Corn That Glows In The Dark? Gene Transfer Raises Concern

If a tomato were partly a fish, would you care? And should it be labeled?

Yes, says a Seattle vegetarian chef.

It's not a serious concern, says a scientist at Washington State University.

These are some of the questions arising as genetically engineered foods come closer to being marketed. None are in stores yet, but a genetically altered tomato is expected soon. Developed by the Calgene company, this tomato plant has had one of its genes removed and reinserted backward, to slow the ripening process.

More startling to some is the transfer of genes from one species to another - even from animals to plants. Researchers at one company have moved a gene from a flounder fish into a tomato plant to give the plant greater cold tolerance. Even though the tomato won't sprout fins, the idea of its minute, fishy component strikes many as strange.

Other bio-engineered foods that are moving toward field tests: potatoes with a waxmoth gene; rice with a pea gene; corn with a firefly gene (a "marker" gene that makes a plant glow in the dark, indicating a successful gene transfer). The U.S. Agriculture Department has even tried putting a human growth-hormone gene in pigs, to stimulate faster growth.

Each gene carries only a single, specific trait of an organism.

Disease resistance (requiring fewer pesticides), drought tolerance, larger size, longer shelf life, better color - these are some of the goals of genetic engineering.

Last week, 1,000 chefs from across the country - including a few famous ones, such as Los Angeles' Wolfgang Puck, but none from Seattle - vowed to boycott genetically altered potatoes and tomatoes if they come on the market.

Some worried they would be liable if allergens were inadvertently transferred to foods, causing allergy problems for customers.

Jim Goodwin, assistant manager of a Seattle vegetarian restaurant, Five Loaves Deli & Bakery, said he would "strongly object" to serving plant foods containing animal genes - mainly because his customers expect purely vegetarian foods. He said genetically altered foods should be labeled as such.

Goodwin thinks genetic tinkering is unnecessary, although he reluctantly accepts the conventional cross-breeding that has gone on for centuries.

Laurrien Gilman, owner of Seattle's two vegetarian Gravity Bar restaurants, considers genetic engineering "kind of a threatening thought. I don't know who's doing it. I don't trust who's doing it. I don't know what their goals and motives are."

Davis Samson, sous chef at a nonvegetarian restaurant, the popular Cafe Sport, said he also would want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, but he wouldn't object to them in general.

"I'll give it a shot if the public accepts it," he said. "As long as they know what they're getting. If they like it, that's fine. We're in this business to serve the people."

A Washington, D.C.-based organization, the Pure Food Campaign, is spearheading a movement against genetically manipulated foods. One concern raised by a spokesman was that the foods might violate the dietary rules of religious groups. For instance, would Jews object to corn containing a pig gene?

Seattle Rabbi Moses Londinski said yesterday he doubted that would be a problem. "It definitely would not affect the kosher status" of foods, he said. The Jewish prohibition against pork involves whole flesh, not a single gene, he said. Londinski, an Orthodox rabbi, often supervises production of kosher food in the Northwest.

Like some chefs, a national allergy organization, the Food Allergy Network, is worried about the inadvertent transfer of allergens to foods. Although the most common allergens, such as peanuts, milk, eggs, soy and seafood, are widely known, almost anything can be an allergen to somebody, said the network's founder, Anne Munoz-Furlong.

"People have reacted even to broccoli," she said. "That's why labeling is so important."

But a Bellevue allergy specialist, Dr. Garrison Ayars, said, "I think they're making a mountain out of a molehill. . . . Sure, there's a theoretical risk, but I would think it's so low. . . . Yes, if they know they're transferring an allergenic protein, then label it." Otherwise, he thinks labeling is unnecessary.

The Bush administration announced in May that it would allow the sale of many genetically altered fruits, vegetables and grains - in most cases without labeling or special safety testing.

The policy calls for developers of such products to notify the Food and Drug Administration if they plan to transfer a gene from a common allergen, such as peanuts, and to label the product, but this would be voluntary.

In addition to labeling, the Pure Food Campaign wants safety testing for all such products and says they should be treated as food additives, subject to the same testing requirements.

But scientist R. James Cook says the worries about genetic engineering are unfounded. Employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cook works at WSU in a research program looking to control root diseases of wheat through biotechnology - including the transfer of certain bacteria genes to wheat plants.

Because biotechnology is so specific - transferring only selected genes - the risk of problems such allergen transfer is very tiny, Cook maintains. The cell of every plant or animal has hundreds of thousands of genes. The likelihood that any one of them would be the cause of an allergy is extremely small, he said.

Like many scientists, Cook emphasizes that genetic engineering - a term he doesn't like very much - is really just a faster, more efficient way of accomplishing what agronomists been doing for centuries: combining the traits of different varieties of plants or animals, through cross-breeding.

"The method does not determine the risk - it's the product you get that counts," he says.

He concedes, though, that biotechnology allows a major difference from the past: transfers of traits between different species - bacteria and wheat, for instance - something not possible before.

He says it's true that unexpected, sometimes unwanted, results can occur, but so can unexpected benefits. He opposes mandatory labeling and safety testing of all bio-engineered foods, saying the cost and bureaucratic tangle would slow needed agricultural progress.

The Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comment on proposed genetic engineering policy, including labeling, through Aug. 27. Comments may be sent to: Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, Room 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD 20857.