Print Friendly and PDF

Caution: GMO Non-Browning ‘Arctic Apple’ Coming Soon – Would You Eat It?

Christina Sarich
February 5th, 2014
Updated 05/06/2014 at 9:52 pm
Pin It

apple gmos 263x164 Caution: GMO Non Browning Arctic Apple Coming Soon Would You Eat It?Like the decrepit hand of a wicked witch offering us all a shiny red apple, the latest GMO project puts a new poison in one of our favorite fruits.  This time, it is Neal Carter, inventor of Okanagan Specialty Fruits (OSF) offering the latest genetically modified atrocity, named the Arctic Apple. The company will offer its first non-browning apple through the ‘wonders of modern science,’ but I’m not sure its safe to take a bite.

Carter is the inventor of this GMO freak show – and this time it isn’t Eve that will give man his apple – it’s the biotech industry at it again with a way to reduce a genetic ‘issue’ in apples – the oxidation of the fruit which causes it to brown when it has been exposed to air. The British Columbia based company says this is a serious problem which causes a loss for the industry at every level of the supply chain on their website.

Furthermore, the GMO fruit won’t “exhibit slicing damage, result in shrinkage, and put more money in grower’s pockets,” according to OSF, but that’s only if the public takes the bait.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits also claims that GMO foods are highly regulated, naming Health Canada and the US FDA as sources of responsibility for food safety. But most of us already know that the FDA rubber stamps genetically altered foods without really paying attention to the concerns of scientists who show that genetic alterations could be harmful to human beings – preferring to give biotech corporations carte blanche when it comes to destroying human health.

The FDA outright lies to consumers about GMO foods. Monsanto and GMO growers spent more than $40 million recently to keep our food from being labeled in California, and more illegally in Washington for the same reason. Wouldn’t you want to know if you were eating a ‘real’ apple or a poison one?

Read: Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling

The problem with not labeling GMO foods is explained by Dr. Martha Herbert, a Harvard Professor:

“Tracing health problems to genetically engineered foods is almost impossible right now, because these foods are not labeled and there is no way to keep track of them. So there is no scientific basis at this time for saying that these foods are problem-free [link added].”

The FDA isn’t the only one who lies, either. Back in 1990, Monsanto even said, “Food labeling has Monsanto’s full backing.” More like, Monsanto will twist the truth at every juncture, just like the politicians that support the biotech farce.

Many places in Europe already support the labeling of GMO foods, but there is another layer of evil to contend with in GMO food creation. If genetically modified apples mix with an organic apple orchard, which is inevitable since you can’t control bees, butterflies, and wind, then all we will have to eat is the fatal GMO variety. The USDA even considers GMO contamination completely normal.  Biotech doesn’t need a fairy tale to put us all to sleep – it’s crafting the fruit to put us all in our graves surreptitiously.

From around the web:

  • dave

    Would I eat it?, I have a hard enough time eating non/low nutritious and over pesticide sprayed apples of today. There are not any American tree grown apples that last past Feb/March before going bad. It’s amazing what irradiation and oxygen free rooms can do to an apple.
    When I bite into an apple and it doesn’t start turning brown from oxidation in a few minutes, it ends up in the trash. It’s bad enough that it takes 25 to 50 apples to equal the nutritional value of just one apple grown just a hundred years ago.

    • RealityCheck

      What are you even talking about?

      What scientific/nutritional research was conducted on apples in 1914?
      Coming up against facts, you just make something up? Is that really a wise course to take?

  • John Cook

    The shill that have been assigned to attack this site have a tame band of at least five up tickers. Those votes should be ignored along with the spurious comments they support.

    • Kip Hartwell

      Calling a shill, no mater what side, loses you any arguments. Godwin’s rule number 2.

      • John Cook

        I disagree, when posts that fundamentally go against the ideas of the great majority of the the people interested in this site get many up votes virtually instantly something is clearly going on.
        Ockhams razor trumps Godwins rule decisively.

        • Kip Hartwell

          True about ockham. Razor this; a vast conspiracy is against you, or you are Wong and have no evidence on your side. One seems simpler to me. We have shown evidence, while you have called for fear and ignorance. Sorry, I ain’t buying the fear you selling.

          • John Cook

            Why do you put so much effort into supporting GMO?

            • Kip Hartwell

              I actually spend a lot of time combating fear and anti-science lies all over the net. I do not like when people believe not true things. I try to live my life believing as few untrue things as I can. I have made friends and frenimies on all sides of many debates, no one side has a monopoly on truth and few like having their comfortable lies pointed out to them. As Dr. Suzuki points out, the lies and anger from both sides is hurting the science.

              I got into pro-GMO mostly because of the overwhelming amount of lying the anties do. If you look at the 3 big studies that “prove” harm you can see what I mean. No honest person can look at them and conclude what they advertise they show. If they have to lie, there is something wrong. I saw the same thing an the anti vaccination movement, and a few other anti science movements where it all boils down to “they are suppressing the truth” so buy our natural product.

              • John Cook

                Just a simple test: what do you think of 9/11?

                • Kip Hartwell

                  A live truther? I never met one of you before, almost did not believe you existed.
                  Good by.

                • John Cook

                  Lol, that’s pretty funny, I was just looking at an NBC Sports site that had an article about the “truther” that crashed the after game interview with some footballer. Of the hundred or so I read of the nearly a thousand comments every single post that expressed a view clearly for or against the idea that the US government was involved was up or down voted in favor of the “truther” idea. It varied between 80% down to 65% but ALWAYS in favor of the idea that the government WAS involved.
                  So you are totally outvoted. People ARE waking up. You may even realise that physics is real yourself one day. But I guess you are just too scared. Pathetic.

              • John Cook

                Re my opinion of GMO’s see above reply to Cairenn. You also made the (rather stupid) assumption I was just another “GMO fanatic” – you “skeptics” are very shallow in your understanding of many things but particularly of the mental competency of your opponents. It’s depressing.
                Please don’t use this post as an excuse to Blank Out the main question – what do you think of the official story of 9/11.
                That is the true measure of weather you are just a fool in denial of things “too scary to allow to be true” or actually a thinker.

  • Truth

    You guys must work for the FDA or Monsanto. My father is a Vietnam Vet and was exposed to Agent Orange. Because of this, my brother and I were automatically born with issues. Now, this is passed on to my children. MONSANTO produced agent orange and continues to damage our food supply with this shit. So, excuse me while I call you guys on your bullshit. This food is poison and is slowly killing everyone one of us everyday and no one cares because its ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!! So, when you asshats realize that the poison you place in your body finally kills you off, maybe then you sheeple will understand your idiocracy. Knowledge is power. Turning a blind eye is stupidity and you are the very people that will smoke the cigarette and then blame the cigarette company for smoking it. (That’s called a metaphor.) So, labels should be provided so that if I DON’T want to eat it, I have the right. America is still “free” at the moment…….

  • Kip Hartwell

    I would not only eat them but also would grow them if I could. And feed them to my children and family and friends. I want to know why people think they know best and want to destroy any research into these products.

    • Patrik Snellman

      The difference between live and dead foods are the active enzymes present in the food. Enzymes play a vital part in the digestive process, take away the enzymes and you wont digest that apple completely. If you don’t get enough enzymes with your food, your pancreas has to secrete more pancreatic juice to compensate for the lack of enzymes, this puts a lot of stress on the pancreas. If you’re always deficient in enzymes you will “wear out” your pancreas over time, this can lead to diabetes later on. I hope that helps.

      • Cairenn Day

        ‘Live and dead’ foods? Live foods are something that is still GROWING, once an animal is killed or a fruit is picked it is no longer ‘live’

        The enzymes are not alive, they are just CHEMICALS.

        • John Cook

          Stupid, fruit just picked is definitely “alive”

      • RealityCheck

        The pancreas does not get “stressed” by doing its job. That’s what it’s for. You will never ever “wear out” your pancreas. The mere thought is at once preposterous.

    • ipragmatist

      Have at it. We’ll be reading about you in the obituary section of your local paper.

      • Kip Hartwell

        Have you heard of or seen gmo harm anyone? Read this OP again. Now how many have organic contaminated food hospitalized or killed? Your risk assessment is poor.

        • John Cook

          So, tell me some examples.

          • RealityCheck

            How could one possibly give examples of something that has never happened? Are you drunk?

            • John Cook

              You are an intellectual criminal “realityCheck”. You just lie and play to the ignorance of the audience. You disgust me – it makes me feel dirty to even talk to you. I just don’t understand how you can live in your own head.

              • Cairenn Day

                You are the one that is insisting it is dangerous, it is UP to you to offer that evidence.

                Since you can’t seem to do it, I think that reasoning readers will see that you don’t have ANY.

                • John Cook

                  Why don’t you pay just a little attention to reality Cairenn, I have NEVER said that these GMO apples were dangerous. You just assume that. I have just objected to the preposterous distortions of your tribe of “debunkers”. My actual opinion in this general debate is that glycosphate is VERY dangerous Not GMO’s as such. There is ample evidence for the long term damage of roundup. See recent suppressed long term studies done on both GM corn and tiny quantities of roundup (far less than supposed “safe ” levels)

          • Kip Hartwell

            Not sure where to reply or who you all talked to down there…
            But, if you say GMO has not been tested, you must be intentionally not looking.
            This 600+ is older. It focused on NO CORPORATE involvement (so no Monsanto $) and published on higher impact rated journals.

            This one is newer and more world wide. Note 2000+ studies =/= none :)

            And a follow up on that one:

            And a Forbes summery if you don’t like reading that all:

            Look at the conclusion. Not understudied at all, in fact, just the exact opposite. Even David Suzuki (an mostly anti GMO guy) says we need to move forward on it, carefully. Pay attention to the Oz scientists call him out on this very question, when is enough safety tests enough?

            As I say below, if you find one side is lying, you need to know why. If you really want to see the science, why do you support Greenpeace terrorist destroying test plots of Golden Rice? Why? Because if the tests show it is safe AND helpful, they may have to look at what other safety issues they have overlooked.

      • Cairenn Day

        Since I am almost 63 and in good health, there is more chance of you dying from some contamination from your organic food, than there is me dying from eating GMOs.

        • John Cook

          What sort of “contamination”?

    • John Cook

      The opposite is true, it’s GMO that are not researched.

  • Lukas Kambic

    Here’s a link to the USDA’s draft environmental impact assessment for arctic apples:

    People have put quite a bit of work into addressing some of the concerns you mention in this article.

    Note that apples are almost always vegetatively propagated, so cross-pollination is not a big concern.

    I imagine Monsanto saw no reason to oppose labeling back before activist groups decided that GMOs- all of them- are the worst thing in the world. These apples are about as benign as it gets, but they’re still getting almost as much hate as herbicide-tolerant crops.

    • Bruce Stevens

      Your last paragraph is spot on Lukas. It amazes me how some people immediately equate Monsanto to any mention of GMO’s. And you’re right, these apples are just that – apples.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    There isn’t even any concern about them and you write this freak-out article over nothing. Talk about audience pandering. It’s just like what the GOP does on Fox News.

  • RealityCheck

    The only difference is that the apple does not produce, or produces less of, the enzyme polyphenol oxidase. This enzyme (PPO) is a tyrosinase. The same type of enzyme that produces excessive melanin, as in the case of melanoma.

    Since most of you believe that enzymes are absorbed into the body and maintain physiological function, couldn’t this, by your logic, cause cancer? Does the Arctic Apple not eliminate this risk?

    • Patricia P. Tursi

      The suppression of genes via a synthetic gene that represses the expression of polyphenol oxidase may transfer in humans and decrease the expression of enzxymes in humans and animals. The FDA and USDA regularly authorize new products without testing beyond the research performed by the company selling the product. This can explain, in part, why the US mortality rates are very high (we rank in the thirties) and why profit controls our markets and food safety…not benefits. The people who were appointed to head the USDA and the FDA were Monsanto associated. Twenty some Monsanto connected related professionals were appointed to head up our food, agriculture, water and medicine. The public is becoming aware that there is no real protection and that research challenging genetic modification is not published due to money. The delicious apple has been “changed” from the delicious apple of the 1800′s and is a prime example of the loss of a delicious apple by “improvement”. These apples will be boycotted from shipment over seas and will hurt us economically, but I buy local anyway.

      • RealityCheck

        That’s impossible. The body simply does not work that way.

        Wouldn’t e all be creamed corn by the time we’re 6 months old? Makes no sense.

    • ipragmatist

      That is the ONLY difference?! I, and MANY others, beg to differ with you. Read up on how Monsanto produces new GMOs….they haphazardly create them, have no idea what they did to create them and they don’t test much of what they introduce into our food supply. Fact is, we want to know what we’re eating and don’t want to eat food that has been DNA altered, regardless of your, or anyone else associated with such a horribly evil company as Monsanto. If you are ok with eating food that you don’t know what’s in it, go ahead. The rest of us will choose to eat food we can trust from companies we can trust. Fact is, the Monsanto Protection Act was passed to prevent us from suing them in the event the GMOs harm or even kill us. Sounds like they have a real trust in themselves and their poison over there at Monsanto, eh?

      • RealityCheck

        Monsanto didn’t even make these apples.

        Anyway, this apple was created with a specific intent and is being tested more than any other food in history of the planet.

        I do know what is in this food. Apple.

  • Cairenn Day

    The seeds are labeled, FARMERS choose them.

    Demanding to know about them in the end product is like demanding Ford tell you the breed of cow used for the leather seats in their cars.

    GMO foods are SAFE, in fact safer than organic crops. They cause less environmental damage than organic crops and the nasty pesticides used on them.

    • Patricia P. Tursi

      You obviously have not read the research. Are you aware that your health depends upon enzymes…living ,molecules which activate processes and metabolize ? Without them, you will not have healthy decomposition and absorb nutrients. The non-browning has to be due to eliminating an enzyme or enzymes. The first gmo food was a flavor-savor tomato and didn’t last long due its insipid cardboard flavor. Organic crops don’t use pesticides. Where do you think the increasing diseases are coming from? Give an animal the choice of healthy or organic food and gmo’s and they will choose the healthy food. Read research from Europe or the US. We are the only big country that does not give people a choice by labeling. ? I eat raw apples every day. I will not eat one that does not brown, because I know the health results.

      • Cairenn Day

        Enzymes are not living, they are just chemicals.

        Organics do use pesticides, some of which were discontinued by conventional farmers because of their danger and impact on no target species.

        I have read the research from the EU and it says that GMOs are SAFE

        Google EU GMO research

        “What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used.
        Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and
        processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the
        current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally
        synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur
        naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and
        the environment than those that have been created by man. As more
        research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true,
        either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or
        serious – health risks.2

        Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“.
        However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because
        it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living
        cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s
        Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.

        Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently
        approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the
        European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe.

        Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse
        than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian
        scientists pitted ‘reduced-risk’ organic and synthetic pesticides
        against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid.
        They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective
        means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid’s predators9.

        That is from an article in Scientific American

        If you Google it, you can get a list of pesticides used on organic crops.

        Organic produce also tends to have higher rates of contamination from manure.

    • BostonMami

      Great. GMO’s may be the answer to all of our problems. So label them. Those, like you, that believe they are wonderful will happily and merrily buy them and eat them knowing they are saving the earth and their fellow man. Those that don’t want to consume them will happily stay away from them. Personally I don’t want them banned, i want them labeled. The market will take care of the rest.

      • Cairenn Day

        They are labeled for the consumers of them, Farmers.

        If you don’t want to eat them then choose organic or non GMO labeled.

        I have on problem with voluntary labeling, whether it is for religious reasons, Kosher and Halal, or animal welfare; free range, humane slaughter; or for trade, free trade; environmental, shade grown; flavor, corn fed, grass fed, Angus; locality, Cal oranges, Olanthe corn, Rio Grande grapefruit, Noonday onions. I could go and on with voluntary labels we see all the time. Those are fine.

        I object to an expensive, for the government, and for the farmer, the miller, the producer and for the consumer, government mandated labeling program. Since a GMO papaya is not using the same addition/deletion as GMO corn, or sugar beets or the Arctic apple, a GMO label by itself is meaningless, UNLESS, you are wanting it to be equated with a ‘skull and bones’.

        • ipragmatist

          Religious reasons….ahhhh, NOW we know why you post such drivel. Go away.

        • John Cook

          Farmers are NOT the “consumers” of GMO apples, they are the producers. Such deliberate lies reveal you as a shill. Go away creep. You would not be reading this site if you weren’t here to do damage and confuse people.

        • Cyrax

          Stop spreading your beliefs. You’re a virus that needs to be stopped. I hope for the sake of mankind you don’t breed.

    • ipragmatist

      Another brain dead tard. Good try. Read up on the REAL research that is showing how completely damaging GMOs are to the human body and DNA. They alter the DNA in the GMOs….and our bodies respond to those GMO DNA changes by changing our own DNA. Yeah…glad you’re ok with that. I, and MANY others, aren’t.

      And interestingly enough, Monsanto hasn’t even done studies of any kind on many of their GMOs. And they greased the palms of our politicians to get the Monsanto Protection Act passed….which, by the way, prevents us from suing Monsanto, if their not-tested-on-humans GMOs cause death or damage to humans. AND…if they are soooo good for you, why is Monsanto spending MILLION$ to not have foods that contain their GMOs labeled as such?

      Doesn’t sound like such a bargain to me. I’ll stick to organics thank you very much.

      • Kip Hartwell

        Not tested? GMO is the most tested food you can eat. Try looking for information on science sights, not ‘natural news’.

      • Cairenn Day

        Gosh, why is it that so many of you that are against GMO crops use insults from a a grade school playground?

        Monsanto has done and funded studies, so has independent groups and the EU and they all agree, that there is NO health problem with GMOs

        “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” – American Medical Association, 2012

        • “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” — World Health Organization, 2013

        • “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” -American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2012

        The Royal Society of Medicine: ”Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.” (

        The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (

        International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.” (

        Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” (

        Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.” (

        “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:“Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.” (

        French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” (

        Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.” (

        International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.” (

    • John Cook

      What bullshit, what “nasty pesticides” are used on organic apples? What “environmental damage” is caused by organic apples?
      You are an incredible fool or a deliberate lier.

    • crnizec

      You must be heavly retarded. No offence.

      • Cairenn Day

        What a childish comment. Most children learn to stop saying that when they are around 12 years old.

        Are you 10 years old or just rude and insulting?

        I know a few moms that would be happy to get a piece of you if you are and adult.