What You Need to Know About the First GMO Apples

An apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? Apples are a perfect, portable snack loved by adults and kids alike. They are low in calories, high in fiber and are a great source of Vitamin C. The bad news? Apples are one of the dirty dozen, one of the most pesticide-laden fruits or vegetables on the market. The news is about to get worse for real food lovers. The first GMO apples will be going on sale in the Midwest as early as this February.

About the GMO Apples

The GMO, or genetically modified apples, were developed from the Golden Delicious variety and are sold under the Artic brand produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits of Summerland, B.C. The apples are sold pre-sliced in plastic pouches. Instead of using citric acid to delay browning, the apples were genetically modified to reduce the amount of the enzyme, polyphenol oxidase (PPO), in the fruit. This enzyme is what causes the fruit’s flesh to oxidize, or turn brown, when exposed to air. The result is an apple that, once sliced, will not brown for up to three weeks.

What is Oxidation?

Oxidation is a natural chemical process that occurs in all living cells. When the skin of an apple is broken, the cell walls and membranes rupture,  allowing oxygen in. The process is accelerated by PPO, which results in the browning of the apple flesh.

What’s the big deal about browning apples? Well, for starters, it’s unattractive. Oxidation causes some loss of nutrients and causes the apple’s flesh to soften. For apple processors, this makes handling the fruit and getting it to market a delicate dance.

Now, there’s an apple that will not brown for 3 weeks when exposed to air. This is revolutionary for apple processors. This apple will allow some apple processors to limit additives to their apple products to prevent browning. It also ensures a longer shelf life for pre-cut apples.

Is it Safe?

In tomatoes, PPO is vital. It acts as a defense to ward off pests and pathogens. According to Arctic, PPO plays no active role in modern apples. Their scientific team used “gene silencing” to reduce the amount of PPO released by the apples, thereby practically eliminating PPO production in the Golden Delicious apples.

Is this breakthrough in the quest of making a non-browning apple safe for consumers? The USDA gave the GMO apples their stamp of approval, but like many GMO plants, only time will tell. Although Artic studied the “non-target” or side effects of the apple plants for 12 years, as with other GMO foods, no testing of long-term consumption by humans has been completed. For many of these foods, generational studies on animals were never completed either.

Alternatives

If you’re not ready to jump on the GMO brown-free bandwagon, here are few natural ways to keep apple oxidation at bay.

• Slice the fruit in water.
• Toss apple slices in lemon juice.
• Soak the slices in salt water or apple cider vinegar water.
• Sprinkle the slices with ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) powder.
• Wrap a rubber band around a sliced apple to put it back together.

These methods will keep your apple slices brown-free for several hours. Or, you can always just eat an apple in its entirety. For all the time, money and effort that went into keeping apples from oxidizing for three weeks, the reality is that brown apples won’t kill you! Skip the GMO apples and spend your money on organic ones.

Further Reading:
Sources:


GMO Study Finds Altered Amino Acids May Increase Histamine Reactions

One of the criteria the Food and Drug Administration considers when deciding whether or not to approve a GMO is called “substantial equivalence.” This means the nutritional profile and toxicity levels of the modified plant are within the same range as a non-modified plant. When a new strain of corn is similar enough to the original to demonstrate substantial equivalence, the product is free to pass to market with fewer safety checks. A new study looking more closely at the differences between a specific variety of GM corn, Monsanto’s NK603, and the non-modified corn it is derived from is challenging that principle.

Substantial equivalence is a standard practice in the industry. The GM crop database notes that

…small statistical differences between NK603 and control lines were observed only in: six amino acids (alanine, arginine, glutamic acid, histidine, lysine, and methionine) as measured in grain from European trials (no differences were observed in material from U.S. trials); and stearic (C18:0) acid levels. Overall, these differences were not consistent across all trial sites and they were considered to reflect random variation. All compositional results were within the ranges observed for commercial non-transformed lines.”

Peer reviewed research from Dr. Michael Antionou at King’s College in London has found that the differences in those amino acids are more important than Monsanto has considered or is disclosing.

Amino Acid Differences May Increase Allergic Reactions

In the words of Dr. Antionou,

Our study clearly shows that the GM transformation process results in profound compositional differences in NK603, demonstrating that this GMO corn is not substantially equivalent to its non-GMO counterpart. The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamines, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrates in meat products.”

GMOs have been cited several times as a factor in the increase in allergies worldwide, though many scientists and researchers have remained firm in their conviction that GMOs do not contain any known allergens. The differences in amino acids found in this study suggest that while NK603 may not be derived from a substance known to cause allergies, the specific amino acids it enhances increase the likelihood of allergies occurring. Both putrescine and cadaverine are considered toxic in large doses. One could argue that GMO corn has such small amounts that it doesn’t matter, but does that argument take into account the amount of those compounds accumulating in the body over time? Without knowing the quantity of GMOs being consumed on a daily basis and the amount of chemical compound build up, it’s impossible to rule out the NK603 as a cause in increased allergic reactions.

GMO Regulation is Missing a Big Puzzle Piece

Getting a GMO approved in the United States involves three different government agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It’s a tremendous undertaking, with the average development and approval process from four years ago costing 136 million and taking 13 years. Once the company presenting the product has proved “substantial equivalence” though, it is assumed that the crop is safe and ready for market. From that point, there is no longer any incentive to continue safety testing and research. These companies are fundamentally altering the building blocks of the food we eat. Valid, peer-reviewed studies showing the negative effects of these manipulations continue to appear. Saying a product has been safety tested before its initial release is different from saying something is safe when released with incomplete information and saying that it is safe after more than a decade of data has suggested otherwise.

The companies seeing billion dollar profits from the product are left to correct the negative long term effects, often to the detriment of profits. What company is willing to do that? Regulatory systems are allowing one of the necessities of life to be irrevocably altered. A system that does not force a company to at least acknowledge (let alone fix) that alteration and its negative effects is a broken system.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Roundup Resistance is a Growing Problem and Syngenta Offers a Problematic Solution

Tolerance to things is built up over time, although some tolerances develop more quickly than others. The development of Roundup resistance in weeds is a quick one, in large part due to the popularity and frequent usage of the chemical. From the release of Roundup in 1974, it took 15 years for the first documented case of Roundup-resistant weeds to appear. The response to that resistance didn’t actually address the problem. The introduction of genetically modified, Roundup resistant crops allowed farmers to increase the amount of the herbicide sprayed, therefore increasing the opportunities for naturally resistant weeds to thrive and pass on their wayward genes. The growth of Roundup-resistant weeds is upon us, and Big Agriculture needs an answer.

Paraquat – A Potential Answer

Paraquat is a controversial product. While one of the most popular herbicides in the world, it has been banned in the European Union due to its toxicity. Paraquat is so toxic to mammals that it’s often said, “just one sip will kill you.” It has been used to commit suicide in many third world countries due to its easy availability and low price. Despite the fact that it has been banned in the European Union, the herbicide is still manufactured there. The E.U. is not the only country that has reservations regarding paraquat, as China is also in the process of phasing out paraquat for agricultural use. Countries like the U.S. and Australia are still using the herbicide, as it’s a fast-acting product that kills a wide range of weeds.

The Herbicide Always Knocks Twice

If one is good, two must be better…or something like that. One of the suggested uses of paraquat is to use it as a clean up herbicide after glyphosate. This is known as the “double knock” system, and it’s commonly used in Australia. Many scientists and insiders have predicted that this system has the potential to double the amount of time before herbicide resistant weeds appear again. While this system might be ideal from the manufacturer’s standpoint (twice as many products bought), the health and environmental concerns are more worrying.

Everyone Agrees That Paraquat is Toxic

The E.P.A. has classified paraquat as category I, the highest level of toxicity. So we know it’s toxic. That itself is not up for debate. What is in debate is whether or not paraquat causes Parkinson’s. And by debate, that is to say Syngenta is not willing to publicly accept the role of paraquat in increasing the rates of Parkinson’s and the company has subsequently funded studies refuting that link.

But Seriously, Everyone Knows

Syngenta continues to defend paraquat in the face of 20 years of studies presenting increasing links between the herbicide and Parkinson’s. As the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds continues to increase, the agricultural market is looking for the next option in herbicides. With nature as it is, who knows how long before that herbicide will cease to work and the next chemical in line will step up?

One of the advantages of paraquat is the fact that it is partially inactivated once it hits the ground. But what about the part that isn’t? Imagine the rings of a mature oak tree. At what point will we be able to tell the age of our soil by the layers of herbicides and pesticides built up throughout?

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


GMO Pink Pineapple Is Coming – Ever Heard of Pink Pineapple Disease?

The newest addition to the pineapple marketplace, which will be grown in Costa Rica, is a genetically modified pineapple dubbed the Rosé. Are consumers are just clamoring for a sweeter pineapple with a more pleasing, pink color?

Although a new and “improved” pineapple doesn’t seem to be high on our priority list, The Food and Drug Administration has given Del Monte Fresh Produce the go-ahead for their new, genetically engineered, pink pineapple. According to the FDA:

(Del Monte’s) new pineapple has been genetically engineered to produce lower levels of the enzymes already in conventional pineapple that convert the pink pigment lycopene to the yellow pigment beta carotene. Lycopene is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink, so it is commonly and safely consumed.”

The statement from the FDA gives the pineapple (and genetically engineered crops in general) a glowing review. But why a pink pineapple?

Pineapple Consumption

Pineapple is the third most consumed fruit in the world, after mangos and bananas, with 24.8 million tons of pineapples produced each year. That may seem like a lot, but when compared to other GMO crops like corn (over a billion tons a year), soybeans (278 million), and sugar beets (247 million), pineapple is not a commodity product.

When you consider the amount of time and money that goes into obtaining approval for a new GMO product, the actual demand for pineapple doesn’t make it seem to be a good choice. Are we really getting a new pineapple because we need a sweeter pineapple? So why pineapple? Is it the demand?

 Pink Pineapple Disease

If you have ever eaten canned pineapple, chances are you’ve seen or eaten a piece of pineapple with a reddish or pink hue.

In fruit cocktail, it’s easy to assume cherry juice stained the pineapple, but that might not be the case at all.

Pineapples are susceptible to a disease called pink disease, which is caused by the bacteria Pantoea citrea. When this bacteria infects the pineapple fruit it turns pink in canned preparations. Manufacturers can’t tell if the fruit has been infected until it has been canned and the disease is expensive to treat.  The new pink pineapple is a brilliant solution to this problem. Rather than wonder why their canned pineapple is pink, red, or rust colored instead of the familiar yellow, consumers will see the Rosé pineapple. It will never occur to them to investigate, to discover they are eating fruit infected with a disease. This subtle deception will allow those who sell canned pineapple to normalize and pass off diseased pineapples as something else.

The bottom line? Pink is pleasing to the eye. But more importantly, pink is profitable (as Susan G. Komen knows). As each new GMO is released it becomes aching clear (if it wasn’t already) that the innovations sold as a way to feed the world are actually meant to feed wallets. We see the pink pineapple as a cosmetic choice made to protect and boost profit margins by selling diseased fruit unbeknownst to the customer.

P.S. Don’t confuse red pineapple with pink pineapple. Much of the media is making the mistake of showing the “red pineapple” (see image on the right). Genetically modified pink pineapple is supposed to be indistinguishable from regular pineapple on the outside. 

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


The New GMO Apples – Meet the “Nonbronwing” Arctic Fuji, Granny, and Golden Delicious

Okanagan Specialty Fruits has won approval for its third GM apple, the non-browning Arctic Fuji, also known as the “botox” apple. The U.S. deregulation process for the first two, the Arctic Granny and the Arctic Golden apple, took five years, but the Fuji was approved in a mere eight months. Next, the company plans to seek approval for another GM apple, the Arctic Gala.

Okanagan uses gene silencing biotechnology, “…to turn down the expression of PPO,” which virtually eliminates the production of the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO), the enzyme that causes the browning in fruit when apples are sliced, bitten, or bruised.

When Will GM Apples Be Available?

If you live in the Western United States, the Arctic apples may be available in a store near you. The company is said to have prototype packaging with an Artic label and a QR code ready for test marketing in January or February of 2017.

Neal Carter, a bioresource engineer in British Columbia, founded Okanagan Specialty Fruits in 1996, in Summerland, British Columbia.

It’s awesome to think we’re going to be able to do additional Arctic apples and do them this quickly from a regulatory point of view – it’s faster, it cuts down on costs, it’s how we like it,” – Neal Carter, FreshFruitPortal.com.

In the past, flavor-altering chemical additives were typically used to retard browning by the “fresh-sliced” apple processing industry. Carter believes this is what makes Artic apples a better choice.

On our packaging also we speak to the fact it’s preservative free; the fact that Arctic apples will go to market without a preservative treatment like an antioxidant being used with less chemicals being used to treat the apple, more of that apple flavor instead of the antioxidant calcium ascorbate flavor.”

Carter, the creator of the GM apples, is confident the product will “sell itself.” If it doesn’t, we’re confident they’ll do their best to force GM apples onto the consumers.

What’s the Concern?

GM apples are highly controversial. Neither farmers nor consumers seem to want anything to do with GM apples. There have been protests and petitions, media coverage has been mostly negative, and many negative comments have been posted on the company’s website. Even McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Gerber have pledged not to use them.

Despite the controversy,  Artic apples received FDA approval in January 2015 without any independent safety tests or trials.

This whole thing is just another big experiment on humans for no good reason,” – Ronnie Cummins, president of Organic Consumers Association.

“Silencing” the genes that make apples turn brown when exposed to oxygen could have safety issues that will only be realized by hungry consumers. Regular apples turn dark brown when they are bad, as the enzymes do their job. Companies that pre-slice and package apples for other businesses (think sales to airlines, prisons, restaurants, buffets, salad bars, schools, biotech conferences, etc.) are the target market. Pre-sliced apples are often recalled for contamination and other safety reasons. There’s a concern that consumers won’t be aware of contamination or know if the apple they are eating is rotten if it can’t turn brown.

Some have speculated (in online comments) that this kind of gene modification seems much safer than the type Monsanto has become known for that makes plants resistant to massive amounts of Roundup, but “RNA interference,” may have unintended consequences:

This technology uses RNA to silence a target gene, but mounting evidence has shown that meddling with the genes could have unintended effects within the plant and also on organisms that eat the plant. […] The silenced gene is also heavily involved in a plant’s natural defense against pests and pathogens, which could lead to trees that are less healthy than non-GMO apples and rely on more chemical treatments to ward off pests and disease.” – Wenonah Hauter, executive director Food & Water Watch

It’s not just consumers and consumer advocates voicing their concerns. There is concern that the new unlabeled GMO apples may damage the apple industry’s image. The apple is a very trusted, iconic image. Many top apple industry executives and orchard owners have spoken out against GM apples.

Food companies and restaurants, apple growers and growers associations, and consumers don’t want GMO apples. Yet this company is introducing them,” – Ken Roseboro

And then there’s the well-known fear, especially from organic farmers, that genetically modified crops could spread and invade areas where they are not wanted. In response, scientists are working on developing techniques intended to keep GM crops contained (suicide genes). Many of the top apple industry players have already come out against them. They include the Northwest Horticultural Council, which represents Washington apple growers responsible for more than 60% of the U.S. crop, the U.S. Apple Association, and the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association.

As usual, this product only benefits the biotech industry and big food processing companies,” – The Center for Food Safety

How Can We Avoid Them

According to the agriculture publication, CapitalPress.com, about 1,000 to 1,200, 40-pound boxes of the Arctic Golden GMO apples will be sliced, packaged, and sold in grocery stores in the Western United States in January.

The company will require growers to label the apples as the “Arctic variety,” to be seen as apples are purchased, but no mandatory labeling identifying them as genetically modified will be required. It seems, at least initially, the Artics will be easy to spot. Of course, it may only be a matter of time before GM apples are in all non-organic apple sauce, baby food, apple juice, and other processed apple foods. Or, maybe they will go the way of the Flavr Savr Tomato.

The easiest way to avoid any GMOs is to always buy organic. Also, look for the Non-GMO Project Verified logo.

Non-GMO Project Verified

Avoid pre-sliced apples, which we should do regardless of GM concerns. Obviously, avoid the “Artic” label. And keep up with GMOs. Things change quickly.

Conclusion

AlterNet summed it up best:

After decades of promises from the biotech industry that genetically engineered (GE) food would feed the world, cure the sick, reduce agricultural dependence on toxic chemicals, and save countless crops from imminent collapse, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a product they think will solve a problem humans have struggled with for centuries… an apple that doesn’t brown when you slice it.  Seriously; we couldn’t make this stuff up.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvyGIvNWh1g

Related Reading:
Sources:


Dr. Bronner’s No Longer With Organic Trade Assoc. Saying They Betrayed GMO Labeling Movement

Most of our readers are familiar with Dr. Bronner’s, the largest soap and body care products company in the natural and organic sector. The company supports an increased minimum wage, cannabis reform, animal welfare rights, and has a long history of supporting the organic movement.

The Organic Trade Association, aka OTA, is a membership-based business association for the organic business community in North America. OTA claims to promote the growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, and the public. The OTA recently disillusioned consumers who are fighting for GMO labeling by supporting the DARK act. In response, Dr. Bronners has cut ties with the organization.

Dr. Bronner’s, North America’s leading natural brand of soap and organic body care products, has resigned from the Organic Trade Association (OTA), citing the association’s betrayal of the consumer-led GMO labeling movement, and general drift away from the core principles that drive the organic movement. The OTA compromised their initial position of opposition to the DARK Act and lent the crucial support that allowed anti-labeling legislators to push that same legislation through the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama this summer.” – Dr. Bronner’s

Dr. Bronner’s has pledged to redirect its organizational resources to organizations that “…more authentically and courageously…” promote organic, sustainable agriculture.

We are particularly thrilled to support the Rodale Institute’s new Organic Farming Association and the expansion of their regional teaching farms across the country, as well as participate in the North American General Assembly of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) at Expo East,” says Dr. Bronner’s Cosmic Engagement Officer (CEO), David Bronner. “We encourage all true organic companies, whether they choose to remain a part of the OTA or not, to support and participate in both,” continues Bronner.

This DARK Act was made possible in large part by what I and other movement leaders see clearly as the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA’s) betrayal of the movement to mandate labeling of GMOs in America, forever preempting Vermont and all other states from mandating disclosure of GMOs on packaging.” – David Bronner, Huffington Post

Late July President Obama ignored roughly 250,000 petitioners by signing  Senate Bill 764, otherwise known as The DARK Act, into law. It’s a compromise bill developed by food companies that creates mandatory, standard, national labeling for GMO foods. The problem with the bill is that it does not provide a simple label disclosure on the package. It also eliminated the ability of individual states to force labeling. And to make matters worse, as the bill is written, this law might not even apply to genetically modified ingredients derived from soy and sugar beets. Companies will have the choice of using clear text, a GMO a symbol, or a digital link like the QR code. It’s assumed by consumer advocates that companies will choose to use the QR code, forcing consumers to be both vigilant and technologically savvy, which they say is not likely for people on lower incomes.

Professor Laura Murphy is the director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School. She says,

If Congress were really interested in providing consumers with information, it could have adopted Vermont’s on-package label that companies are already using across the country. Instead, Congress created a mechanism for companies to hide behind QR codes and trample on state efforts to provide their citizens with actual information. As if this weren’t bad enough, the federal law has a confusing definition of ‘bioengineering’ that gives USDA the authority to determine how much of a product needs to be bioengineered before a label is required, and prevents even the food companies from certain types of disclosure.” – ER News

Conclusion

With Bayer merging with  Monsanto, the TPP deal, globalization, and industry monopolization, It’s time to grow your own food! Don’t buy processed food. Stick to the produce and bulk sections. When GMOs can’t be avoided, take high-quality probiotics daily.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


GMO Labeling Bill Passes Senate – Did Whole Foods Sell Us Out?

On Thursday, July 7th, the senate voted 63-30 to approved a bipartisan compromise bill for a federal labeling of food made with genetically modified organisms. The bill is moving to the House of Representatives next.

Proponents of the bill say the law will be good for consumers, allowing shoppers to know what they’re getting, and the bill will provide a national standard for labeling.

There are three labeling options. Companies can label the food product as genetically modified or they can use a symbol that denotes GMOs, an on-pack symbol, the bar code, or the unreadable QR product code. When companies choose to label only through the QR code (and we guess that’s what most will do), the customer is expected to scan the barcode with their smartphones or call an 800 number.

Critics are quick to point out that this law will wipe out existing labeling laws like Vermont’s current legislation that does require clear and conscious GMO labeling. Also, this bill could exempt certain genetically modified foods from any kind of GMO labeling.

Proponents of labeling insisted that nothing short of text on packages would do. Some, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and erstwhile presidential candidate, also raised concerns over the definition in the bill for determining which foods would require labels, a sign that if the bill becomes law, legal challenges will almost certainly follow.” – New York Times

For example, if a biotech product is genetically engineered with items ‘found in nature,’ (such as bacteria), then it can be passed as a natural food product. Other GMOs, which cannot yet be detected by current technology, would also pass as whole foods under the new law. This would include foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.” – Natural News

The USDA Secretary would also have the power to determine what concentration of GMO ingredients would fall under the labeling law, so it’s not unlikely consumers may ingest GMOs even after verifying that the QR bar Code says no GMO.

Even if the customer has a phone and a QR bar code app, and wants to take the time to scan the product, more often than not, cell phones don’t work at all or the internet is extremely slow inside a grocery store. Some grocery stores don’t even allow cell phones (This is true for Dekalb Farmer’s Market in Decatur Georgia. Be sure to check them out if you haven’t).

The law will not go into effect for two years if it does make it all the way to be signed into law. Consumers will have to wait, and no other states will be able to legislate labeling in the meantime.

Is Whole Foods in Cahoots With Monsanto?

Walter Robb, the CEO of Whole Foods backs the new bill, saying:

The alternative is that Vermont goes into effect and then there’s a number of other states behind that, it makes it difficult for manufacturers to be able to label and label to that different standard…

And I think the way she’s put the bill together, which is to give manufacturers choices, is I think the marketplace and the customers will take it from here… so obviously, I think she’s done a great piece of work… we are already are out there further with our commitment to full transparency by 2018. We’re not gonna… we’re looking at how these two live with each other, but we’re already past that, but I think in this day and age, to come together, to create some sort of a reasonable standard that manufacturers can… and gives the customer a lot more information is a pretty good thing.”

Whole Foods backed the bill. As Walter made clear, Whole Foods is looking out for their food manufacturers first and foremost. Whole Foods has helped champion the idea of food transparency, but the company would not get behind previous, more conscious legislation to label GMO foods. This bill’s ambiguous text leaves a lot to be interpreted, and it is clear this is a bill written by the food companies in an attempt to appease the public without actually affecting GMO sales.

Conclusion

If the bill passes into law, is it a step in the right direction? Maybe. It depends on how the legislation plays out. The bill, as it is now, leaves so much up for interpretation. The harder the public pushes for transparency, the more likely the bill will get better for consumers along the way, or get replaced by something better. Regardless, the best way to avoid GMOs is to avoid buying processed, manufactured food. Stick to the produce section in grocery stores (whole produce GMOs are very rare), visit your local farmer’s markets and get to know the farmers (not the guys who buy food from distributors and pretend to be farmers, get to know the actual farmers). And grow your own food! It’ll be interesting to see what happens with labeling whole produce if the bill passes and more foods do get genetically modified.

Related Reading:
Sources: