As a legion of tomatoes genetically engineered for longer shelf life rolls ever closer to the marketplace (Calgene Fresh Inc.’s “Flavr Savr” should be in supermarkets by September), the sides in the debate over biotechnology are lining up.
Public-interest groups say this new method opens the door to all manner of scientific irresponsibility. Industry and some of the scientific community say it is the future of food production.
Most of us are just confused.
To bring the issue into perspective, two prestigious food organizations recently sponsored discussions of biotechnology at major conferences. The American Institute of Wine and Food (AIWF) meeting took place in Washington in March. The International Association of Cooking Professionals (IACP) met in New Orleans last month. In addition, the Food Marketing Institute, meeting last week in Chicago devoted a session to biotechnology.
None of the special interests at any of the presentations scored a knockout, but some disparate points of view came into clearer focus.
And it was clear that, although it was a topic once reserved by science- fiction buffs, gene-splicing in plants, animals and even humans is attracting much attention.
What is biotechnology?
Biotechnology involves making changes in living organisms-plants or animals-by altering their genetic makeup.
For years nature has been doing this through natural selection-parents with certain traits produce offspring possessing certain traits or combinations of traits. Selective breeding creates hybrid plants or livestock by manipulating the reproductive process.
But recent advances have allowed scientists to enter and change the DNA molecule, which controls the characteristics of an individual organism. This greatly accelerates selective breeding, for instance, and gives biochemists some control over certain life forms, from bacteria to potatoes to humans.
That kind of power has been raising ethical, religious, regulatory and safety questions among consumers, government officials and scientists. Although some see its potential for benefit, others fear it could wreak havoc.
In addition to the new tomato (in which simply turning a key gene dramatically retards decay), new products include two growth hormones-bovine somatotropin to increase milk production in cows and PST (porcine somatotropin) to make pork as lean as chicken-and rice, melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes and yams that have been altered to better resist insects, herbicides and disease. Researchers also are field-testing genetically engineered apples, trying to reduce the fat in vegetable oils and the caffeine in coffee beans.
Labeling
The U.S. government has become a cheerleader for biotech. A singular action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a year ago triggered the first widespread public concern: The FDA announced that genetically engineered foods would be allowed on the market without special tests and without labels that identify the foods as products of gene-splicing. Special labels will be required only when known allergens or toxins are combined with ordinary foods. The FDA’s general philosophy so far is that gene-splicing techniques that do not use substances significantly different from substances already in the diet would not require approval.
Henry I. Miller, of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology acknowledged in a letter to this newspaper that: “We recognize, however, that not only must products be safe, but the public must have confidence in their safety. In this respect, the advent of the new biotechnology poses a major challenge, a challenge that involves perception as much as reality.”
Groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Foundation on Economic Trends and a group of chefs and food purveyors called the Pure Foods Coalition have tried to shake public confidence. They have questioned the need for and safety of the new or altered foods and the lack of labeling. Some worry about the potential of these foods to contain new allergy-causing proteins. Some oppose developing genetically engineered foods at all.
Proponents of gene-splicing foresee healthier plants and animals that produce more and resist disease and spoilage, thus reducing food-borne illness. They see a world filled with safe, nutritious, good-tasting foods.
The discussions
Thomas Hoban, a North Carolina State University professor who did a USDA-sponsored nationwide survey on consumer attitudes toward biotechnology, said that awareness of biotechnology among Americans “is not that high” and for those who are aware, “perception is reality.”
He told the AIWF conference participants that nearly two-thirds of those who are aware of biotechnology are positive-most will support biotech and think it could improve food products and will benefit humanity. However, plant biotech is viewed differently than animal biotech. While 66 percent are in favor of transferring genes from another plant to a potato, for example, only 10 percent would favor experiments using human genes in animals, which is a possibilty.
For the most part, however, those surveyed say it doesn’t seem like a big deal. The working phrase is “cautious optimism.” They want to know more about benefits, risks and negative effects. Most have “some confidence” in the government’s ability to regulate biotechnology, but more than 75 percent say they have “too little say” in how it is regulated. They do see environmental issues as critically important.
Science
According to Roger N. Beachy, co-director of the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology, La Jolla, Calif., biotechnology includes altering key natural procedures by fusing cells, rescuing embryos in cell cultures and splicing DNA. Scientists now can generate a whole plant from a single cell. There have been successful experiments on about 60 types of plants so far, most recently grapevines.
Genetic engineering can induce mutations and then retain the positive part of the mutation, says Beachy. It works with cell culture and fusion techniques to generate plant cells into total plants so that during fusion those changes will be passed on. Our plants have become dependent on chemical protection, but biotechnology aims to develop plants that can survive without chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers.
It also can improve the food value of plants and improve their ability to survive drought and pests. It can alter flavor or texture, temperature tolerance, resistance to disease by virus, fungi or bacteria as well as resistance to toxins. It will help increase the food supply.
Responding to a question on whether taste plays “a very small role” in genetic engineering decisions, that the overriding aim is to increase productivity and profits for the sponsor, Beachy said, “No, the idea is to improve (specific) qualities such as keeping ability. If what we develop does not represent good quality at a good price, the consumer is not going to buy. I don’t want to change an apple into a pear.”
Better-tasting tomato
Also speaking at the AIWF session was Stephen C. Benoit, vice president of marketing at Calgene Fresh Inc. Benoit’s company is in the spotlight because of the impending introduction of its genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomatoes.
“We just want to provide people with a better-tasting tomato,” Benoit said. “Eighty-five percent of American households eat tomatoes. One hundred and fifty million pounds are grown each month. But consumption declines in the off season by 30 percent because of lack of quality. We lose half (of the normal tomato crop) through spoilage, rot and waste.
“All tomatoes have an enzyme that cause them to soften. We took the gene for this softening process and inserted it backwards. In a sense they cancel each other out and we turn off 99 percent of the softening message, which allows us to leave the tomato in the field longer for more flavor development. It will last longer in the distributor’s system because it is not picked green.”
He explained that Flavr Savr tomatoes would be labeled in stores as genetically engineered .
Government
Genetically engineered foods have raised concerns about labeling and about their potential to contain new allergy-causing proteins. James Maryanski, biotechnology coordinator in the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington, D.C., said that while the FDA has the legal duty to make sure that new foods meet standards of safety and though the agency can remove a product from the market if it contains toxins, only products with new additives need come before his agency.
“Science is not as strong as it should be on this,” he said, “but our policy is if the manufacturer can’t show that a product is non-allergenic, it has to be labeled. There should be a process for interaction between industry and government, but it has to be practical. Do we really want resources spent on inconsequential things?”
Consumer activists
Rebecca Goldburg, biologist with the Environmental Defense Fund in New York, says “this technology enables scientists to alter foods in ways as diverse as mixing horses with potatoes. What does this mean for consumers? When a scientist puts a gene in, he introduces a new protein. It can alter the composition, blurring the distinction between processed and unprocessed.
“We are seeing a vast array of these new proteins. How safe are they? What about the allergenic effects? What about unexpected effects?”
She maintains FDA policy “does little to protect consumers’ right to know.” Offering regulatory relief that leaves it to the discretion of industry to include information on labels “doesn’t seem to me a very good way to protect the public. . . . The new product will look just like the old one, so how is the consumer to know it’s different? If you add a sweetener to corn in a can, you must say so on the label. If you add a sweetener by biotech, no need to say anything.
“Consider, too, implications for those with religious dietary restrictions. How are they to know when a plant or fruit contains an animal gene?”
Rick Moonen, executive chef of the Water Club restaurant in New York and founder of the Pure Foods Coalition, an anti-biotech organization, responding to the question, “Is there any kind of compromise possible (with biotech, engineered food)?” said, “I don’t see a problem with the present (unengineered) products. I don’t see a need to improve on Mother Nature.
“The (Flavr Savr) tomato . . . if it gains confidence of the masses will be followed by a large number of products that may not go through the same tough scrutiny (by the FDA and the manufacturer). I think the words `genetically engineered’ should appear on the product.”
At the IACP meeting New Orleans, his collegue, Ted L. Howard, director of the Pure Food Campaign, added:
“Chefs object (to using biotech ingredients) as artists and because of their responsibility to their clientele.” He said more than 5,000 people, “from farmers through the food (distribution) chain,” that is wholesalers, retailers, chefs, caterers and others, have signed up and pledged not to “produce, purchase or prepare” genetically engineered foods.
“If you examine this issue with a different set of values, you will realize this does not need to go ahead. The age of biotechnology represents a profound shift in human culture. New arrangements of genetic material can permanently alter a species.” This frantic activity is “almost a defiance” of the trend toward sustainable agriculture and organic farming.
(Beachy said we cannot feed our population, much less the world’s hungry, through a return to sustainable agriculture, but biotech “has the capacity to add incrementally to what’s already there.”)
There remains as well the ongoing struggle between art and commerce. According to Moonen: “There are some terrible tomatoes. Everything has its season. That makes my job exciting.”
Responds Benoit, “Our job is to deliver better taste 52 weeks out of the year.”
