How Organic Insider operates: We accept no advertising, we have no paywalls and we make our newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider supporting our work, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.
In June, Kraft Heinz announced it will not launch any new products in the U.S. with Food, Drug & Cosmetic (artificial) colors, effective immediately, and will remove remaining Food, Drug & Cosmetic colors from its U.S. portfolio by the end of 2027.
With similar announcements coming from other major food corporations, many imagined a return to natural colorings from sources such as carrots, beets and turmeric. Yet, the carefully worded press releases could mean something quite different.
One likely pivot for these companies is to use colorants produced by genetic engineering via a process known as “precision fermentation.” (Precision fermentation was the subject of a white paper by New Hope Network, which defended the use of this genetic engineering technology in the natural products industry.)
Not surprisingly, a handful of biotech startups are seeking to capitalize on this extremely large market, including Michroma (a precision fermentation company that uses synthetic biology and CRISPR), Chromologics (precision fermentation), and Phytolon (precision fermentation using modified baker’s yeast).
And they are positioning themselves as a new and viable option that is in compliance with current plans of the FDA, which has come out against synthetic, petroleum-based colors in favor of natural alternatives.
Some industry observers, however, have very serious concerns about what is being communicated.
According to Alan Lewis, vice president of government affairs at Natural Grocers and someone who closely monitors the GMO 2.0 space, “What we have seen in certain media outlets and on the websites of some of these biotech companies is a belief that genetic engineering, via synthetic biology or precision fermentation, somehow produces ‘natural’ food colors. This is absolutely preposterous and very deceiving to shoppers.”
(Taken from an article in the AgFunderNews website about Michroma)
So far, the FDA has not specifically addressed food colors derived from genetically-engineered, precision fermentation methods, but ultimately, Congress has the final say when it comes to banning GMO colors and no such law is being discussed.
INHERENT COMPLICATIONS
While these biotech companies aim to satisfy both FDA policies and the needs of their Big Food clients, educated consumers are increasingly looking for food colorings that are not only non-synthetic but non-GMO and offer full transparency as well.
Unfortunately, significant regulatory and labeling challenges stand in the way, and even if colors from precision fermentation are produced using genetic engineering, they may not be labeled as such.
That is because under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, bioengineered foods containing undetectable modified genetic material do not require disclosure. Furthermore, according to the Non-GMO Project, new genomic techniques such as CRISPR, TALEN and RNAi are currently untestable, and without a commercially available test, those foods do not mandate a bioengineered food label.
As a result, some precision fermentation companies may declare that their food colors are non-GMO.
But independent certifiers view things differently.
“Precision fermentation companies that utilize genetic engineering in any part of their process will be denied Non-GMO Project verification,” said Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project.
RISING PUSHBACK
Consumer advocates are already signaling they will not let the issue go unchallenged, and among them, Vani Hari — the influential activist who led the protest against Kellogg’s synthetic food colors — is not sitting by idly.
“If Big Food thinks they are going to switch from artificial food dyes to risky and unproven genetically-engineered colors — without anyone noticing or understanding what is going on — there will be massive backlash again. This movement is about improving our food system and protecting consumers, and anything less than that will be met with fierce resistance.”
In the 2010s, the fight for GMO-labeling galvanized shoppers nationwide.
Today, precision fermentation’s use of ‘natural’ could trigger a similar wave of scrutiny — the very thing the GMO industry hopes to avoid.
 |
With gratitude, 
Max Goldberg, Founder |
In an incredibly alarming study by the Clean Label Project, 100% of organic coffee samples tested positive for AMPA, a glyphosate byproduct.
The funding came from AgDevCo, and the money will be used for working capital and to grow the network of smallholder farms in Sierra Leone.
Looming food regulatory changes and social media-driven consumer behavior changes are reshaping the intricate web of ingredient sourcing, manufacturing and marketing, and shifting supply chains, said Keychain CEO Oisin Hanrahan.
Burkina Faso ordered a Gates Foundation-funded research program to stop its activities in the West African nation, with all samples to be destroyed.
What may be even more impressive is that 14% of its organic vineyards employ Biodynamic growing methods.
The company's organic Icelandic skyr is now sold nationwide at Whole Foods Market, marking 5,000 shelves in all 50 states.
The EPA's unlawful registration of 2,4-D and glyphosate products threatens farmers, public health and the environment.
Among other things, the Organic Farming Research Foundation believes the USDA's reorganization will erode institutional capacity agency-wide, hinder grant administration and delay on-the-ground assistance for farmers.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into the two companies for allegedly misleading consumers about the safety of their products.
“It’s outrageous,” said Tracey Woodruff, a researcher at the University of California San Francisco who studies environmental health, particularly the effects of chemical exposures on pregnant mothers and their babies. “If they overturn this, it would leave the public responsible for cleaning up, not the companies that knowingly polluted the land.”
Want to share this newsletter on social media? You can use this link: Newsletter Link
