Pumplin: Public and industry response to purple tomatoes are questions waiting for answer

The Packer’s Tom Karst visited in August with Nathan Pumplin, president of Norfolk Healthy Produce, about his company’s work on a genetically modified purple tomato.

The USDA recently released its response to the agency review of the purple tomato and determined that it may be safely grown and used in breeding in the United States. The agency said it did not identify any plausible pathways the purple tomato had that increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated tomatoes. Because of that, the agency said the plant is not subject to regulation. Norfolk is now awaiting guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and hopes to have limited commercial supply available in 2023, Pumplin said.

In this second part of the interview, Pumplin looks at the regulatory path, the market acceptance and sustainability issues related to the purple tomato from Norfolk Healthy Produce.

KARST: Would you say that the path to commercialization for this genetically modified purple tomato is most open in the U.S.?

PUMPLIN: Yes, the U.S. offers a clear path to market. The regulatory landscape is absolutely critical, to ensure safety of new products and public acceptance. We have been focused on the USDA and FDA processes.

The USDA issued a new set of regulations governing biotechnology in crops, which went into effect in 2021. This SECURE Rule clarifies the first step in the process for evaluating whether new crops made with biotechnology pose a plant pest risk, whether through CRISPR gene-editing or bioengineering. Our purple tomato received the first decision released under these new rules earlier this month. The USDA determined that this plant may be safely grown and used in breeding in the United States. We have also submitted information to the FDA under their Consultation Program, and we are looking forward to receiving their response.

By contrast, in Europe, there is currently no path to commercialize biotechnology-enabled products, whether bioengineered or CRISPR gene-edited. The United Kingdom is interesting, because after Brexit, the U.K. said, ‘OK, before we’ve been aligned with European regulations, now that we’re separated, we’re going to revisit [the issue],’ and they’ve actually opened a path to CRISPR gene-edited products in agriculture in a way that’s diverged from Europe. There are other countries with a path to market, such as Canada. As a very small, early stage company, it’s important for us to focus first on a specific market, and that is the U.S.

KARST: Are you funded with some seed money now from private equity?

PUMPLIN: We have funding from a small group of angel investors, mostly scientists and people in the industry, who support this technology and who see the potential positive impacts and understand the risks. We are now starting to raise a round of funding to support test marketing of our prototype products.

KARST: How soon do you think the purple tomato will be on the market in the U.S.? Do you think it will happen in 2023?

PUMPLIN: We are planning limited test markets for the purple tomato in 2023 and 2024. It will take some time before the tomatoes are available in broader retail, because we want to ensure we can deliver a consistent, high-quality product before we scale.

KARST: In your research so far, do you feel like the risk of this variety changing other tomato varieties near where they are cultivated minimal?

PUMPLIN: It’s a good question. That risk is extremely low, and it is the same risk of growing two different types of conventional heirloom tomatoes next to each other. Domesticated tomatoes primarily self-pollinate, so cross-contamination of pollen is inherently low risk. In addition, there is no fitness advantage to the purple tomatoes, and there are no wild populations of tomatoes in the U.S.

KARST: How do you feel about the level of public acceptance of biotech produce?

PUMPLIN: This is the biggest question, and I see people asking at two levels: What is the public perception, and then, what is the industry perception of the public perception? It’s really important to separate those two.

So let me start with public perception. The Pew Research Center has done a lot of studies on the consumer perception of biotechnology, in GMOs and foods. The main question they ask is, ‘Do you think a GMO is healthier or less healthy than a non-GMO?’ The responses are pretty well mixed: 50% of consumers say they think GMOs are worse for you, and 50% think they’re either better or they’re the same as conventional. We know that consumers are not homogenous, they’re highly segmented. There’s never going to be 100% of consumers wanting to eat GMOs, nor will 100% of consumers buy exclusively organic. What we’re seeing is 50% of consumers are open to biotechnology and open to products like ours. And the younger generation is more and more open to this technology. It’s also shifting as people become more and more comfortable with biotechnology, and more concerned about urgent problems of food security, sustainability and nutrition.

The question, then, is on the industry side: How does the industry perceive the public perception? That is something which is changing quickly. We have conversations now around the major challenges facing the industry, including nutrition, sustainability and productivity, and how new technologies like gene editing and CRISPR may contribute. We have bioengineering labeling laws, and retailers are growing more comfortable with boxes of cereal and Impossible Burgers and all these products that contain bioengineered ingredient labels. As more biotech produce gains traction in the market, like the Pinkglow pineapple marketed by Del Monte, the more comfort will develop in the industry.

Our company is offering a choice to those consumers who are aligned with our vision, which is, it’s great to have more nutritious and tasty choices, more sustainable choices, and biotechnology is one safe and acceptable source of biodiversity. How many consumers does that resonate with? Is it 5%, 20%, 40%? That’s a big question that we need to address. Available data leads us to believe it’s a significant segment of customers.

KARST: How does the purple tomato relate to the sustainability issue?

PUMPLIN: The immediate [connection] is shelf life. Around 40% of all produce goes to waste and doesn’t get consumed, which represents a lot of waste in the system. Our purple tomatoes have extended shelf life compared with red tomatoes. And so, the easiest answer is, if we can reduce food waste, that’s a low-hanging fruit, no pun intended, to increase sustainability.

One more dimension beyond the purple tomato: There are a lot of related biotechnologies that can have a huge impact on sustainability. If you look at reducing water use, reducing losses to pathogens and application of pesticides in production systems, that’s a big opportunity that bioengineering can help with. If there’s an opportunity to show some consumers, in some segments, would welcome a bioengineered tomato, because they love the purple, they love the nutrition, they love the shelf life, then, in the future, we could have the opportunity to add in various other advantages, reducing water use and reducing pesticides, in the case of open field production.

KARST: How about Norfolk Healthy Produce, in terms of being a marketer of the purple tomato; do you see it as a branded product from your company?

PUMPLIN: Yes, we’re going to start with our own brand. And the reason is, it’s not a product that fits into any existing brands today. Because it is a different, premium product, we really want to own the brand, own the story, be able to tell it in a way that’s faithful to the mission of the company, faithful to the vision that Professor Cathie Martin started with. That will help us connect with our early customers and learn how we can best meet their needs.

Source: The Packer
By Tom Karst