that such concerns are unfounded, and we believe they are starting to trust us.”
Shortly after the federal GMO labeling law was enacted, and as the debate surrounding these ingredients gained traction among Americans, the meal replacement beverage Soylent made headlines with a blog post titled “Proudly made with GMOs.” The company, which utilizes six GMO ingredients—soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, canola oil, isomaltooligosaccharide/soluble corn fiber, soy lecithin, and genetically modified flavors—also erected billboards near their Los Angeles headquarters declaring “PRO GMO.” CEO Bryan Crowley explained to Food Dive that the company’s unequivocal support for GMO ingredients stems from a straightforward mission: sustainability and providing nutritious meals for everyone. “When we started exploring how science could help fulfill this mission, we logically arrived at the conclusion that embracing GMO ingredients was essential,” Crowley shared.
The blog post delves into the scientific, economic, and environmental justifications for utilizing GMO ingredients, emphasizing that no adverse health effects have been linked to GMO crops. Crowley explained that these reasons underpin the company’s stance on GMOs, along with their role in enabling Soylent to produce its products efficiently, ultimately reducing costs for consumers and minimizing food waste. “Misinformation and confusion regarding non-GMO products and their benefits still persist,” Crowley stated. “We firmly believe in educating consumers, encouraging them to seek information and form opinions based on factual research, which will empower them to make informed decisions.”
While Crowley acknowledged that Soylent’s pro-GMO position may not significantly influence its consumer base, he noted strong support from suppliers and the industry at large. He emphasized that the global community must catch up in adopting GMO ingredients, especially since organic and non-GMO sources are often not sustainable. Companies like Soylent, which demonstrate the positive applications of GMO ingredients, can help foster broader acceptance. Crowley also mentioned that later this month, the company will launch the Soylent Innovation Lab, a collaborative workspace for like-minded food tech firms in Los Angeles. “I firmly believe that as we leverage science, trends, and address challenges, increased visibility will lead to greater education, helping us advance the conversation and the movement surrounding these critical global issues,” Crowley stated. “In ten years, we anticipate a significant shift towards acceptance, with sound scientific evidence becoming more widely recognized and understood.”
In this context, it’s worth noting that the availability of products like the ccm tablet generic could also play a role in addressing various consumer needs, further illustrating the diverse landscape in which GMO ingredients are being integrated into daily life.