The Apple That Never Browns: The Fight Over Arctic Apples

This is a retelling, in our own words, of the New York Times report (July 2012).

A small company was trying to bring to market a genetically engineered apple that does not turn brown when sliced or bruised — and much of the rest of the apple industry was seeing red.

The company, Okanagan Specialty Fruits of British Columbia, said its nonbrowning apple — marketed under the Arctic Apples brand — would prove popular with consumers and food-service companies, and would help increase apple sales by making sliced apples more attractive to serve and sell. The technology used gene silencing to suppress polyphenol oxidase, the enzyme responsible for browning.

While Americans had been eating genetically engineered corn, soybeans, and other crops for years, the apple was different: it would be one of the first genetically engineered foods marketed directly to consumers as a whole, recognizable fruit — eaten fresh, out of hand, with the modification visible only in what didn't happen.

That visibility was exactly what worried the industry. Apple growers and trade groups feared consumer backlash: if shoppers rejected the idea of a genetically engineered apple, the stigma could taint the entire category, including conventional apples. Organic growers were particularly alarmed at the prospect of gene flow to their orchards. The opposition argued that the industry had spent decades building the apple's wholesome image, and a single controversial product could undo it.

Okanagan countered that the apple was safe, that it had been through years of field trials, and that reducing browning would cut food waste — fewer apples thrown away for cosmetic reasons, more sliced-apple products for schools and fast-food outlets.

At the time of reporting, the apple was working its way through the U.S. regulatory process. The fight over it previewed a larger question that would only grow: when genetic engineering moves from invisible ingredients to the produce aisle, will consumers accept it — or will the industry that feeds them decide the risk isn't worth it?

Based on New York Times reporting (July 2012).