Flavr Savr (also known as CGN-89564-2; pronounced "flavor saver"), a genetically modified tomato, was

the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human
consumption. It was produced by the Californian company Calgene, and submitted to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992.[1] On May 18, 1994,[2]the FDA completed its evaluation of the
Flavr Savr tomato and the use of APH(3')II, concluding that the tomato "is as safe as tomatoes bred by
conventional means" and "that the use of aminoglycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II is safe for use as a
processing aid in the development of new varieties of tomato, rapeseed oil, and cotton intended for
food use." It was first sold in 1994, and was only available for a few years before production ceased in
1997.[3] Calgene made history, but mounting costs prevented the company from becoming profitable,
and it was eventually acquired by Monsanto Company.

Characteristics

Through genetic engineering, Calgene hoped to slow down the ripening process of the tomato and thus
prevent it from softening, while still allowing the tomato to retain its natural colour and flavor.[3] The
tomato was made more resistant to rotting by adding an antisense gene which interferes with the
production of the enzyme polygalacturonase. The enzyme normally degrades pectin in the cell walls and
results in the softening of fruit which makes them more susceptible to being damaged by fungal
infections. Some unmodified tomatoes are picked before fully ripened and are then artificially ripened
using ethylene gas which acts as a plant hormone. Picking the fruit while unripe allows for easier
handling and extended shelf-life. Flavr Savr tomatoes, on the other hand, could be allowed to ripen on
the vine, without compromising their shelf-life. The intended effect of slowing down the softening of
Flavr Savr tomatoes would allow the vine-ripe fruits to be harvested like green tomatoes without greater
damage to the tomato itself. The Flavr Savr turned out to disappoint researchers in that respect, as the
antisensed PG gene had a positive effect on shelf life, but not on the fruit's firmness, so the tomatoes
still had to be harvested like any other unmodified vine-ripe tomatoes.[4] An improved flavor, later
achieved through traditional breeding of Flavr Savr and better tasting varieties, would also contribute to
selling Flavr Savr at a premium price at the supermarket.

The FDA stated that special labeling for these modified tomatoes was not necessary because they have
the essential characteristics of non-modified tomatoes. Specifically, there was no evidence for health
risks, and the nutritional content was unchanged.[3]

The failure of the Flavr Savr has been attributed to Calgene's inexperience in the business of growing
and shipping tomatoes.

Tomato paste[edit]
In the UK, Zeneca produced a tomato paste that used technology similar to the Flavr Savr.[6] Don
Grierson was involved in the research to make the genetically modified tomato.[7]Due to the
characteristics of the tomato, it was cheaper to produce than conventional tomato paste, resulting in
the product being 20% cheaper. Between 1996 and 1999, 1.8 million cans, clearly labelled as
genetically engineered, were sold in the major supermarket chains Sainsbury's and Safeway UK. At
one point the paste outsold normal tomato paste but sales fell in the autumn of 1998.
The House of Commons of the United Kingdom published a report in which they stated that the
decline in sales during this period was linked to changing consumer perceptions of genetically
modified crops.[8] The report identified several possible factors, including product labeling and
perception of choice, lobbying campaigns, and media attention. It concluded that the tone of media
reports on the subject underwent a "fundamental shift" in response to a high-profile incident in which
Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a researcher for Rowett Research Institute, was fired after making a televised
claim about detrimental health effects in lab rats fed a diet of genetically modified potatoes (see
the Pusztai affair). Subsequent peer review and testimony by Dr. Pusztai led the House Science and
Technology Select Committee to conclude that his initial claim was "contradicted by his own
evidence." In the intervening period, Sainsbury's and Safeway both pledged that none of their house
brand products would contain genetically modified ingredients.[9]

The FLAVR SAVR tomato was the first genetically engineered crop product to be
commercialized. The research and marketing efforts that produced the FLAVR SAVR
tomato resulted in scientific success, a temporary sales success, and then commercial
demise. The FLAVR SAVR story reveals how difficult it can be to bring genetically
engineered products to market, how objections with little or no scientific merit can influence
the outcome, and how important public opinion is in determining commercial success.

Circumstantial evidence available in the 1980s suggested that the tomato fruit enzyme
polygalacturonase (PG), because of its ability to dissolve cell-wall pectin, was key to fruit
softening. Researchers at Calgene, Inc., in Davis, proposed to suppress PG accumulation
in ripening tomatoes by introducing a reverse-orientation copy of the gene, an “antisense”
copy designed to prevent or drastically reduce the formation of PG.

Their expectation was that ripe fruit would remain firm longer, perhaps even allowing it to be
transported to market after vine-ripening. Transporting vine-ripened fruit would avoid the
practice of picking green fruits and artificially ripening them by ethylene treatment, which
gives a ripe tomato color but not the full array of vine-ripened tomato flavors.

By 1987, Calgene researchers identified and cloned a tomato fruit PG gene, developed
methods for tomato transformation and regeneration, and produced tomato plants with
inserted PG antisense DNA constructions. Some of the resulting tomato lines generated as
little as 1% of the PG found in conventional tomatoes. Based on the results from eight
contained field trials, in October 1992 the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that
the PG-antisense tomato lines were not a “plant-pest” risk and no longer required permits
for field testing or transport.

In May 1994, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, responding to a Calgene petition,
approved the introduction of kanamycin-resistance gene constructions needed to create the
PG-antisense tomato lines.

Kanamycin-resistant organisms in human and animal guts and in soil were determined to be
so common and abundant that they would overcome any potential influence of the
corresponding genes in engineered crop plants. Allergic reactions to the kanamycin-
resistance protein were also determined to be highly unlikely.

Data submitted by Calgene, including animal feeding studies, showed the PG-antisense
tomato to be indistinguishable in almost every way from traditional tomatoes. The
exceptions were that fruit cell-wall pectin degraded more slowly, and tomato paste had a
higher viscosity (Redenbaugh et al. 1992; Martineau 1997).

Paralleling Calgene's efforts to develop the PG-antisense tomato lines, the company began
to gain experience in the conventional fresh-market tomato business and to meet with
community leaders, media representatives and consumers in Davis and Chicago, the two
sites selected for initial introduction of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. On May 21, 1994, the
genetically engineered FLAVR SAVR tomato was introduced. Demand for this product was
high and remained high, but the product was never profitable because of high production
and distribution costs.

In 1996, Zeneca, under license, introduced in the United Kingdom paste from PG-antisense
tomatoes grown and processed in California, in collaboration with the grocery chains
Sainsbury's and Safeway. More than 1.8 million cans, clearly labeled as derived from
genetically engineered tomatoes, were sold from 1996 through early 1999. Reduced
processing costs allowed a 20% lower price. The paste from genetically engineered
tomatoes initially out-sold conventional tomato paste at many locations, but sales of this
product declined dramatically in fall 1998. Subsequently, Safeway and Sainsbury's declared
that their house brands would not have genetically engineered ingredients, to satisfy the
stated concerns of some customers rather than for any reason of food safety.

A report of a select committee of the U.K. House of Commons (1999), suggests that the
decline in sales of the Zeneca tomato paste can be traced to an August 1998 British
broadcast featuring Dr. Arpad Pusztai and subsequent media attention to the broadcast. He
announced his conclusion that feeding rats genetically modified potatoes resulted in
biological effects that “could” be attributed to the process of genetic engineering, rather than
to the product of the introduced gene (Ewen and Pusztai 1999). Subsequently, independent
analysis of the data, commissioned by Dr. Pusztai, and his testimony to the select
committee (U.K. House of Commons 1999), both indicate that the conclusions stated in the
broadcast are incorrect. However, the Zeneca product has not returned to grocery store
shelves, with a corresponding loss to California agriculture.
Flavr Savr tomato
The Flavr Savr tomato was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a
license for human consumption. By adding an antisense gene, the California-based company
Calgene hoped to slow the ripening process of the tomato to prevent softening and rotting, while
allowing the tomato to retain its natural flavor and color.

HOME

SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES

PROS, CONS AND MY VIEWS

GLOSSARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCE ANALYSATION

GM CROPS

ADVANTAGES

Picture

Source- http://luisbarbosa2.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/flavr-savr-tomato.html

The first advantage of the Flavr Savr tomatoes is that they remain firm even after ripening, which
means they could be picked of the vines by farmers and transported to stores after the whole
ripening process had been completed (Breuning, 2000). This means farmers would have more time
to transport these tomatoes and allow for their farms to be located in remoter areas (Gupta, 2010).
Another positive is the fact that artificial ripening of the tomatoes could be avoided and this would
allow for the full flavours to be produced, benefitting customers (Pendick, 1992). By avoiding the
artificial ripening, it is financially beneficial to the farmers. Another advantage is that customers
would also benefit as they could store these tomatoes for longer, therefore having an increased
amount of time in which they can be used (Breuning, 2000). So along with the natural flavours
created through the full ripening process of the tomatoes, customers would also receive tomatoes
with a longer shelf life.

DISADVANTAGES

Picture

Source- http://theenvirogirlsgmtomatoes.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/lets-ofcourse-start-with-good-
things.html
A public concern and a factor in the eventual failure of the Flavr Savr tomatoes was that these
genetically modified tomatoes could cause unknown effects on the environment and humans who
consume them (Gupta, 2010). As genetically modified crops were fairly new in 1994, there was not
enough confidence in the testing of these plants and that there was a chance that undesired traits
could be produced (Bruening, 2000). For example, these tomatoes may trigger an allergic reaction
from someone who may not normally be allergic to tomatoes, or affect the quality of the soil they are
grown in (Gupta, 2010). Another disadvantage was the cost of these tomatoes for farmers
(Bruening, 2000). The production of the antisense versions of the tomatoes was a lot more
expensive for farmers which would financially have a negative effect, especially on poorer tomato
farmers (Breuning, 2000). These poorer tomato farmers may not be able to keep up with the bigger
producers, who can afford to invest in these new tomatoes. Another negative financial effect is the
cost of these tomatoes in grocery stores. Consumers would have to pay more for these tomatoes, as
farmers would have to increase prices to keep up with the higher production costs. This would
essentially have a disadvantage on consumers who receive a product with possible health risks at a
higher cost.

MY VIEWS

I believe that the Flavr Savr tomatoes should still be produced as they give many benefits to
customer, such as better quality in taste and flavours. These tomatoes can also be stored and
soused after long amounts of time. These are some reasons why the Flavr Savr would improve the
current tomato market. However there needs to be a balanced production on normal tomatoes and
Flavr Savr tomatoes, as this would give customers a choice in deciding which tomato is more
equipped for them. For example, a mother might not choose to buy Flavr Savr tomatoes as they are
more expensive and she might have concerns regarding the health risks associated with the genetic
modification of these tomatoes. This leads to my last point, which is that these scientists need to
perform accurate and thorough testing on these tomatoes to discover any unknown traits or effects
the Flavr Savr tomato can have. As more and more tests are taken, the characteristics of these
tomatoes can be determined and this would also increase consumer confidence if tests prove no
health or environmental hazards linked with the tomatoes. Overall, I believe that the production of
Flavr Savr tomatoes is convenient for the customer however restrictions need to be in place to
assure a variety of options for customers.

ADVANTAGES
Source- http://luisbarbosa2.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/flavr-savr-tomato.html

The first advantage of the Flavr Savr tomatoes is that they remain firm even after
ripening, which means they could be picked of the vines by farmers and transported to
stores after the whole ripening process had been completed (Breuning, 2000). This
means farmers would have more time to transport these tomatoes and allow for their
farms to be located in remoter areas (Gupta, 2010). Another positive is the fact that
artificial ripening of the tomatoes could be avoided and this would allow for the full
flavours to be produced, benefitting customers (Pendick, 1992). By avoiding the artificial
ripening, it is financially beneficial to the farmers. Another advantage is that customers
would also benefit as they could store these tomatoes for longer, therefore having an
increased amount of time in which they can be used (Breuning, 2000). So along with the
natural flavours created through the full ripening process of the tomatoes, customers
would also receive tomatoes with a longer shelf life.

DISADVANTAGES
Source- http://theenvirogirlsgmtomatoes.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/lets-ofcourse-start-
with-good-things.html

A public concern and a factor in the eventual failure of the Flavr Savr tomatoes was that
these genetically modified tomatoes could cause unknown effects on the environment and
humans who consume them (Gupta, 2010). As genetically modified crops were fairly new
in 1994, there was not enough confidence in the testing of these plants and that there
was a chance that undesired traits could be produced (Bruening, 2000). For example,
these tomatoes may trigger an allergic reaction from someone who may not normally be
allergic to tomatoes, or affect the quality of the soil they are grown in (Gupta, 2010).
Another disadvantage was the cost of these tomatoes for farmers (Bruening, 2000). The
production of the antisense versions of the tomatoes was a lot more expensive for
farmers which would financially have a negative effect, especially on poorer tomato
farmers (Breuning, 2000). These poorer tomato farmers may not be able to keep up with
the bigger producers, who can afford to invest in these new tomatoes. Another negative
financial effect is the cost of these tomatoes in grocery stores. Consumers would have to
pay more for these tomatoes, as farmers would have to increase prices to keep up with
the higher production costs. This would essentially have a disadvantage on consumers
who receive a product with possible health risks at a higher cost.

MY VIEWS
I believe that the Flavr Savr tomatoes should still be produced as they give many benefits
to customer, such as better quality in taste and flavours. These tomatoes can also be
stored and soused after long amounts of time. These are some reasons why the Flavr
Savr would improve the current tomato market. However there needs to be a balanced
production on normal tomatoes and Flavr Savr tomatoes, as this would give customers a
choice in deciding which tomato is more equipped for them. For example, a mother might
not choose to buy Flavr Savr tomatoes as they are more expensive and she might have
concerns regarding the health risks associated with the genetic modification of these
tomatoes. This leads to my last point, which is that these scientists need to perform
accurate and thorough testing on these tomatoes to discover any unknown traits or
effects the Flavr Savr tomato can have. As more and more tests are taken, the
characteristics of these tomatoes can be determined and this would also increase
consumer confidence if tests prove no health or environmental hazards linked with the
tomatoes. Overall, I believe that the production of Flavr Savr tomatoes is convenient for
 the customer however restrictions need to be in place to assure a variety of options for
customers.

Pros
Even though the Genetically Modified Tomatoes are not a current product used world wide by
society, it has offered the world many positive impacts. The GM tomatoes did not offer the
community tomatoes with a longer shelve for consumers but also allowed the genes inserted to
create a tomato who required more time for it to be altered by the environment. The "Flavr Savr"
has let other scientist take off into their own research about genetically modifying other two
organisms between each other all with a purpose to achieve a goal. Also, these tomatoes caused a
greater resistance to the outworld towards the diseases found in the pest thus saving a devastating
financial lost for farmers and starvation from the impacts on their crops. [4] Also, farmers reduced
the cost-effective that they had to pay annually to be able to remove the weeds that have a
negative impact towards their crops. This decreases the time consuming and expensive process that
farmers require to go through in order to have a none-harm tomato. By offering genetical
engineering to the word, scientist will now try to enrich the tomatoes with other substances and
offer health benefits fro this.

Cons
The better health channel stated that the "original" nutrition value from the tomatoes was lost once
the tomatoes genes were altered within one another. [12] The alteration caused the tomato to loose
it original nutrients value that it used to contained. Another disadvantage from these tomatoes
where that experiments later on proofed that it had negative impacts on living organisms. When rats
where fed genetically modified tomatoes, 7/40 died within two weeks and other developed stomach
lesions and bleeding stomach. [11] This outcasted the world that, although the the genetically
modified tomatoes improved the economy for farmers, it caused health risk and
increased possibilities of dying or obtaining diseases

In 1994, Calgene, a California company, brought the first genetically engineered crop to market,
the Flavr Savr tomato. The company's researchers were able to inhibit a gene that produces a
protein that makes a tomato get squishy. This tomatocaused an enormous media stir.Jun 24,
2013

Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense polygalacturonase gene:

The FLAVR SAVR™ tomato story

Abstract
The FLAVR SAVR™ tomato was developed through the use of antisense RNA to
regulate the expression of the enzyme polygalacturonase (PG) in ripening
tomato fruit. This enzyme is one of the most abundant proteins in ripe tomato
fruit and has long been thought to be responsible for softening in ripe tomatoes.
The FLAVR SAVR™ tomato is the first genetically engineered whole food to be
sold in commerce. The history of the development of this product is discussed
beginning with the results of theoriginal antisense work (including conclusions
regarding the role of PG in ripe tomatoes) and will be followed by a description
of the regulatory and food safety assessment. Finally, the development of an
operating business to produce, market and distribute a genetically engineered
whole food product is discussed.

Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense polygalacturonase gene:

The FLAVR SAVRTM tomato story Matthew G . Kramer & Keith Redenbaugh Calgene, Inc.,
1920 Fifth Street, Davis, CA 95616, USA Key words: Fruit ripening, antisense,
polygalacturonase

Abstract

The FLAVR SAVR TM tomato was developed through the use of antisense RNA to regulate the
expression of the enzyme polygalacturonase (PG) in ripening tomato fruit . This enzyme is one
of the most abundant proteins in ripe tomato fruit and has long been thought to be responsible for
softening in ripe tomatoes . The FLAVR SAVRTM tomato is the first genetically engineered
whole food to be sold in commerce . The history of the development of this product is discussed
beginning with the results of the original anti sense work (including conclusions regarding the
role of PG in ripe tomatoes) and will be followed by a description of the regulatory and food
safety assessment . Finally, the development of an operating business to produce, market and
distribute a genetically engineered whole food product is discussed .

Introduction

The FLAVR SAVRTM tomato is the first genetically engineered whole food to be sold in
commerce following FDA approval on May 18, 1994 . FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill .) are defined as tomato cultivars or progeny of tomato lines
genetically engineered using an antisense polygalacturonase gene isolated from tomato (Sheehy
et al ., 1987) . These tomato cultivars were developed to improve flavor and taste in fresh market
tomatoes . The polygalacturonase (PG) gene was isolated from tomato and reintroduced in the
antisense orientation . PG is the major enzyme involved in pectin metabolism during fruit
ripening and has historically been associated with fruit softening (Hobson, 1965 ; Brady et al .,
1985) . The use of an antisense strategy to reduce the expression of the PG gene in tomatoes
causes decreased pectin solublization in the ripening fruit which in fresh market tomatoes results
in ripe fruit that remain intact for extended periods of time (Kramer et al., 1992) . In terms of a
commercially viable product, the technology allows for the production of fresh market tomatoes
which can be vine-ripened for enhanced flavor and have a longer shelf life yet still survive the
traditional distribution system intact.

Development and characterization

 Plant material used for both research and product development has included both processing and
fresh market tomato varieties . Initial transgenic lines were generated by Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation to develop a set of commercially viable breeding lines which have been
used in an ongoing breeding and variety development program . In addition, the developmental
material has allowed for what is probably the most extensive safety evaluation of tomato that has
ever been undertaken . This was necessary because not only has the antisense technology never
before been applied to a whole food product, but in addition it has been necessary to demonstrate
the precision and safety of techniques which utilize Agrobacterium-mediated transformation as a
method of creating new and novel genotypes and genotypic combinations . As a result, the
FLAVR SAVRTM tomato currently available in the market represents a unique combination of
tradition- 2 9 4 al plant breeding technologies and the techniques of molecular biology and
genetic engineering . Initial tomato lines for both phenotypic characterization and product
development were produced through transformation with a PG antisense construct pCGN 1416
(Sheehy et al ., 1988) . Approximately 50 independent transformation events were generated for
line selection in each variety transformed . Plants were then selected for further evaluation based
on the levels of PG activity, whole plant morphology and kan' segregation ratios . Plant material
selected based on these criteria served as the initial population on which the bulk of phenotypic
characterization was carried out (Kramer et al ., 1990) . Homozygous progeny of selected
transformants were then used to produce seed for further field testing and development . More
than 10 experimental field trials and over 400 acres of commercial production have been
conducted by Calgene, Inc . with FLAVR SAVRTM tomato cultivars in the principal tomato
producing regions of California, Florida and Mexico . The experimental field trials have been
conducted both to determine the phenotypic effect of an antisense PG gene on fresh market and
processing tomatoes as well as to determine the effect of the transgene and the transformation
process on overall horticultural performance . In terms of phenotypic evaluation, it has been
demonstrated that the absence of PG in the ripening fruit imparted improved field holding and
firmness as well as improved resistance to certain post harvest fungal pathogens (Kramer et al .,
1990, 1992) . In addition, when processing characteristics were evaluated, it was discovered that
the absence of PG resulted in significant improvements in both juice consistency and serum
viscosity as measured by Bostwick and Ostwald values respectively (Kramer et al ., 1990) . With
respect to horticultural performance, observations conducted during all trials and commercial
production demonstrate that cultivars developed through transformation with the antisense PG
gene exhibit similar horticultural traits when compared to the identical non-transformed
genotypes. No unpredicted changes were observed to have occurred, as documented in the field
trial reports submitted to the USDA APHIS, subsequent publications (Kramer et al ., 1990,
1992), and Calgene's Request for Advisory Opinion filing with the FDA. More detailed analysis
of the fruit expressing the antisense PG gene demonstrated that expression of the antisense PG
gene affects only the composition of pectin in the fruit (Kramer et al ., 1990, 1992) . The gene
has no effect on levels of vitamins and nutrients, on production of potential toxins (tomatine), on
taste, on non-pectin related processing traits, on horticultural traits (growth form, time to
flowering, time to fruit set, etc .), fruit pH and acidity, and fruit color and size (Redenbaugh et al
., 1992) . In fact, in its environmental assessments, the USDA concluded, `The antisense PG
gene does not provide the transformed tomato plants with any measurable selective advantage
over nontransformed tomato plants in their ability to be disseminated or to become established in
the environment' (USDA APHIS, 1991)
. Safety assessment

Environmental release Historically, the USDA APHIS BBEP (United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology, Biologics, and
Environmental Protection) has regulatory oversight of release of genetically engineered plants
into the environment, as per Vol . 7 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 340. Using these
regulations, the USDA has approved over 1100 field trials of genetically engineered plants in the
United States, without any adverse effects . In terms of release of genetically engineered plants
into the environment, the greatest concern has always been the potential to inadvertently produce
a new weed or somehow increase the competitiveness of existing weeds (Colwell et al ., 1985) .
Plant breeders have a long history of using a variety of plant breeding techniques to select and
produce plant cultivars with improved resistance or tolerance to external factors that inhibit their
inherent productivity and/or competitiveness . Examples include such traits as resistance to
insect and disease pests, heat, cold and drought tolerance as well as earliness and winter
hardiness . In theory, such improved cultivars are better adapted to persist in the presence of
disease, insects and a variety of environmental conditions which would normally decrease
productivity and competitiveness . Although there is no evidence that demonstrates that
incorporating these types of traits into crops has created cultivars which pose a risk of enhanced
weediness (USDA APHIS, 1991), each gene/crop combination has been evaluated on a case by
case basis . Since the techniques of molecular biology and genetic engineering are highly
specific in terms of what genes are being transferred,

Why have tomatoes been genetically modified?

A genetically modified tomato, or transgenic tomato, is a tomato that has had its
genes modified, using genetic engineering. The first commercially
availablegenetically modified food was a tomato engineered to have a longer shelf
life (the Flavr Savr)

How is the Flavr Savr tomato made?

The FLAVR SAVR tomato was the first genetically engineered crop product to be
commercialized. ... By 1987, Calgene researchers identified and cloned a tomatofruit
PG gene, developed methods for tomato transformation and regeneration, and
produced tomato plants with inserted PG antisense DNA constructions.

What gene is inserted into tomatoes?

To create the transgenic tomato, a gene from E. coli (a bacterium which occurs
naturally in the mammalian gut) called kan(r) and the FLAVR SAVR gene (from a
tomato) were inserted into a plasmid (a circular ring of DNA) and plasmids like these
were inserted into a group of tomato cells in a growth medium containing an .
What is frost plus bacteria?

Ice-minus bacteria is a common name given to a variant of the

common bacteriumPseudomonas syringae (P. syringae). ... The ice nucleating nature
of P. syringae incites frost development, freezing the buds of the plant and destroying
the occurring crop.

CREATE A FREE WEBSITE

POWERED BY