Arctic Apples Explained: How the Non-Browning GMO Apple Was Made, Regulated, Labeled, and Where It’s Sold Today

In 2017, Washington orchards began shipping the first genetically engineered apples to U.S. stores. The Arctic apple, developed by a small Canadian company, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, was engineered not to turn brown when cut or bruised. Headlines at the time described a controversial lab-grown creation heading to store shelves nationwide.

Nearly a decade later, the Arctic apple has found a niche rather than a mass market: it is sold mainly as packaged slices, especially for school lunch programs and convenience stores, and it is not sold as whole fruit in most grocery produce sections. This article explains how the apple was engineered, how it was regulated and labeled, where it is sold today, and what its story reveals about genetically engineered fruit.

Are Arctic apples (non-browning GMO apples) safe? Yes. Arctic apples are genetically engineered to resist browning by silencing the enzyme that causes it, using RNA interference. Regulators found them as safe and nutritious as regular apples, and they must be disclosed as bioengineered. The main debate is not safety but whether non-browning fruit masks age or reduces a natural freshness cue.

Why Do Apples Turn Brown?

Cut apples turn brown when an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase reacts with oxygen; Arctic apples are engineered to make very little of this enzyme, so they resist browning. When an apple is cut, bitten, or bruised, cell walls are damaged and an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase (PPO) comes into contact with phenolic compounds and oxygen. The reaction produces brown pigments. Browning is harmless, but it makes sliced apples less appealing and leads to waste. Food companies selling sliced apples typically treat them with solutions such as calcium ascorbate, a form of vitamin C, to slow browning, which can slightly change flavor.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits set out to reduce PPO activity directly. As a Nature news blog described, the Arctic varieties carry a transgene that produces RNA molecules that silence the expression of several PPO genes. The technique, called RNA interference or gene silencing, reduces the amount of enzyme produced, so cut apple flesh stays light-colored. Company founder Neal Carter has emphasized that the trait lets food service companies sell sliced apples without browning inhibitors.

Regulatory Approvals

On February 13, 2015, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service deregulated Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny apples, concluding that they were unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and that deregulation would not significantly affect the environment. The FDA completed a voluntary food safety consultation, and Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency approved the apples in March 2015. Arctic Fuji received USDA deregulated status in September 2016, with the company and APHIS describing it as being as safe and nutritious as conventional apples. Shortly after the 2015 approval, Okanagan was acquired by the synthetic biology company Intrexon; in January 2020, Intrexon sold the company to an affiliate of Third Security, an investment firm.

The approval was notable because Okanagan was one of the few small companies to take a genetically engineered crop through U.S. regulatory review on its own, a process usually dominated by large seed companies.

From Orchard to Lunch Tray

Apple trees take years to produce commercial quantities of fruit, so Arctic apples reached the market gradually. In early 2017, the first sliced Arctic apples were test-marketed in a small number of Midwestern stores. Reports at the time noted that only about 250 acres of Arctic apple trees had been planted, compared with roughly 325,000 acres of apple orchards across the United States.

The company focused on packaged slices rather than whole fruit, since the non-browning trait is most valuable once apples are cut. According to a 2025 report in The Western Producer, the company says Arctic apple slices are sold in U.S. convenience stores but that school lunch programs are its main market; the slices can stay fresh for 28 days, and the company processes Arctic Fuji, Arctic Golden, and Arctic Granny slices while scaling up Arctic Gala. The company has also said it is working to bring the non-browning trait to cherries. According to the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a group that opposes genetic engineering, Arctic apples were not being sold in Canada as of 2025, though the company said it was exploring opportunities there.

How Are Arctic Apples Labeled?

Arctic apples must carry a “bioengineered” disclosure under U.S. labeling law, and the brand itself identifies them, so shoppers can tell them from conventional apples. When Arctic apples first launched in 2017, there was no mandatory federal GMO labeling in effect, and the packages did not carry a GMO statement. The company branded them prominently as “Arctic” and provided information through a QR code linking to a website, an approach critics said hid the genetic engineering from shoppers. The company argued it was being transparent through its branding and website.

Under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Arctic apples appear on USDA’s List of Bioengineered Foods, so products containing them require a bioengineered disclosure. Manufacturers can currently use text, the BE symbol, or digital options. In 2025, a federal appeals court ordered QR-code and text-message-only disclosures to be phased out, as explained in our article on the fight over GMO labels, which could make disclosures on products like Arctic apple slices more visible.

What Is the Controversy Over Non-Browning Apples?

The debate is mostly not about safety but about whether non-browning fruit could hide bruising or age, removing a natural visual cue, and broader unease about genetic engineering of fresh produce. Supporters argue that non-browning apples reduce food waste, make sliced apples more appealing for children and convenient for busy consumers, and remove the need for anti-browning treatments. If more apples are eaten because slices look fresh, public health could benefit. They also note that regulators found the apples as safe and nutritious as conventional varieties.

Critics raised several concerns when the apple was approved. Some apple industry groups worried that a genetically engineered apple could hurt the image of apples generally or complicate exports to markets that restrict GMOs. Others argued that browning is a natural indicator of damage or age and that preventing it could make older or bruised fruit appear fresher than it is. Organic growers worried about pollen from Arctic orchards reaching their trees; because apple fruit flesh comes from the mother tree, cross-pollination would not change the fruit itself, but seeds could carry the trait. Consumer groups criticized the initial reliance on QR codes rather than clear labels.

Other Non-Browning Foods

Product	Developer	Method	Status
Arctic apple	Okanagan Specialty Fruits	RNA interference (genetic engineering)	Sold as slices in the U.S.
Innate potato	J.R. Simplot	RNA interference using potato genes	Approved in the U.S. in 2014; sold in limited markets
Non-browning mushroom	Penn State researchers	CRISPR gene editing	USDA said in 2016 it would not regulate it; not commercialized
Non-browning banana	Tropic	Gene editing	Cleared in the Philippines; moving toward market

These products show how genetic technologies have targeted browning, a trait with clear consumer and waste-reduction appeal. Our article on gene-edited foods in 2026 describes how newer gene-editing methods differ from the genetic engineering used in Arctic apples.

Lessons From the Arctic Apple

The Arctic apple’s path illustrates several realities of genetically engineered foods. Regulatory approval does not guarantee market success; acceptance by growers, packers, retailers, and consumers matters as much. Products with consumer-facing benefits, such as less browning, have found niches, especially in food service settings where buyers value convenience and shelf life. Labeling choices can shape trust, and the shift toward mandatory, more visible disclosure may change how such products are perceived. And for small companies, the costs of regulatory approval and the long timelines of tree crops make success difficult without patient investors.

How Does RNA Interference Make Apples Non-Browning?

Arctic apples use RNA interference, a natural cellular process, to switch off the genes for the browning enzyme, so the apple makes almost none of it without adding any foreign protein. Cells use genes as instructions to make proteins through an intermediate molecule called messenger RNA. RNA interference is a natural cellular process in which small RNA molecules match and trigger the destruction of specific messenger RNAs, preventing the corresponding proteins from being made. Scientists can harness this process by adding a gene that produces RNA matching the target gene. In Arctic apples, the added sequence produces RNA matching apple PPO genes, so the apple makes much less PPO enzyme. The same principle was used in the Innate potato and in virus-resistant papaya, which helped rescue Hawaii’s papaya industry in the 1990s.

Are Arctic Apples Nutritious and Safe to Eat?

Regulators including the FDA and USDA assessed Arctic apples and found them as safe and nutritious as conventional apples, with no meaningful difference in nutrition apart from reduced browning. Regulators compared Arctic apples with conventional apples in composition, including sugars, acids, vitamins, and phenolic compounds. The apples were found to be nutritionally similar, with reduced PPO activity being the main difference. Because PPO reduction leaves more phenolic compounds intact after cutting, some researchers have suggested non-browning slices might retain slightly more of these antioxidants, though the practical health significance is unclear. The apples do not contain new allergens, since RNA interference reduces an existing protein rather than adding a new one, and the marker gene protein used in development has been widely evaluated in other crops.

The Sliced Apple Market

Pre-sliced apples have become a popular convenience food, particularly in school meals, fast-food kids’ meals, and snack packs. Conventional sliced apples are typically washed in solutions containing calcium ascorbate to prevent browning and kept refrigerated in modified-atmosphere packaging. Arctic apples aim to compete in this market by offering slices that resist browning without these treatments. Their success in school lunch programs reflects institutional buyers’ priorities: shelf life, appearance, and reduced waste. For whole fruit sold in grocery stores, where browning matters less until the apple is cut, the trait offers less obvious value to shoppers.

What It Means for Organic and Non-GMO Shoppers

Because Arctic apples are genetically engineered, they cannot be used in USDA certified organic products or in products verified by the Non-GMO Project. Shoppers who want to avoid them can choose organic apples or apple products, conventional whole apples from the produce section, where Arctic apples are not commonly sold, or sliced apple products whose labels do not include a bioengineered disclosure. Organic apple growers near Arctic orchards may take precautions, but since the fruit itself is not altered by cross-pollination, the main concern is seeds used for propagation, and commercial apple trees are propagated by grafting rather than from seed.

Why Few Genetically Engineered Fruits Exist

Arctic apples are among only a handful of genetically engineered fruits sold in the United States, alongside virus-resistant papaya and a pink-fleshed pineapple. Several factors explain the scarcity. Fruit trees take years to grow and evaluate, making development slow and expensive. Regulatory approval costs are substantial for small companies. Fruit is sold to consumers largely as whole, branded produce, making retailer and consumer acceptance especially important. Export markets with strict GMO rules can deter growers. Gene editing may change this picture by reducing regulatory costs in some countries, but fruit breeding timelines will remain long.

Questions Shoppers Might Ask

Is this product made with Arctic apples? Check the label for a bioengineered disclosure, the Arctic brand, or a QR code with product information. Are the apples treated with anti-browning solutions? Arctic slices are marketed as not needing them; conventional slices usually list calcium ascorbate or similar ingredients. How long will the slices stay fresh? Follow the use-by date and keep them refrigerated. Are they available in my area? Availability varies; they are most common in school meals and some convenience stores.

The Business Story

The Arctic apple’s commercial journey reflects the economics of biotechnology for specialty crops. After approval, Okanagan Specialty Fruits worked with growers to plant orchards, built processing capacity for slices, and focused on food service rather than retail produce. Ownership changed twice, first to Intrexon and later to an affiliate of Third Security. The company has said demand from school lunch programs has been strong and that it is expanding varieties, including Arctic Gala, and extending the non-browning approach to other fruits such as cherries. Whether this niche can grow into a larger share of the apple market remains to be seen.

Apples and Pesticides: A Separate Question

Discussions of Arctic apples sometimes become entangled with concerns about pesticides, but the non-browning trait does not change how apples are grown or sprayed. Conventional apples, genetically engineered or not, are often treated with fungicides and insecticides, and apples frequently appear on lists of produce with detectable pesticide residues, although residues are generally below regulatory limits. Shoppers concerned about residues may choose organic apples or wash and peel conventional ones. The genetic modification in Arctic apples addresses browning, not pest resistance or herbicide tolerance, which distinguishes it from many genetically engineered field crops discussed in our article on global GM crop trends.

A Case Study in Food Technology Communication

The Arctic apple’s launch offers lessons in how companies communicate about food technology. The company chose a distinctive brand name, emphasized consumer benefits, and initially relied on QR codes for detailed information, a strategy critics viewed as avoiding the term “genetically modified.” Opponents framed the apple as unnecessary and risky. Research on public attitudes suggests that transparency, clear explanations of benefits, and respect for consumer choice tend to build trust more effectively than either minimizing or dramatizing the technology. As more engineered and gene-edited foods reach the market, how companies and regulators communicate will influence public acceptance.

Common Misconceptions

“Arctic apples are lab-grown.” They grow on trees in orchards like other apples; only their genetics were modified.

“They never rot.” Arctic apples still ripen and decay normally; only enzymatic browning after cutting is reduced.

“They contain chemicals to stop browning.” The opposite: the trait is designed to avoid anti-browning treatments.

“They are sold everywhere.” They are sold mainly as slices in specific channels, not widely as whole fruit.

“Eating them changes your genes.” Like all food, their DNA and RNA are broken down during digestion.

Key Facts at a Glance

USDA deregulated Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny apples on February 13, 2015, and Arctic Fuji in September 2016; Canada approved the apples in March 2015. The apples use RNA interference to reduce polyphenol oxidase, the enzyme responsible for browning. Sliced Arctic apples were first test-marketed in 2017, when about 250 acres had been planted compared with roughly 325,000 acres of U.S. apple orchards. As of 2025, the company says school lunch programs are its main market, with slices lasting up to 28 days. Arctic apples were not being sold in Canada as of 2025. They appear on USDA’s List of Bioengineered Foods and require disclosure under the federal standard.

Readers who want to follow future developments, such as new varieties or other non-browning fruits, can watch USDA biotechnology announcements and agricultural trade reporting.

Further Reading

For readers who want to learn more, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service publishes its regulatory decisions and environmental assessments for genetically engineered plants, the FDA posts summaries of completed food safety consultations, and USDA’s List of Bioengineered Foods shows which foods require disclosure. Groups both supportive and critical of genetic engineering track the Arctic apple’s market status. Comparing these sources helps readers form their own views about a product that has been both celebrated and criticized since its approval.

The Arctic apple’s next chapters, including new varieties and possible expansion into other fruits, will add to this record and help show whether non-browning traits can move beyond their current niche.

A Balanced View

The Arctic apple is neither the dangerous creation some critics feared nor the transformative product its developers once hoped for. It is a modest innovation: a genetically engineered apple that resists browning, reviewed by regulators in two countries, and sold mainly as packaged slices for institutional buyers. Its story shows how genetic engineering can deliver specific consumer-facing benefits, how market realities limit adoption, and how labeling and transparency shape public perceptions. For shoppers, the practical question is simply whether they prefer non-browning slices or conventional and organic alternatives, a choice made easier by clear labeling.

As similar products, including gene-edited fruits and vegetables, move toward market, the Arctic apple’s experience will likely serve as a reference point for developers, regulators, and consumers alike.

Tips for Parents and Schools

Because school lunch programs are a major market for Arctic apple slices, parents may wonder whether their children are eating them. Schools and food service providers can tell families which suppliers they use, and packaging for products containing Arctic apples should carry bioengineered disclosures under the federal standard. Parents who prefer that their children avoid genetically engineered foods can ask schools about alternatives or pack lunches. For most families, the more important nutrition question is simply whether children are eating enough fruit, and appealing, non-browning slices may help some children eat more apples. Families can weigh these considerations based on their own values.

School nutrition staff can also share information about how produce is selected, stored, and served, which can help families understand the trade-offs institutions make between cost, shelf life, waste, and appeal to children.

What Comes Next for Non-Browning Fruit

The non-browning concept is spreading beyond apples. Developers are applying similar traits to other fruits and vegetables, including bananas and potatoes, using both older genetic engineering and newer gene editing. Because gene-edited products may face lighter regulation and different labeling rules in some countries, future non-browning fruits could reach markets faster than the Arctic apple did. Consumer acceptance, retailer interest, and transparent labeling will again shape their success. The Arctic apple’s decade-long journey from approval to niche success provides a realistic benchmark for what new products may experience.

For readers trying to make sense of genetically engineered foods more broadly, the Arctic apple offers a concrete example: a specific trait, a clear consumer benefit, a documented regulatory review, and a market outcome shaped by economics and public attitudes. Examining individual products in this way, rather than treating all genetically engineered foods as a single category, leads to more informed conclusions about which innovations are useful, which raise concerns, and how they should be labeled and regulated.

That product-by-product approach is also how regulators evaluate new foods, and it can help consumers navigate an expanding range of choices.

Whether one welcomes or opposes genetically engineered fruit, the Arctic apple shows the value of clear, accessible information. Labels that state plainly how a product was made, combined with public access to regulatory documents, allow people to make choices that reflect their own priorities, whether those priorities are convenience and reduced waste or avoiding genetically engineered foods altogether. Clear information also lets researchers and the public evaluate claims about the product over time.

In the meantime, shoppers who encounter Arctic apple slices can read the label, consider the trade-offs described here, and decide for themselves whether non-browning convenience matters to them, with the reassurance that regulators in two countries reviewed the apple before it reached the market.

Arctic Apple Varieties

The first Arctic varieties approved were Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny, followed by Arctic Fuji. The company has since developed Arctic Gala and has said it plans additional varieties and other non-browning fruits. Each new variety requires the non-browning trait to be introduced into that apple type, because apple varieties are propagated by grafting rather than by seed.

Key Terms

Polyphenol oxidase (PPO): The enzyme that causes cut fruit to brown.

RNA interference: A cellular process that silences specific genes, used to reduce PPO in Arctic apples.

Deregulation: USDA’s determination that a genetically engineered plant does not need further regulation as a plant pest.

Bioengineered food: USDA’s term for foods requiring disclosure under the federal standard.

Grafting: Propagating fruit trees by attaching a cutting of one variety to rootstock, the standard method for apples.

The Bottom Line

The Arctic apple was the first genetically engineered apple approved in the United States, engineered with RNA interference to resist browning. Since its 2017 launch, it has found a niche as packaged slices, especially in school lunch programs, rather than as whole fruit in grocery stores. Regulators found it as safe and nutritious as conventional apples, while critics have focused on labeling and market concerns. Under federal rules, products containing Arctic apples require bioengineered disclosure, and changes ordered by a 2025 court ruling may make that disclosure more visible.

How Other Countries Treat GM Apples

Outside the United States and Canada, few countries have approved genetically engineered apples for cultivation or sale. Many export markets, including the European Union, require authorization and labeling for genetically modified foods, which helps explain why apple industry groups in exporting regions were concerned about potential trade complications. Because Arctic apples are sold mainly as domestic slices for food service, these export concerns have had limited practical impact so far. Regulatory approaches to gene-edited fruits, which may be treated differently from older genetic engineering in some countries, could shape the next generation of non-browning and other improved fruits.

Consumer Perspectives

Surveys conducted by the company before launch suggested strong consumer interest in non-browning apples, while opponents argued that consumers did not want genetically engineered fruit and deserved clear labels. Real-world sales have been modest but steady, concentrated in institutional channels where purchasing decisions are made by food service buyers rather than individual shoppers. This pattern highlights a broader point: genetically engineered foods often succeed first where convenience and cost matter most and where individual consumer choice plays a smaller role. Transparent labeling can help individual shoppers decide for themselves.

Reducing Food Waste

Supporters frequently cite food waste reduction as a key benefit. Large amounts of fresh produce are discarded each year due to cosmetic damage, bruising, and browning at various points in the supply chain. Non-browning traits could reduce some of this waste, particularly for cut fruit. Other approaches to reducing waste include better cold chain management, edible coatings that slow ripening, improved packaging, and consumer education about the safety of slightly browned fruit, which is harmless to eat. A combination of strategies is likely needed to make meaningful progress.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Arctic apples?

Arctic apples are a brand of genetically engineered apples designed not to turn brown when cut or bruised. They are made by using RNA interference to silence the gene for polyphenol oxidase, the enzyme responsible for browning. Varieties include Arctic Golden, Granny, and Fuji, sold mainly as pre-sliced apples and in some whole-fruit and snack forms.

Are non-browning GMO apples safe to eat?

Yes. U.S. regulators, including the FDA and USDA, evaluated Arctic apples and found them as safe and nutritious as conventional apples. The genetic change only reduces the browning enzyme and does not add foreign proteins or alter nutrition in meaningful ways. There is no evidence that eating Arctic apples poses health risks.

How do Arctic apples stay from turning brown?

Browning happens when an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase reacts with oxygen in cut or bruised apple flesh. Arctic apples are engineered using RNA interference to switch off the genes that make this enzyme, so the fruit produces almost none of it. As a result, slices stay fresh-looking much longer without added chemicals.

Are Arctic apples labeled as GMO?

Yes. Under the U.S. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Arctic apples must carry a “bioengineered” disclosure, and the Arctic brand name also identifies them. So shoppers who want to avoid genetically engineered produce can recognize and skip them, while those who do not mind can choose them for their non-browning convenience.

Why are some people concerned about non-browning apples?

The main concerns are not about proven safety but about whether non-browning fruit could mask bruising, decay, or age, removing a natural visual cue people use to judge freshness. Some consumers also have broader unease about genetically engineering fresh produce. Supporters argue the apples reduce food waste and that labeling lets people choose.

References

1. Nature. Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. 2015. blogs.nature.com
2. KelownaNow. Summerland’s Arctic Apple Granted Approval in the U.S. February 13, 2015. kelownanow.com
3. Perishable News. Arctic Fuji Gains USDA Approval. September 27, 2016. perishablenews.com
4. The Western Producer. Canadian apple a hit at U.S. schools. May 16, 2025. producer.com
5. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. GM Apple. cban.ca
6. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. List of Bioengineered Foods. ams.usda.gov

Last updated: October 6, 2026