Onions that produce fewer tears when chopped; broccoli that decreases cholesterol; small melons that are perfect for two people and change color when they’re ripe. These are some of the fruits and vegetables that agriculture giant Monsanto, St. Louis, MO,is releasing into the American grocery chain.
 
And who doesn’t want them? It sounds like these products are beneficial to consumers. But the question of genetic engineering looms over them, as well as what Monsanto’s potentially huge output will do to independent farmers.
 
Despite concerns, the products rolling out in markets now are not genetically modified. “Monsanto has until this point shied away from attempting to bring any genetically-engineered (GE) vegetable to market,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety, Washington, D.C. He pointed out that the company is, however, conducting field trials on various GE vegetables and has done so in the past.
 
The produce on the market now is created using a tool called “marker-assisted selection,” he added. “While genetically engineered crops may pose health threats, and so need more stringent testing, I don’t see any safety problems with marker-assisted selection.”
 
‘Best of the Best’ in Nature
 
Marker-assisted selection involves mapping desirable traits in produce to chromosomal regions known as genetic markers, then using this map to speed up the traditional breeding process and create “the best of the best.” So for example, a type of super pepper may be created by breeding together a pepper that provides high levels of vitamin C with another that grows quickly.
 
According to Mr. Freese, genetic engineering uses foreign genes, for example, from soil bacteria, primarily to create plants that survive direct spraying with weed-killing pesticides.
 
Marker-assisted selection, he said, “is actually a good argument against genetic engineering, because you can use knowledge of plants at the genetic level to breed desirable varieties more quickly than you could in the past, but without using the potentially hazardous process of genetic engineering. Scientists have successfully used marker-assisted selection in situations where a genetic engineering approach has failed, so it can be more effective as well as safer than genetic engineering.”
 
Monsanto has put a lot of work into these products. “These [products] are all bred together,” said David Stark, consumer benefits platform lead for Monsanto. “It’s really using our knowledge of biochemistry and molecular biology that lets us know what to look for. It’s not just luck; we are doing the analysis so we know what the best of the best is.”
 
Most of what Monsanto is doing is “standard hybridization and selective breeding of mutants,” said Paul Thompson, a professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who teaches history and philosophy of science and ecology and evolutionary biology. “This is taking advantage of what’s out there in nature,” he added.
 
“It’s breeding that’s so much more predictive because the tools (knowledge and technology) we have are so much better,” said Mr. Stark. “In genetic modification, we can find the gene, remove it and insert it into another plant exactly. In breeding, we take the pollen and the flower and do it exactly the same way we’ve been doing it for years.”
 
And while Monsanto is looking for additional benefits for consumers with these products—be it fewer tears or single-portion sizes—taste is paramount, he added. “The main focus is taste. We don’t want to lose that at the expense of nutrition.”
 
A new lettuce from the company, for example, will not contain the gene that provides bitterness in lettuce, which Monsanto has isolated, but will contain the sweetness and crispness of iceberg lettuce, and the vitamin A, vitamin C, folate and fiber of romaine.
 
Sensitive to Public Concern
 
Monsanto planned the launch of these fruits and vegetables carefully. In the 1990s the company encountered bad press when its genetically engineered BT potato, made with Bacillus thuringiensis—a bacteria found naturally in soil—was shunned by large food corporations like McDonald’s and Pringles.
 
Then in 2005 Monsanto purchased Seminis, the biggest fruit and vegetable seed company in the world. “In the years after the purchase, Monsanto realized that consumers didn’t want GE vegetables,” said Mr. Freese, “so they shifted more to marker-assisted selection, though continuing to do some field trials of GE vegetables.”
 
Dr. Gurian Sherman, senior scientist in the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., agreed. “Probably Monsanto is sensitive to the fact that consumers are still very wary of the technology to the extent they know about it. Half of the public says they don’t want to eat foods with genetically modified materials. And surveys show more than 90% of people want these foods to be labeled.”
 
Despite this apparent move away from genetic modification, Monsanto is still very firmly entrenched in that science. It has plans to soon release a genetically modified corn to what Mr. Freese described as “an unwilling public.”
 
In fact, a coalition (which includes the Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, CREDO Action, Food Democracy Now! and Food & Water Watch) has collected more than 264,000 petition signatures from consumers who refuse to purchase the corn and are asking retailers and food processors to reject it.
 
On top of that, two major national food companies, General Mills and Trader Joe’s, have already indicated that they will not be using the Monsanto genetically modified sweet corn in their products.
 
The Future of Food (Concerns)
 
A critical issue with Monsanto’s move into the fruit and vegetable arena is that consumers could end up losing thousands of varieties of foods they eat. “Monsanto is producing a lot of varieties but it’s a monopoly,” said Matthew Dillon, cultivator for Seed Matters with Clif Bar Family Foundation, Emeryville, CA. “It’s hard to have a level playing field when Monsanto has so many resources. The risk of having a singular company in control is that we may have fewer varieties going forward.”
 
Small farmers could also be hurt badly. George Novakovich is the third generation owner of Novakovich Farms in Saratoga, CA, a small producer of cherries, apricots, peaches and nectarines.
 
“I’m sure [Monsanto] will affect my business,” he said. “They come in and drive a lot of guys out because they can do it by sheer numbers. There’s no way a little guy can compete with the resources a place like that has.”
 
However, Billy Tate, owner of Moondance Farm in Acme, WA, isn’t too concerned. “I have to believe it’s not going to affect my business. I select my market and focus on everything local, everything organic and direct to the consumer.”
 
His concerns about Monsanto are bigger, he said. “I’m not worried about competing with Monsanto. I’m more worried about the environmental impacts that a company like that is placing on the earth.”
 
What’s also concerning is that consumers—some of whom are vehemently anti-Monsanto because of the company’s practices that force small farmers out of business—probably won’t even know if they’re purchasing Monsanto products.
 
Stickers will indicate the company’s produce, and the company makes point-of-purchase information available to be displayed with them in grocery stores. But even Mr. Stark of Monsanto said, “the consumer might not find it.”
 
The produce will first roll out in the St. Louis area, Southern California, Texas and the Pacific Northwest, and will gradually expand from these two test areas, he said. Consumers everywhere need to be both educated and aware.