1 July 1993 Specific Labelling for Genetically Engineered Foods 'Probably Unnecessary'

Special labelling for genetically engineered food is impractical and probably not necessary, say three scientists who have studied the issue.

Education and the free flow of information are the keys to public acceptance of genetically engineered foods, say Lincoln University biochemists Dr Jonathan Hickford and Dr Geoffrey Savage, who along with Dr Tony Conner of the Crop and Food Institute, recently presented a paper to the annual conference of the New Zealand Institute of Food Science and Technology.

Entitled "Labelling Genetically Engineered Foods", the scientists' paper makes the point that although dangers to humans of genetic engineering developments in food technology appear limited there is an "irrational public concern" which must be overcome before product marketing can push ahead satisfactorily. Such concern is seen in organised campaigns from animal rights lobbyists, the dissemination of emotive and sometimes ill-founded information, and anti-genetic engineering endorsements from misinformed but influential people.

The scientists say that to alleviate the problem the food industry will have to move quickly to assure the public of the safety of the new products through education and truthful dialogue.

They add that this might not be particularly problematic as New Zealanders are scientifically well informed relative to the people of many other nations.

"What is more," they say, "a recent survey showed that 75 percent of the public were aware that genetically modified organisms could be used to produce food and medicine and that in no case were more than half of those surveyed concerned about eating products of genetic engineering including meat, dairy products, vegetables and medicine."

The scientists point out that genetic manipulation of plants, animals and yeasts to improve food production is, in fact, a very ancient practice. From the dawn of agriculture farmers have chosen the most productive crop or animal to breed from each year. Similarly the baking and brewing industries have always chosen the best yeasts for their respective processes. Such practices amounted to the selection of the best genetic material.

"Modern genetic engineering is in essence no different, although far more sophisticated, particularly in relation to the speed with which beneficial traits can be selected and transferred."

In the United States the first genetically engineered food will probably enter the market this year. The new "Flavr Savr" tomato engineered by Calgene Fresh will be test marketed in the Midwest. This tomato has been engineered to have a reduced expression of the polygalacturonase gene.

The enzyme produced from this gene causes tomatoes to soften, so reducing its expression extends the time the tomato can remain in the distribution and retail network before it begins to deteriorate.

In New Zealand the first genetically engineered food material to be used may well be the potato. Approval has recently been given for planting a field trial of Sebago potatoes on Crown Research Institute land at Lincoln. These pioneering potatoes have been genetically engineered for resistance to serious virus that can cause heavy yield losses in susceptible cultivars, and they will be just the first phase of a number of potential releases from the potato genetic engineering programme at the Crop and Food Research Institute, Lincoln.

In their paper the scientists ask what aspects of food safety and labelling needed to be considered in the context of a number of emerging food lines genetically engineered in various ways. They say that to date no problems have been encountered scientifically with the transfer of genes to new hosts and that the moratorium on genetic engineering, imposed when the techniques were first developed, no longer exists.

The paper presenters lists three distinct types of genetically engineered food products which may be introduced to the market in the near future.

They are foods containing newly introduced DNA that does not cause a substance new to the food to be introduced but may alter an existing biochemical balance; foods containing DNA that does cause a substance new to the food to be introduced e.g. a crop which becomes resistant to some insects; and food additives or ingredients derived from genetically engineered organisms e.g. flavours, fragrances, colours and modifiers.

The third category falls into the general "additive" category and certainly in the United States, if not to such a rigid degree in New Zealand, the regulations about additives are well defined. The types of products in categories one and two present some new problems and some old ones to the food industry. In both categories humans will be eating new genetic material, material not previously present in that food. However the consumption of genetic material is not thought to be a problem.

"DNA and RNA are found in all living organisms," say the scientists, "and the source of the material is of no consequence to the digestive tract of animals or humans as it is degraded within the gut. There is no reason to suspect that introduced or foreign DNA that may be present in a foodstuff is not fully degraded in the digestive tract."

They point out, however, that as a safety measure a number of guidelines for the type of DNA to be placed in genetically modified organisms is being investigated e.g. using the smallest possible amount of foreign DNA to achieve the desired effect.

They acknowledge that new substances, either proteins or cellular metabolites, may be produced in engineered organisms and that the issue of substance toxicity becomes important.

"The producers of genetically engineered foods should remain wary of producing substances that may have new toxicological profiles," they say. "Preventing hazardous foods, either traditionally generated or genetically engineered, from entering the marketplace is a food safety issue which must always be addressed."

The American position is that foods which do not contain proteins that are known allergens or other toxicants require no special clearance and no special labelling.

The scientists see this as suggesting that existing regulations in New Zealand should be capable of covering the introduction of the new technology, and that the labelling of genetically engineered foods is therefore not necessary.

"With the exception of additives and foods for which specific nutritional claims are made, which must be labelled, they could be treated like any other food.

"The New Zealand Department of Health has indicated that the phrase 'may contain' genetically engineered material is sufficient in most situations. Indeed, while the consumer has a right to know what they are eating, the information needed may be impossible to carry on a label. How could a manufacturer accurately explain the contents of a bottle of tomato sauce that could contain 10 cultivars of tomato, three of which were genetically modified?

However, controls and regulations will not help market genetically engineered food to the public. Unless consumers feel comfortable with the products then resistance will develop.

That is why it is important to keep the public informed about all aspects of genetic manipulation of food so that they can appreciate and understand the processes involved and the very real advantages opening up to producers and to the consumers themselves – advantages like potentially less waste, less pesticide use, longer storage life, lower production costs and therefore lower purchase prices.

Ian Collins, Journalist, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand