The first commercial crop of Arctic Apples—genetically modified (GMO) apples that won't turn brown when sliced—are about to hit the market.

The apples stirred up major controversy in February 2015 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deemed both the Arctic Golden Delicious and Arctic Granny varieties safe for human consumption. It was the first time the federal agency approved an aesthetically-improved genetically engineered food.

According to Good Fruit Grower, a publication from the Washington State Fruit Commission, after 20 years of development, Okanogan Specialty Fruits is expecting to harvest its first commercial crop of about 50 bins of Arctic Golden Delicious in Washington this year.

The Canadian company will also plant its first Arctic Granny Smiths this year and is awaiting approval from the USDA for a third variety, the Arctic Fuji. On Dec. 31, 2015, the company formally submitted a petition to the USDA requesting the deregulation of its GMO Fuji, and announced plans for its fourth variety, the Arctic Gala.

Neal Carter, company president and founder, told Good Fruit Grower that his company has planted roughly 15 acres of Goldens in Washington, which will yield a small crop this fall.

The blossoming venture plans to add more acreage mostly in Washington this year for its Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny varieties, with even more in other states and Canada in the following few years.

Carter said that the first apples will be test marketed in select stores this year. As production ramps up, more apples will by distributed to locations in the U.S. and Canada. Carter declined to name which growers, packers or retailers will be working with Arctic Apples.

Good Fruit Grower reported that once regulatory agencies have approved the apple varieties, the company may promote its flagship product like any other apple you see in the market.

“What that approval means is it’s treated like any other apple variety,” Carter said.

So why doesn't an Arctic Apple turn brown? As NPR explained:

The non-browning trait was created by inserting extra copies of genes that the apple already possessed. These genes normally create an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase, which is responsible for the chemical reaction that causes browning.

Yet when extra copies of the gene are added, the apple reacts by shutting down all of them, stopping production of the enzyme and preventing the browning reaction. (Like any apple, these apples eventually will go brown from normal rotting. It's the immediate "enzymatic browning" that's blocked.)

However, Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch, warned that this method of genetic engineering, known as RNA interference, could have "unintended effects" to the apple and to the people who consume it:

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 particular gene targeted by this technology allows the apples to be sliced without turning brown, which could mislead consumers into thinking they are eating fresh apples when they might be eating apples on the verge of rotting. Browning is an important indicator to consumers in determining the freshness of an apple or apple slice. 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.

Environmental organizations and concerned consumers have also criticized the USDA's stamp of approval. The USDA's environmental review received 73,000 comments that vehemently opposed the commercialization of the apples. In an article, Friends of the Earth warned that people who buy the apples won't even know they are eating it: "Like other genetically modified organisms, the Arctic apple will not be required to be labeled as genetically engineered."

Following intense consumer backlash, a number of major food companies such as Wendy’s, McDonald’s and Gerber expressed that they had no plans to source or sell the GMO apple.

Okanogen Specialty Fruits is owned by Intrexon, which has a major stake in the similarly controversial GMO salmon company, AquaBounty.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

EU Fails to Approve ‘Technical Extension’ for Weed-Killer Glyphosate

6 Questions for Monsanto

Taiwan Recalls Quaker Oats Products Imported From U.S. After Detecting Glyphosate

Bayer ‘Confident’ It Can Still Strike Deal with Monsanto, Merger Could Spell Disaster for Farmers and Global Food Supply

By The Greens / European Free Alliance

A proposal for a temporary "technical extension" of the EU approval of the herbicide glyphosate failed today to secure the support of a majority of EU governments.

"We applaud those EU governments who are sticking to their guns and are refusing to authorize this controversial toxic herbicide," Bart Staes, Green environment and food safety spokesperson, said. "There are clear concerns about the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. Moreover, glyphosate's devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban. Thankfully, the significant public mobilization and political opposition to re-approving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the EU Commission to back down.

"Three strikes must mean the approval of glyphosate is finally ruled out. After the third failed attempt, the Commission must stop continuing to try and force through the approval of glyphosate. Such a move would raise major democratic concerns about the EU's decision-making process. The process of phasing out glyphosate and other toxic herbicides and pesticides from agriculture must begin now, and this means reorienting the EU's Common Agricultural Policy towards a more sustainable agricultural model."

With the current approval of glyphosate set to expire at the end of June and insufficient support from EU governments for re-approval, the European Commission had proposed a "technical extension" of the current approval until after the European Chemicals Agency delivers its opinion on glyphosate (12-18 months). European Chemicals Agency is expected to deliver its opinion by autumn 2017. The "technical extension" means the commission has dropped the proposal for a longer term re-approval. The failure to agree on this today means the future for glyphosate is uncertain. The European Commission could try to force the proposal through an "appeals committee."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

6 Questions for Monsanto

Glyphosate Found in Urine of 93 percent of Americans Tested

EU Commission Backs Down on Long-Term Glyphosate Approval, Seeks Last Minute Extension

The Superbug Doctors Have Been Dreading Is Now in the U.S.

By Katherine Paul

Monsanto may not be the largest company in the world. Or the worst. But the St. Louis, Missouri, biotech giant has become the poster child for all that's wrong with our industrial food and farming system.

With 21,000 employees in 66 countries and $15 billion in revenue, Monsanto is a biotech industry heavyweight. The monopolizer of seeds is the poster child for an industry that is the source of at least one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and is largely responsible for the depletion of soil, water and biodiversity. Not to mention the company's marginalization—and sometimes terrorization—of millions of small farmers.

Since the early 20th century, Monsanto has marketed highly toxic products that have contaminated the environment and permanently sickened or killed thousands of people around the world.

The most toxic of its products include:

• PCBs: one of the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which affect human and animal fertility

• 2,4,5 T (2,4-D): a component of Agent Orange containing dioxin which was used by the US military during the Vietnam war and continues to be a major cause of birth defects and cancers

• Lasso: an herbicide now banned in Europe

• Roundup: the most widely used herbicide in the world, and cause of one of the biggest health and environmental tragedies in modern history. This highly toxic weed killer, sprayed on genetically modified or GMO crops including soybeans, corn and rapeseed for animal feed or for the production of biofuels, was recently classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

In a rare exception, Monsanto was recently ordered to pay $46.5 million to compensate victims of its PCB poisoning. Sometimes the company settles out of court, to avoid having to admit to any “wrongdoing."

But for the most part, thanks to the multinational's powerful influence over U.S. politicians, Monsanto has been able to poison with impunity.

It's time for the citizens of the world to fight back. On Oct. 15-16, in The Hague, Netherlands—the International City of Peace and Justice—a panel of distinguished international judges will hear testimony from witnesses, represented by legitimate lawyers, who have been harmed by Monsanto.

In their preparation for the citizens' tribunal, and during witness testimony, the judges will consider six questions that are relevant not just in relation to Monsanto, but to all companies involved in shaping the future of agriculture.

The six questions are:

1. Right to a healthy environment: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as recognized in international human rights law (Res. 25/21 of the Human Rights Council, of 15 April 2014), taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

2. Right to food: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to food, as recognized in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Articles 24.2(c) and (e) and 27.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in Articles 25(f) and 28.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

3. Right to health: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the right of child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized by Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

4. Freedom of expression and academic research: Did the firm Monsanto violate the freedom indispensable for scientific research, as guaranteed by Article 15(3) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the freedoms of thought and expression guaranteed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

5. Complicity in war crimes: Is the firm Monsanto complicit in the commission of a war crime, as defined in Article 8(2) of the International Criminal Court, by providing materials to the United States Army in the context of operation "Ranch Hand" launched in Viet Nam in 1962?

6. Ecocide: Could the past and present activities of Monsanto constitute a crime of ecocide, understood as causing serious damage or destroying the environment, so as to significantly and durably alter the global commons or ecosystem services upon which certain human groups rely?

The citizens' tribunal judges will not have the power to adopt binding decisions. But they will issue opinions which will provide victims and their legal counsel the arguments and legal grounds for further lawsuits against Monsanto within their national jurisdictions.

Throughout history, citizens' tribunals have been an effective tool for highlighting the need to change international law so that victims of transnational companies have a means to legal redress. They are most successful when they are able to attract media attention, and are endorsed and supported by millions of citizens throughout the world.

If you would like to endorse the International Monsanto Tribunal and follow its progress, sign on here. To submit witness testimony, email claims (at) Monsanto-tribunal.org. You can also support the tribunal financially.

Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

EU Commission Backs Down on Long-Term Glyphosate Approval, Seeks Last Minute Extension

Glyphosate Found in Urine of 93 percent of Americans Tested

The Superbug Doctors Have Been Dreading Is Now in the U.S.

Taiwan Recalls Quaker Oats Products Imported From U.S. After Detecting Glyphosate

Following a number of unsuccessful meetings on the long-term reauthorization of glyphosate in the European Union, the European Commission—the EU's executive arm—is now seeking an eleventh-hour extension of the controversial weedkiller's current approval.

Licensing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s blockbuster herbicide Roundup, is set to expire on June 30. The commission initially sought to extend glyphosate's authorization in the EU's 28 member states for another 15 years, however, due to "a mutiny" from several EU states such as Italy, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, the EU's head office decided to slash their proposed extension of glyphosate to 9 years.

The aforementioned nations—not to mention the roughly 1.5 million people who signed a petition calling on the commission to ban glyphosate—have mainly based their objection on the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) March 2015 assessment that the compound “probably” causes cancer in humans.

Last month, the commission's revised proposal of 9 years failed to secure the required majority among EU governments in a vote, so it postponed glyphosate re-approval for a later vote.

Now, in its latest attempt to find middle ground, the commission is proposing a temporary extension of EU authorization on glyphosate for up to 18 months to buy time for yet another study that will assess whether or not glyphosate causes cancer. European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said in a statement from Brussels today that the last word on glyphosate's EU-wide reauthorization belongs to the EU's Agency for Chemical Products (ECHA).

"This is why the commission proposes to ask ECHA for its scientific assessment on the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate and to extend the current approval of glyphosate until it receives ECHA's opinion," he said.

Andriukaitis stressed that the commission's proposals and decisions on glyphosate were based on the assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal institute for Risk Assessment which both concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic, and contradicting the decision from the IARC.

Experts from the 28 EU nations will now meet on June 6 to vote on the commission's latest proposal.

"In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the ball is now in the member states' court," Andriukaitis said.

However, EU sources explained to Reuters that the compromise could push member states to change their position on glyphosate's license renewal.

"If the new proposal fails to win support from the 28 EU nations, it will go to an appeal committee vote, although the compromise says the commission can take a decision regardless of what emerges from the committee," Reuters reported.

Andriukaitis pointed out that EU-wide glyphosate authorization doesn't mean that all member governments must oblige to its use.

“The member states who wish not to use glyphosate-based products have the possibility to restrict their use,” he said. “They do not need to hide behind the commission’s decision."

Beyond a temporary extension, Andriukaitis also proposed three other recommendations on how member states can use glyphosate in their territory:

• Ban a co-formulant called POE-tallowamine from glyphosate based products;
• Minimize the use in public parks, public playgrounds and gardens;
• Minimize the pre-harvest use of glyphosate.

“However," Andriukaitis said, "if there is no EU approval, member states have no choice anymore: the authorization expires on the July 1."

Should there be no extension, the commissioner warned that member states would have to withdraw the authorizations for plant protection products containing glyphosate from their market.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament's Green party has deemed the commissions' latest proposal as a sign that it is "backing down" on re-approval of glyphosate.

"While it means an eleventh hour reprieve for glyphosate, this is hopefully only temporary and this should be the beginning of the end for this toxic product," Green party's environment and food safety spokesperson Bart Staes said in a statement.

"The EU will now have to finalize its assessment of the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. However, glyphosate's devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban," he said. "The significant public mobilization and political opposition to reapproving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments and the commission has been sent back with its tail between its legs."

Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg also said in a statement it was "good to see that the commission is no longer pushing for a final decision based on questionable safety assurances by the EU food safety agency."

"But whether the license is for 15, nine or two years doesn't change anything in the real world," she continued. "The same amount of glyphosate will be sprayed in parks, playgrounds and private gardens, and in our fields, vineyards and apple groves. Glyphosate levels in our bodies won’t change either. The commission must take on board the concerns raised by independent scientists, the European Parliament and citizens by—at the very least—applying strict restrictions to limit human exposure."

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Taiwan Recalls Quaker Oats Products Imported From U.S. After Detecting Glyphosate

Bayer ‘Confident’ It Can Still Strike Deal with Monsanto, Merger Could Spell Disaster for Farmers and Global Food Supply

More Big Retailers Say ‘No’ to GMO Salmon

Vandana Shiva: Small Farmers Are Foundation to Food Security, Not Corporations Like Monsanto