Leading the Way in Life Science Technologies

GEN Exclusives

More »


More »
October 01, 2012 (Vol. 32, No. 17)

Technophobia = Poisoned Fruit

Fear-Mongering About Recombinant DNA-Modified Crops Hurts Farmers and Consumers

  • Could the new apple “contaminate” other varieties? Research has shown that the cross-pollination potential of apples is limited to about 150 feet. Beyond that distance, cross pollination of apples is virtually nil. The DNA in fruit comes from the parental tree, not the pollen that fertilizes the apple blossom. When someone eats a Golden Delicious apple, 100% of the DNA (and protein, carbohydrates, and other compounds) is from Golden Delicious trees.

    The entire apple industry owes the diversity of varieties to different gene expression patterns. A Golden Delicious apple looks and tastes different from a Red Delicious because different apple genes are expressed. Recent genomic sequencing shows there are about 57,000 genes in the Golden Delicious apple. One must look beyond the science to understand how the apple growers’ associations can be against new varieties of apples simply because four of the 57,000 apple genes have been turned off.

    The reason is short-sighted economics. A spokesperson for the Northwest Horticultural Council ascribed the apple industry’s opposition to the potential for “severe adverse marketing issues to confront both organic and traditional apple growers” if the Arctic Apple were to be introduced.

    The organic fruit industry is especially antagonistic to the Arctic Apple. They claim that the organic status of their fruit is threatened by cross-pollination from any recombinant DNA-modified apple and are calling for a ban on all such varieties. However, no organic grower has ever lost organic certification from exposure to trace amounts of recombinant DNA-modified seed or pollen, just as pesticide wafting onto organic crops from neighboring fields does not jeopardize organic status.

    “Organic” status is conferred if the grower agrees to use only a restricted set of techniques and practices but has nothing at all to do with the quality, safety, or characteristics of the product itself.

    Fear-mongering about recombinant DNA-modified crops has become the stock-in-trade of some antitechnology environmental organizations and the organic food industry. Therefore, apple growers and their trade groups fear the possibility that their products will no longer be the “apple of the consumer’s eye” because of negative propaganda from the organic food and antibiotechnology organizations.

    There are even more compelling reasons than pleasing their customers for apple growers and their trade groups to embrace the new technology: the experiences, both positive and negative, of other farming sectors in the recent past.

  • Recombinant DNA Technology

    Consider, for example, the cautionary tale of the Kona coffee industry in Hawaii, which in 2008 pushed the Hawaii County Council to ban the growing of recombinant DNA-modified beans on the Big Island. The growers felt that the use of the new technology would risk decades of building the reputation of Kona coffee as a brand. Beans developed using recombinant DNA technology may not qualify as “specialty coffee,” and therefore, it was feared that they would command a lower market price.

    The industry may now be singing a different tune. Big Island coffee growers are facing a dire threat to their crops that didn’t exist four years ago: Infestations of the Coffee Berry Borer beetle, which evolves resistance to pesticidal sprays, were first discovered in Kona in 2010 and have now been confirmed in all parts of west Hawaii and in some other areas as well. Faced with the threat of devastation of their crops, the industry is now desperate for any measures to combat the beetle. Recombinant DNA technology has been widely and successfully used in corn, cotton, papaya, and other crops to introduce resistance to pests.

    Hawaiian coffee farmers and their organizations should have heeded the positive example of the Rainbow variety of papaya, Hawaii’s fifth largest crop. By inserting a single gene from a virus into papayas, scientists have made them virus-resistant. Although the biological mechanism is different, the effect is similar to vaccination of people and animals using weakened or killed viruses. The recombinant DNA-modified Rainbow papaya has resurrected Hawaii’s $64 million-a-year industry, which was moribund 15 years ago because of the predations of papaya ringspot virus.

    Wheat farming offers yet another example. By 2004, Monsanto, the world’s leader in the production of seeds for genetically engineered crops, had made substantial progress in the development of genetically engineered wheat varieties for North America. But suddenly in that year, the company scrapped its wheat program in large part because of opposition from North American grain merchants and growers.

    European countries and Japan, which have traditionally imported about 45% of U.S. wheat exports, have been resistant to recombinant DNA-modified crops and food derived from them.

    However, American growers and millers have had a change of heart. Wheat farming is a struggling industry in the United States, in large part because it has not received the technological boost from recombinant DNA technology that has hugely benefited the corn and soybean sectors. U.S. wheat acreage is down about one-third from its peak in the early 1980s, due to reduced profitability compared with alternative crops. Therefore, in 2006, a coalition of U.S. wheat industry organizations called for access to recombinant DNA-modified wheat varieties with enhanced traits, and a survey released in 2009 by the U.S. national association of wheat growers found that more than three-quarters of U.S. farmers wanted access to genetically improved varieties with resistance to pests, disease, drought, and frost.

    Such varieties are important as plant scientists and farmers continue to battle diseases such as leaf rust, the world’s most common wheat disease, which can lead to yield loss of up to 20%. In Kansas, the heart of the U.S. wheat belt, for example, leaf rust destroyed a shocking 14% of the wheat crop in 2007.

    Apple growers should take note of the lessons learned by others the hard way. There is little doubt consumers will like and even pay a premium for the nonbrowning trait in apples. Instead of fighting the introduction of this improved, consumer-friendly product (as well as others that could follow), the apple growers’ associations should sow the seeds of greater sales and security of their harvest by mounting a truthful, positive ad campaign to trumpet the new advances in molecular biology applied to their products. They should bear in mind that technophobia often breeds poisoned fruit.

Posted 10/2/2012 by Johnny Appleseed

@John Smith Arctic apples will not be less nutritious - quite the opposite! The polyphenols and antioxidants that are burned up in the browning reaction will be maintained in a nonbrowning apple. Regarding misleading consumers, again, the opposite is true. By reducing the appearance of superficial discoloration, it makes it more clear when something is actually wrong with the fruit (Arctic apples rot just the same as conventional apples). While nonbrowning apples are well suited to the freshcut industry, this will not replace fresh market apples, but augment them. Consumers are demanding more convenience than ever and replacing junk food with apple slices is certainly a worthwhile objective. Additionally, rather than needing more preservatives and sprays, they will need less. Current anti-browning solutions and treatments won't be needed. Finally, your suggestion that "consumers reject the nonbrowning apple" seems premature considering the poll on this site and the consumer research that the company has performed (which also shows the more consumer learn about them, the greater their interest in buying them: goo.gl/WuXVV).

Posted 10/2/2012 by John Smith

Consumers are against the non-bruising apple because it would lead to dirtier, less nutritious, and and less-fresh apples in the marketplace. If the apples do not bruise and brown at points where the skin has been compromised, there is no visual indication of where bacterial infection has occurred. Consequently, consumers will not be clued in where to trim off bad spots, and end up eating more spoiled portions of the fruit. Also, while the fruit itself will not brown even after weeks in the fridge, other chemical changes in the fruit are occurring, including a degradation in some nutrients. Finally, increased browning and bruising resistance would lead to a makeover of the apple and apple-product supply distribution system whereby apples would be distributed in precut form rather than onsite. Precut slices means more plastic contact, more preservative dips or sprays, more opportunity for bacteria, and, on average, less fresh food. It will also lead to less local apples. For all of these reasons, consumers reject the nonbruising apple.


Related content