Claims of Safety and Sustainability of SynBio “Impossible Burger” Questioned

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Friends and Colleagues

Claims of Safety and Sustainability of SynBio “Impossible Burger” Questioned

Dozens of startups like Impossible Foods are using synthetic biology (synbio) to produce food, fibre, medicines and other goods (Item 1). Often, synbio involves a protein produced by plant or animal cells that imparts a certain desired quality. Once identified, the gene sequence for that protein is created chemically in a lab, sometimes modified, and then inserted into yeast, bacteria or algae cells. Then, a fermentation process turns the microbes into tiny factories that mass-produce the desired protein, which is then used as a raw material, such as a food ingredient.

The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger, the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH), which is derived from genetically engineered yeast. The burger has been launched in New York restaurants. However, a rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, as well as changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, as well as possible signs of anemia (Item 2). The company however dismissed these statistically significant effects as “non-adverse”. Its conclusion of safety is nonetheless questioned due to the short duration of the feeding study and the small number of animals used. Only a longer-term study with a larger number of animals can clarify the significance of the effects seen.

Impossible Foods recently introduced Impossible Burger Version 2.0. In addition to GMO-derived SLH, the burger now contains another GMO ingredient: protein from herbicide-tolerant soy. As a result, it may contain residues of the “probable carcinogen” glyphosate, the main ingredient of the herbicide used on GM soy (Items 2 & 3).

Every synthetic biology operation using fermentation has to feed its microbes to make them grow. U.S. synbio companies largely use sugar from GM corn because of its abundant supply, but GM crops have potential health and environmental impacts. Other concerns over synbio products abound. For example, the rise of synthetic biology for products such as vanilla, coconut oil and silk poses a threat to the livelihoods of smallholder and indigenous farmers if those engineered products replace their natural counterparts.

Scientists are calling for companies to conduct full life-cycle assessments of their synbio products, including both environmental and socioeconomic impacts. This is especially critical as companies scale up and increased demand for their products could require them to make sourcing changes that have sustainability implications.

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.twn.my/and http://www.biosafety-info.net/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

———————————————————————————————————————— 

Item 1

JUST HOW SUSTAINABLE IS THAT SYNBIO STARTUP?

Meg Wilcox
Green Biz
23 July 2019
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/just-how-sustainable-synbio-startup

Demand for Impossible Foods’ plant-based burger is exploding, so much so that the company has been hard-pressed to fill orders.

Still privately owned, the startup is perhaps the best-known example of a company employing synthetic biology (synbio) to produce a consumer good with a smaller overall environmental footprint. Impossible’s burger requires 87 percent less water, 96 percent less land and produces 89 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent beef burger, according to a life-cycle analysis conducted by metrics firm Quantis.

On the face of it, synthetic biology — a rapidly evolving science that applies principles of genetic engineering to create life forms from scratch — offers great promise for helping society address urgent sustainability challenges. “It stands to revolutionize agriculture, energy production, water filtration and a variety of resource-intensive industrial processes,” as GreenBiz Chairman and Executive Editor Joel Makower wrote last year.

Indeed, dozens of startups are using synthetic biology to produce food, fiber, medicines and other goods. Many state missions of overcoming sustainability issues associated with traditional production processes. Tinctorium, for example, produces blue jeans with a synthetic indigo dye made with microbes rather than toxic chemicals and petroleum products; Bolt Threads produces a high tensile “Spider Silk” from bacteria; Decomer makes an alternative plastic packaging from microbes; and Evolva produces synthetic spices such as vanillin.

Investments in such companies reached $3.8 billion in 2018, and industry leaders such as Arvind Gupta, founder of the synthetic biology incubator IndieBio, see unlimited potential. Gupta told GreenBiz he sees “a $100 trillion-dollar opportunity” in the technology and believes that it will disrupt traditional industrial processes, writ large, over the next 25 years. “Alternative proteins, energy, all of the technologies that are nascent now will become the backbone of significant new industries,” he said.

Despite such high expectations — and, some may say, hype, as few startups to date have achieved Impossible Foods’ breakout success — questions remain about unintended consequences of synthetic biology, as well as consumer attitudes towards goods made with altered genes.

For companies considering investing in, partnering with or acquiring a synbio startup, issues worth investigating include sustainability of feedstocks, safeguards for preventing accidental release of gene-edited organisms, potential human health impacts and potential disruption to agricultural communities.

But first, how does it work?

To understand the potential for unintended consequences, it’s important to understand how the process works.

While synthetic biology applications span from simple gene-editing combined with fermentation processes, to cellular meats grown in a lab from the stem cells of animal muscle, to so-called “gene-drive” applications intended to change an organism’s genetics in the environment (such as mosquitoes that spread malaria), this article focuses on products and processes that rely on gene editing combined with fermentation.

For such processes, synthetic biologists identify the gene sequences that give materials certain qualities, such as the flavor of vanilla, the hue of indigo plant leaves or the tensile strength of silk.

Often, it’s a protein produced by plant or animal cells that imparts the desired quality. Once identified, the gene sequence for that protein is created chemically in a lab, sometimes modified, and then inserted into yeast, bacteria or algae cells. Then, much like brewing beer, a fermentation process turns the microbes into tiny factories that mass-produce the desired protein — which is then used as a raw material, such as a food ingredient or a building block for a new material.

The Impossible Burger, for example, contains an engineered heme, a protein originally derived from soy plant roots, to give it the look and feel of meat. The heme is one ingredient of the soy-based burger. Bolt Threads produces Spider Silk, a high-tensile fiber spun from synthetic silk proteins churned out by engineered bacteria.

Feedstock sustainability

Every synthetic biology operation using fermentation has to feed its microbes to make them grow. Think wheat or barley for beer brewing.

U.S. synbio companies largely use sugar from GMO corn because of its abundant supply, says Bolt Threads on its website.

Some companies, such as KnipBio, creator of an alternative feed for farm-raised fish, are using more sustainable feedstocks, such as waste methane gas and corn silage. “Feedstocks that don’t compete with humans — that has to be part of the consideration. We have to make things more efficient,” said Larry Feinberg, CEO and co-founder of the company.

The reliance on GMO corn leads some to question whether synthetic biology operations simply might replace one form of unsustainable agriculture with another, particularly as they reach greater scale.

Studies have shown that GMO corn and its dependence on glyphosate + 2, 4-D and other toxic herbicides has led to biodiversity loss, potential harm to soil health (PDF) and water pollution, with potential implications for human health.

“If we now have to scale monoculture 2,4-D corn to feed these fermentation tanks,” noted Rebecca Burgess, founder of Fibershed, an organization promoting natural fiber production, “what does that mean for the [U.S.] Midwest or the Cerrado in Brazil?”

Life-cycle analyses in short supply

Few synbio startups other than Impossible Foods have conducted life cycle analyses, although many claim on their websites that they’re “super sustainable.”

The nascent industry may not yet view the importance of life-cycle analyses. As Gupta told GreenBiz, “If you can replace all plastic packaging with something that’s completely biodegradable and edible, and made from a plant-based substance that’s extremely cheap and abundant, you don’t have to do something super complicated to convince someone that this will be good for the planet.”

Todd Kuiken, senior research scholar at the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, disagrees. “It’s not as simple as saying, we’ll just produce this from algae now,” he said. “There are impacts, there are winners and losers, all of that needs to be evaluated and put on the table so people can make a decision with all of that information in front of them.”

Kuiken, who previously led the Wilson Center’s Synthetic Biology Project, believes companies should conduct full life-cycle assessments of their products, including both environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

This is especially critical as companies scale up and increased demand for their products could require them to make sourcing changes that have sustainability implications.

Impossible Foods, for example, originally said it would not use GMO soy. But as demand for the burger skyrocketed, the company reversed course on that decision.

Potential for release into the wild

The unintentional release of gene-edited organisms into the environment is a concern with any form of genetic engineering.

KnipBio CEO Larry Feinberg said, however, that ensuring microbes are dead before release outside the lab is “microbiology 101,” like milk pasteurization. Nevertheless, “there should be, and will be, safety redundancy built into containment at an industrial biotech operation,” he added.

Moreover, research shows that modified bacteria tend to revert back to their “wild type” when they’re no longer housed in the optimized conditions created in the lab.

Piers Millet, director of safety and security at iGem, a nonprofit organization that runs a global synthetic biology competition, agrees. “One of synthetic biology’s biggest challenges is getting the new traits to stick past a few generations. In almost every case, the alterations you’re making make those organisms less suitable for natural environments,” he said.

Kuiken said he’s most worried about release associated with gene-drive applications, but reactor vessel safety is nevertheless important for fermentation applications.

Health impacts?

Bacterial engineering processes have been established for more than 40 years, particularly for medicines such as insulin. We’ve also been editing bacteria to create the vegetable rennet in cheeses since 1990. In fact, 90 percent of U.S. cheese today is produced with what’s known as fermentation-produced chymosin, or FPC, a vegetable rennet.

There are no reports of health or environmental impacts from FPC to date, but neither does it appear that anyone has researched the question.

The main health concern with synthetic biology products is that they add new proteins to foods, and those new proteins may be allergenic or otherwise unsafe to eat, said Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

My feeling is that a lot of the leftover concerns about genetic modification has to do with the nature of power relationships, about very powerful companies controlling technology.

GMO labeling laws in the United States don’t apply to products made using synthetic biology. Most recently, the Food and Drug Administration announced that labeling isn’t required for ingredients made from GMO crops if no modified genetic material is detectable. Cell-based meat will be regulated by both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, although it’s not yet clear what that means in practice.

Consumers leery of genetically modified food find the weak GMO regulations in the United States concerning. “People want real food, they want transparency, and nobody wants to be an experiment,” as Perls put it.

Social disruption?

As a disruptive technology, synthetic biology poses potential harm to the livelihoods of farmers, particularly smallholder farmers.

Oakland Institute Executive Director Anuradha Mittal is concerned that the rise of synthetic biology for products such as vanilla, coconut oil and silk poses a threat to the livelihoods of smallholder and indigenous farmers if those engineered products replace their natural counterparts. Many of these farmers, like the Filipino coconut growers facing super typhoons year after year, are on the front lines of climate change, and Mittal notes that synbio alternatives could increase their vulnerability at a time when they need solid markets to help them adapt to climate change.

Companies choosing to use flavorings produced with synthetic biology may face consumer backlash. Haagen Dazs, Dreyers and Baskin Robbins are being called out for their use of “synbio vanillin.” Meanwhile, Ben & Jerry’s publicly stated that use of genetically engineered ingredients in its products is inconsistent with its sourcing criteria.

The potential for livelihood loss is precisely why Kuiken advocates for synbio companies to complete life-cycle analyses accounting for both environmental and social impact.

Whether synthetic biology can meet its promise and help tackle some of the world’s most significant sustainability challenges — without causing harm — remains to be seen and likely will vary by project. But one thing is for certain, industry transparency and dialogue will be key for bringing consumers along.

Acknowledging that there is some consumer distrust, iGem’s Millet said that dialogue with affected communities is vital.

“My feeling is that a lot of the leftover concerns about genetic modification has to do with the nature of power relationships, about very powerful companies controlling technology,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a different type of relationship.”

Item 2

RAT FEEDING STUDY SUGGESTS THE IMPOSSIBLE BURGER MAY NOT BE SAFE TO EAT

 GMO Science
25 June 2019
https://www.gmoscience.org/rat-feeding-studies-suggest-the-impossible-burger-may-not-be-safe-to-eat/

At-a-glance

• The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger, the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH), derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast
• A rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, as well as changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, as well as possible signs of anemia
• Impossible Foods dismissed these statistically significant effects as “non-adverse” or as having “no toxicological relevance”
• The company’s conclusion of safety is unsound, due to the short duration of the feeding study and the small number of animals used. Only a longer-term study with a larger number of animals can clarify the significance of the worrying effects seen
• A nonprofit group is collecting data from people who believe they have had an adverse reaction to the burger.

The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger, the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin, derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast. The burger arrived in New York City’s restaurants with much fanfare – but now it is almost impossible to find, according to an article in the New York Post.¹

Possible reasons put forward by the Post’s reporter include that the burger is expensive and can’t compete with cheaper options; that the company that makes it, Impossible Foods, is having manufacturing problems that mean it can’t keep up with demand; and that people don’t see any reason to buy it when plant-based veggie burgers with more everyday ingredients are commonly available.

But it’s also possible that NYC restaurant owners and their customers are becoming aware – and wary – of the GMO (genetically modified organism) status of the product and are choosing to avoid it. The results of a rat feeding study commissioned by Impossible Foods and carried out with soy leghemoglobin (SLH) suggest that they may have good reason.

SLH is the substance that gives the burger its meaty taste and makes it appear to bleed like meat when cut. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially refused to sign off on the safety of SLH when first approached by the company. The rat feeding study results suggest that the agency’s concerns were justified. Rats fed the genetically modified (GM) yeast-derived SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia.

2015: FDA says SLH safety not proven

The company maintains that SLH is safe to eat.² It wanted the US Food and Drug Administration to agree with its self-declared conclusion that SLH is “GRAS” (Generally Recognized As Safe), providing reassurance for consumers. But in 2015, in response to Impossible Foods’ first application, the FDA refused to agree that the substance was safe. It responded with tough questions for the company, as revealed in documents obtained under a Freedom of Information request.³

The FDA was concerned that SLH has never been consumed by humans and may be an allergen. The agency pointed out that the safety information submitted by Impossible Foods was not specific enough: “Although proteins are a part of the human food supply, not all proteins are safe. Information addressing the safe use of modified soy protein does not adequately address safe use of soybean leghemoglobin protein from the roots of the soybean plant in food.”³

The FDA concluded, “FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively, do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety.”³

2017: Impossible Foods tries again

In 2017 Impossible Foods tried again with a new application for GRAS status. It submitted data from a study that the company had commissioned in which rats were fed SLH.⁴ Although Impossible Foods had in its 2015 submission told the FDA it intended to conduct a 90-day feeding study (the standard length for subchronic toxicity in rats), the company said that following “feedback” from the agency, it had decided on a shorter study of 28 days.³

While this change would cut costs for Impossible Foods, it is not in the public health interest. That’s because the shorter the duration of a study, the less likely it is to find health effects such as organ damage, which take time to show up.

The number of animals and duration of a feeding study are two key design elements in an investigation of the safety of a new GM food substance.

It was always unlikely that SLH would have strong and obvious toxic effects in the short term; any adverse effects from a novel food substance would likely be subtle. Long-term studies with relatively large numbers of animals are required in order to reveal the significance of such effects. Given these requirements, it seems clear that Impossible Foods’ study was statistically weak. There were too few animals in each test group (10 per sex per group) and again, the study was too short in duration (28 days in a rat is equivalent to just 2-3 years in a human) to clarify any health concerns from long-term consumption of this product.

Adverse effects in SLH-fed rats

In light of these limitations, it is remarkable that the SLH-fed rats did show a large number of statistically significant potentially adverse effects, compared with the control group – for example:

• unexplained transient decrease in body weight gain
• increase in food consumption without weight gain
• changes in blood chemistry
• decreased reticulocyte (immature red blood cell) count (this can be a sign of anemia and/or damage to the bone marrow where red blood cells are produced)
• decreased blood clotting ability
• decreased blood levels of alkaline phosphatase (can indicate malnutrition and/or celiac disease)
• increased blood albumin (can indicate acute infection or damage to tissues) and potassium values (can indicate kidney disease)
• decreased blood glucose (low blood sugar) and chloride (can indicate kidney problems)
• increased blood globulin values (common in inflammatory disease and cancer).⁴

The fact that these changes were seen in spite of the statistical weaknesses of the study gives particular reason for concern.

Reproductive changes in SLH-fed females?

In the study, apparent disruptions in the reproductive cycle were found in some groups of females fed SLH. In normal healthy rats, the uterus fills up with fluid during the proestrus phase of the cycle, in the run-up to the fertile and sexually receptive phase (estrus). In the SLH-fed rats, significantly fewer “fluid filled” uteri were seen. This correlated with decreased uterus weight, as might be expected.⁴

In response to this finding, Impossible Foods commissioned a second rat feeding study,⁴ which found no effect on the SLH on the rats’ estrus cycle. The company concluded that the findings of the first study had been a mere artifact of the experimental method used.⁴ For the sake of the women who eat the Impossible Burger on a regular basis, we hope that the company is correct.

All effects dismissed

All these effects were dismissed by Impossible Foods as “non-adverse”, as having “no toxicological relevance”, as “transient” on the grounds that they appeared to reverse themselves after some days, and as not dependent on the dose (i.e. the effect did not increase with increasing dose).

It is true that the adverse outcomes may appear somewhat haphazard. However, the fact that there were so many statistically significant changes in multiple organs and systems suggests that closer scrutiny of the safety of SLH is urgently required. The apparent randomness of the effects may be due to the fact that the study design was statistically weak. And it is well known that toxic effects do not always follow a linear dose-response pattern.⁵ Dismissing the findings as irrelevant appears irresponsible.

The only way of ascertaining if potentially adverse effects seen in short studies are truly adverse or have lasting consequences is to extend the study length to the rats’ full lifetimes (2-3 years) and to do multigenerational testing. In this case, neither was done.

FDA capitulates

Impossible Foods’ second attempt to obtain GRAS status for SLH succeeded and the FDA issued a “no questions” letter, indicating that it had no further questions.⁶

Contrary to what many people believe, such letters are not an assertion by the FDA that the food in question is safe. They state that the company asserts that the food is safe and remind the company that it, and not the FDA, is responsible for ensuring that it only puts safe foods on the market.

“No questions” letters may protect the FDA from liability in case something goes wrong. But they do not protect the consumer from unsafe novel foods.

Another GMO ingredient

Impossible Foods recently introduced a new recipe for its Impossible Burger. In addition to GMO-derived SLH, the burger now contains another GMO ingredient: protein from herbicide-tolerant soy.⁷ The company introduced soy protein to replace wheat protein in order to improve the texture and to avoid gluten, the protein in wheat that some people cannot tolerate.⁸ As a result, Impossible Burger Version 2.0 may contain residues of the “probable carcinogen” glyphosate,⁹ the main ingredient of the herbicide used on GM soy.

Knowing the concerns that the use of GMO soy protein and glyphosate residues may raise, Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown has gone to some lengths to reassure the buying public.¹⁰ But the history of the Impossible Burger thus far suggests that people are unlikely to get meaningful answers to safety questions from the regulators or the manufacturer.

Now a nonprofit group has stepped in to try to fill some of the information gaps. GMO Free USA states that its mission is to educate people about the potential hazards of GMOs and synthetic pesticides. The group has launched a health survey to gather the experiences of people who believe they have had an adverse reaction to the burger. GMO Free USA says it took action because “We have been contacted by a few people who have experienced gastrointestinal problems after eating the Impossible Burger (IB).  There is currently no simple mechanism for people to report these problems to the FDA.”

The group plans to send its findings to the FDA and Impossible Foods. Whatever the results, based on what we already know about the potential health effects of the Impossible Burger, the company would be well advised to shelve SLH and the reformulate their product with natural – and if possible organic – ingredients.

References

1. Cuozzo S. Why the overhyped Impossible Burger won’t survive in NYC. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2019/06/04/the-impossible-burger-is-just-an-overhyped-failure-in-nyc/. Published June 4, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
2. Strom S. Impossible Burger’s ‘secret sauce’ highlights challenges of food tech. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/impossible-burger-food-meat.html. Published December 22, 2017. Accessed February 27, 2019.
3. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Response to FDA Questions – GRAS Notice 540 soybean leghemoglobin – Impossible Foods, Inc. May 2015. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj0loTyjonjAhUQQEEAHX5fA5cQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2F1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F08%2F072717_Impossible_Burger_FOIA_documents.pdf&usg=AOvVaw39TKTfQVQ91ki0HubfZnEd.
4. Impossible Foods, Inc. GRAS notification for soy leghemoglobin protein preparation derived from Pichia pastoris: GRAS Notice (GRN) No. 737. October 2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/124351/download.
5. Hill CE, Myers JP, Vandenberg LN. Nonmonotonic dose–response curves occur in dose ranges that are relevant to regulatory decision-making. Dose-Response. 2018;16(3). doi:10.1177/1559325818798282
6. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Re: GRAS Notice No. GRN 000737. July 2018. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwikvJT7t9zgAhV4TBUIHWRGBgAQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FFood%2FIngredientsPackagingLabeling%2FGRAS%2FNoticeInventory%2FUCM620362.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3mkbfa11aCZlbvwMHW0F4K.
7. Brodwin E. The inside story of how the Silicon Valley burger startup Impossible Foods is going global after its sizzling Burger King debut. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/impossible-burger-national-launch-gmo-soy-burger-king-2019-5?r=US&IR=T. Published May 16, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
8. Watson E. Impossible Foods replaces wheat with soy protein concentrate in its plant-based burger; says color additive petition won’t delay retail launch. Food Navigator USA. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/01/08/Impossible-Foods-replaces-wheat-with-soy-protein-concentrate-in-its-plant-based-Impossible-burger. Published January 8, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
9. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2015. https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-4/.
10. Brown P. How our commitment to consumers and our planet led us to use GM soy. Medium.com. May 2019. https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408. Accessed June 11, 2019.

——————————————————————————————————

Item 3

IMPOSSIBLE FOODS, IMPOSSIBLE CLAIMS

Anna Lappe
Real Foods Media
23 July 2019
https://medium.com/real-food-media/impossible-foods-impossible-claims-c10ef2e457ed

Impossible Foods — maker of the veggie “burger that bleeds” — is the latest darling of the food-tech world. Its stardom is driven largely by its claims that the burger is better for the planet than the real thing: But what’s actually in its signature patty raises big questions. Despite these questions, Forbes has given it glowing coverage; The New York Times has served up front-page column inches. Katy Perry, Questlove, and Jay-Z are all investors. And the company is already shorthand for a dot-com wunderkind. At a recent tech conference I attended more than one pitch led with “We are the Impossible Foods of…” This status comes from a PR arsenal, of course, a novel product, yes, but also from the company’s explicit courtship of the ethical foodie, tapping a new generation of eaters who want to ensure the food on their plate helps the planet. In its very mission statement, Impossible Foods claims it will “drastically reduce humanity’s destructive impact on the global environment” by using plant-based proteins. But just because it’s not meat, doesn’t mean it’s a planetary panacea.

To be clear, I’m all for Impossible Foods top execs calling out the environmental impacts of industrial livestock production. My mother, Frances Moore Lappé has been ringing these alarm bells for nearly fifty years, starting with her 1971 Diet for a Small Planet. And ten years ago, I wrote a book about the food sector’s impact on climate change and the significant role of industrial livestock. But while others have raised health concerns over Impossible Foods’ genetically engineered heme protein or environmental concerns over its energy-saving estimates, I’m alarmed about the company going all in on genetically engineered soy. Impossible Foods CEO claims its sourcing of genetically engineered soy is a reflection of the company’s “commitment to consumers and our planet,” but the troubling track record of just such soy is at odds with that commitment.

This is no small quibble: This is about fact-checking a company raising millions of investor dollars on its eco-claims, but ultimately, this is about being clear about what food we should be producing, and eating, to the save the planet.

New evidence is revealing we are teetering on the edge of an era of massive extinction, propelled in large part by the very pesticides and practices used with genetically engineered crops like that soy destined for Impossible Burgers. In a groundbreaking new study, researchers estimate that 40 percent of insect species face extinction — and we could be looking down the barrel of total insect population collapse by century’s end, primarily as the result of the agricultural pesticides and mega-monocultures of industrial agriculture. Designed specifically for intensive chemical use, genetically engineered crops are key drivers of this impact.

We are teetering on the edge of an era of massive extinction, propelled in large part by the pesticides and practices used with genetically engineered crops like that GMO soy destined for Impossible Burgers.

The introduction of genetically engineered crops has led to a massive increase in the use of pesticides globally. Planted for the first time in the mid-1990s, nearly all of these crops to date have been engineered to either express an insecticide, resist an herbicide, or both. Today, 94 percent of soy is genetically engineered, mostly to be resistant to Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. Prior to the introduction of these “Roundup-Ready” crops, farmers had to be judicious about using weed-killer; but Roundup-resistant crops meant farmers could spray more and more often — and they did. From 1990 to 2014, the amount of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, jumped from 7.7 million pounds to 250 million — a 1,347 percent increase with most of that used on genetically engineered crops like the soy in those Impossible Foods burgers. Today, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world.

There is mounting evidence about the ecological impact of this boom. In China, researchers found that glyphosate exposure led to honeybee larvae deaths. In the United States, studies have connected Monarch butterfly decline with glyphosate use, particularly as milkweed on which the butterfly depends has been decimated. Another study found Roundup use resulted in a 70 percent decline in the “species richness of tadpoles.” And yet another found that the herbicide adversely affects “soil and intestinal microflora and plant disease resistance” and is “toxic to a range of aquatic organisms.”

Then, there’s the human health impacts of the pesticides used on genetically engineered soy, specifically glyphosate-based weed-killers. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency issued a declaration based on a review of peer-reviewed literature that glyphosate was a probable cause of cancer. Just last month, a California jury awarded $2 billion in punitive damages and economic losses to a California couple suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had used glyphosate-based herbicides for decades. It was the third legal loss for Bayer, which recently purchased Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of Roundup. More than 13,000 cases are pending.

Growing genetically engineered crops, and the agrochemicals used in concert with them, affects more than just those handling pesticides. We’ve seen this on the Hawaiian island of Kauai`i, for example, which is ground zero for the development and testing of genetically engineered seeds. There, the fields abut schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods in communities that have seen spikes of asthma, cancers, and birth defects linked to drift and runoff from pesticides.

In an era of a climate emergency, we need to be working, with ever greater urgency, to eliminate our dependence on toxic pesticides—not doubling down on it.

Impossible Foods’ embrace of genetically engineered soy comes at the same time a new wave of these crops enters the market, posing a new set of risks. As weed resistance to glyphosate has grown — now with more than 40 glyphosate-resistant weed species and counting — companies have been genetically engineering soy to resist other herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D, chemicals with long track records of toxicity and ecosystem concerns. Many farmers across the Midwest have already been devastated by crop failure as a direct result of drift from these pesticides.

Consumers are increasingly seeking “health and wellness claims,” twenty percent more than in 2016, found a recent poll by L.E.K. Consulting. These conscientious consumers are driving the boom in plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy and products raised without toxic chemicals. Impossible Foods’ spin is trying to tap this planet-friendly public sentiment, but its commitment to genetically engineered soy belies a growing body of evidence that these crops are harming, not helping, the planet. In an era of a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis, we need to be working, with ever greater urgency, to eliminate our dependence on toxic pesticides — not doubling down on it.