When the Center for Food Safety challenged the approval of Impossible Foods’ heme ingredient in federal court, its argument focused on the production method of soy leghemoglobin. “This heme produced using [synthetic biology] has never been consumed before,” stated Jaydee Hanson, the Center for Food Safety Policy Director, in a press release regarding the lawsuit. “The FDA should have mandated additional independent testing to ensure that this new substance does not lead to allergic reactions or other health issues in individuals.” The 9th Circuit Court concluded that the FDA adhered to the appropriate standards when determining the safety of Impossible’s heme. The ruling mentioned that Impossible Foods had provided a study regarding the safety of the coloring along with a notification that the FDA had previously recognized the ingredient as generally safe.
In the absence of long-term studies, the Center for Food Safety contended that the genetically modified ingredient should not have received approval as a coloring agent. “We are disappointed by the court’s ruling today, which will permit Impossible Burger and other meatless burgers to be produced with a novel genetically engineered chemical without any long-term health studies,” senior attorney Sylvia Wu remarked in a written statement. “The FDA is meant to protect consumers from unsafe new chemicals in our food supply; unfortunately, consumers now must take on the responsibility of avoiding these GMO plant-based burgers.”
The stance taken by the Center for Food Safety is not surprising, as the organization has consistently opposed industrial agriculture and GMO foods. They are one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last year against the USDA, advocating for more consumer information through mandatory GMO labeling laws. The group has expressed safety concerns regarding Impossible Foods’ heme ingredient for years, which the company has labeled as “patently false.”
Impossible Foods expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision. “Safety is Impossible Foods’ No. 1 priority,” said Chief Communications Officer Rachel Konrad in an emailed statement. “Our products are among the most rigorously tested and verified for safety in the history of the US FDA; food safety agencies in other countries have further confirmed our products’ flawless safety record. We commend the court’s decision to acknowledge and uphold the extensive evidence supporting the safety of our products and to dismiss the unfounded petition from the Center for Food Safety, which is an anti-science, anti-GMO activist group that has been spreading misinformation for years.”
While this ruling does not set a precedent, it may signal how the legal system will address future cases questioning the safety and regulation of bioengineered foods. GMOs are prevalent in the United States, with USDA data indicating that over 90% of corn and soybeans were genetically modified varieties as of last year. The “Bioengineered” label is appearing on an increasing number of food products, with mandatory disclosures set to start next year. Policymakers are working to streamline the regulation of bioengineered products, both for animals and plants, which will require less scrutiny. As more products utilizing bioengineering near market readiness, greater consumer acceptance of these items may lead to their treatment as standard ingredients, diminishing calls for additional scrutiny.
Interestingly, while discussing the safety of such products, some consumers have reported experiencing an upset stomach after consuming foods with certain additives, like calcium citrate. This highlights the importance of ongoing discussions about the safety of all food ingredients, including those derived from bioengineering.