Over the years, Okanagan Specialty Fruits has been developing the Arctic apple—a genetically modified fruit that resists browning. Neal Carter, the company’s president, was aware that the product might spark controversy among consumers. In response to the backlash against GMOs in the United States, Carter shared with Food Dive that the company opted for transparency to address these concerns. As the apples were set to launch in stores last year, Okanagan developed a website explaining the genetic modifications and their rationale. Additionally, they included an 800-number on the packaging for consumers seeking more information, along with a scannable QR code. “If I recall correctly, only two individuals actually used the QR code for information,” Carter remarked. “While many believe that consumers are entirely opposed to GMOs, the reality is quite different.”
The Arctic apple’s story is not an isolated case. Although there is extensive discourse surrounding consumer opposition to GMOs, many food products in the market utilize GMO ingredients. Brands that advocate for GMOs informed Food Dive that consumers are generally receptive to their products, especially when the benefits of using GMOs are clearly articulated. “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 Impossible Burger because its taste closely resembles that of meat.”
Earlier this year, the International Food Information Council Foundation conducted a study aimed at gauging consumer attitudes toward various proposed labels for GMO or biologically engineered (BE) foods. The study revealed that while consumers prefer more information on packaging, around half of them somewhat avoid GMO foods due to health-related apprehensions, as explained by Alexandra Lewin-Zwerdling, IFIC’s vice president of research and partnerships. However, when consumers were asked about the label claims they prioritize, Lewin-Zwerdling noted that “non-GMO” topped their preferences over “all natural” and “antibiotic-free.” “It seems to be less of a priority,” she added.
Carter and his wife have cultivated apples and cherries in British Columbia for many years. Over 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 believed there had to be a solution to this issue. Through his broader agricultural research, Carter discovered that scientists in Australia had pinpointed the gene responsible for the browning of cut apples. Inspired by the success of baby carrots as a popular snack, he envisioned creating apples with the browning gene disabled, positioning them as precut snacks. Despite being aware of the anti-GMO movement gaining traction in Europe during the 1990s when they began cultivating GMO apples, Carter was optimistic about the Arctic apple’s acceptance.
“As a small company committed to transparency, we were utilizing technology in a novel way,” Carter explained. “We were employing the apple’s own DNA to deactivate one gene. Ultimately, an Arctic apple is still an apple, without any foreign proteins present. We believed this would help us stand apart from the segment targeted by protests.” Although some demonstrations occurred, Carter noted they were not excessive. At one event, a few protesters displayed overturned wheelbarrows filled with apples and signs against Arctic apples, capturing some media attention. He has become accustomed to seeing social media campaigns organizing petitions against his company, with new ones cropping up roughly every couple of months. “Anyone can initiate a petition against what you are doing,” he remarked.
From a business perspective, reactions have been mixed. However, Carter pointed out that other well-known GMO products, such as Rainbow papayas, Simplot’s Innate potatoes, and virus-resistant summer squash, have been successfully on the market for years. Last year, Arctic apples made their mass market debut, albeit in limited quantities—150,000 apples at around 100 stores for six to eight weeks. This year, consumers can expect to find a larger supply of the GMO apples—approximately 1.5 million pounds across about 1,000 stores for 20 to 24 weeks, available in eight different SKUs. Carter mentioned that they are expanding their orchards and anticipate steady growth for the product in the years to come. The brand, now owned by biotechnology firm Intrexon, also has plans to extend the non-browning trait to other fruits.
Carter recognizes that they are disruptors in the market, boldly promoting GMOs. “Many companies are hesitant to lead but are willing to follow,” he stated. “The food industry today features many large players who are quite risk-averse due to their significant stakes, making them reluctant to be the first to adopt Arctic apples for fear of consumer backlash. Yet, we consistently assure them that such concerns may be unfounded. I believe they are starting to come around to our perspective.”
In the wake of the federal GMO labeling law and the ongoing debate surrounding these ingredients, the meal replacement brand Soylent published a notable blog post titled “Proudly made with GMOs.” The company, which incorporates six GMO components—including 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 open support for GMO ingredients stems from their foundational mission of sustainability and providing nutritious meals for everyone. During their research into utilizing science for this goal, they logically concluded that embracing GMO ingredients was essential.
“We didn’t establish the company on this stance,” Crowley stated. “Our aim is to create delicious and nutritious products that seamlessly fit into consumers’ lives.” The blog elaborates on the scientific, economic, and environmental justifications for using GMO ingredients, emphasizing that no adverse health effects have been linked to GMO crops. Crowley highlighted that these ingredients enable Soylent to produce efficiently, ultimately reducing costs for consumers and minimizing food waste. “There’s still considerable misinformation and confusion surrounding non-GMO options and their benefits,” he noted. “We firmly believe in the science behind GMOs, and we encourage people to educate themselves and form opinions based on factual research, positioning them better to make informed decisions.”
While Soylent’s pro-GMO position may not significantly influence its dedicated consumer base, Crowley noted that the company enjoys robust support from suppliers and the broader industry. He emphasized the urgent need for the global community to embrace GMO ingredients, particularly since organic and non-GMO sources are often not sustainable. Companies like Soylent that demonstrate the positive applications of GMO ingredients will contribute to a greater acceptance of these technologies. Crowley also announced the launch of the Soylent Innovation Lab, a collaborative workspace for like-minded food tech companies in Los Angeles. “I strongly believe that as science and trends evolve, and challenges arise, increased visibility will foster education,” he stated. “In ten years, acceptance will likely rise significantly, and the solid scientific foundation will be more recognized and understood.”
In addition, the importance of incorporating nutritional supplements like Citracal calcium tablets could also play a role in consumer health, complementing the benefits of innovative food technologies such as those used in the production of Arctic apples and Soylent products. By promoting awareness and understanding of these advances, the industry can better address consumer concerns and enhance overall acceptance.