In this blog post, we will examine the grounds for opposition to GMOs to shed light on the reality of health concerns and explore where the focus of the debate should shift.
Overview of GMOs and Background of the Debate
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth International, the Green Consumers’ Network, Hansalim, the Federation of Organic Agriculture… These are global and South Korean organizations that oppose GMOs. Here, GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) refers to organisms that have been genetically engineered to increase food production. As GMO crops began to be produced on a large scale in the 2000s, the controversy over their introduction intensified, and the issue remains a major topic of debate to this day.
In South Korea, analysis suggests that public resistance to GMOs has gradually diminished over time. In 2008, when tens of thousands of tons of GMO corn intended for human consumption were imported, hundreds of civic groups across the country rallied to form a coalition against it. However, public opinion has shifted, as evidenced by a 2012 national survey in which more than half of respondents (56.2%) expressed support for the cultivation of genetically modified crops.
Where Does Opposition to GMOs Come From?
From the consumer’s perspective, the primary factor driving opposition to GMOs is a vague fear of negative factors such as health and environmental concerns. The public forms these negative perceptions based on information obtained from the mass media. Since mass media outlets are businesses that follow economic logic, they often emphasize the negative image of GMOs to attract public attention and generate advertising revenue.
Civil society groups also often emphasize health and environmental concerns when trying to sway public opinion. Greenpeace’s anti-GMO posters create a vague sense of rejection by depicting the possibility of unknown genetic material in the food we eat, thereby instilling fear about whether GMOs might be harmful to health.
Another example is that anti-GMO groups active in South Korea advocate for a mandatory GMO labeling system, demanding that products containing GMO ingredients be clearly labeled. These demands are generally based on the premise that GMOs are harmful to consumer health. This raises the question of whether the mass media and civic groups are making these claims based on objective and accurate scientific facts.
Are GMOs Really Harmful to Health?
The arguments that GMOs are harmful to human health can be broadly divided into two categories. First, there is the concern that GMOs may possess biological toxicity (such as immune system suppression or tissue damage). Second, there is the concern that the genes introduced into GMOs could be transferred to humans or gut microbiota, potentially causing harmful mutations.
Concerns about the potential biotoxicity of GMOs began to emerge following Dr. Putztai’s rat experiments in 1998. One study reported observing changes in kidney size and blood composition in rats fed GMO crops, while another study published findings suggesting that GMO corn pollen affected the larvae of certain insects. These early reports fueled public opposition.
However, some of these early experiments were criticized for their limited sample sizes or flaws in experimental design, casting doubt on the credibility of their results, and some reports were later re-examined or criticized. Subsequent studies generally reported findings that refuted claims of biotoxicity in specific GMO crops, and major health regulatory agencies, such as the WHO and the FDA, concluded that the biotoxicity of GMOs has not been proven.
Second, the likelihood that genes introduced into GMOs could be incorporated into human cells or gut microbiota and cause adverse health effects is no greater than the likelihood that genes from non-GMO foods could be incorporated into human cells or gut microbiota and cause adverse health effects. When food is ingested, digestive enzymes secreted by the body break down DNA so that it no longer remains in the form of genetic information. Even if these fragments were to pass through the digestive tract intact, there is absolutely no way for them to be introduced into human cells; therefore, concerns that mutant cells will be created and cause health problems are close to being a conspiracy theory.
The possibility of DNA containing genetic information being introduced into gut microbes in its original form is worth considering, but even in this case, we can guarantee that there is no significant problem. Organizations such as the WHO and the FDA acknowledge the possibility that antibiotic-resistant genes could be transferred to gut microbes, leading to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. However, this applies only when GMOs containing antibiotic-resistant genes are used. Since no genes other than those for herbicide or insecticide resistance have been introduced into currently used GMO plants, there is no need to consider antibiotic resistance related to gut microbiota. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that such HGT (horizontal gene transfer) rarely occurs in typical eukaryotic cells, and even if it did, the genes would not function properly in gut microbes due to differences in their expression systems, so this is not a concern.
These health-related rumors lack credibility; the focus of the debate must shift.
As discussed earlier, expressing opposition based on health concerns when we do not even know whether GMOs are harmful to our bodies is highly unconvincing. This is similar to the situation with MSG (monosodium L-glutamate), familiar under the brand name “Miwon,” where despite being evaluated as safe by the WHO and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) in 1987, and the EU Scientific Committee on Food concluding that animal testing showed no acute or chronic toxicity, the public’s aversion to it persisted. It is a situation similar to “urban legends” circulating about a subject based on inaccurate evidence.
According to the “2012 National Public Perception Survey on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)” mentioned in the introduction, the majority of respondents cited environmental issues as the most important concern when formulating GMO policies. It is evident that more than two-thirds of the public does not readily conclude that GMOs are harmful to health; rather, they are concerned about the environmental impact of GMOs. This further demonstrates that, contrary to the claims of anti-GMO activists, the primary focus should be on environmental impact and the threat to food sovereignty posed by certain large grain corporations, rather than health concerns.
A balanced assessment, excluding health concerns, is necessary
The reason GMOs can affect the environment—specifically, the ecosystem—is that artificially introduced genes can spread throughout the ecosystem. There are several reasons why GMOs can cause gene transfer: naturally occurring viruses or bacteria can act as vectors for gene transfer, and the very techniques used to insert genes when creating GMOs facilitate subsequent gene transfer to other organisms. If the genes that spread throughout the ecosystem are, for example, herbicide-resistant genes, there is a possibility that “superweeds” resistant to them could proliferate uncontrollably. Furthermore, we must be able to predict and control the new effects that may arise when genes—which previously could not freely exchange across species barriers in nature—combine with one another, resulting in new combinations and mutations.
Moreover, GMOs provide a foundation for global agribusiness giants to monopolize the seed industry and effectively hold the entire world in the palm of their hands. The four major multinational grain corporations—DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences—already hold a market share of nearly 70–80% in major GMO-producing regions worldwide, including the United States. Through their monopoly on the seed market, they can set the prices of major grains at will. This raises the fundamental question of whether our food sovereignty should be subsumed under the logic of the market economy.
Since there are no clear answers regarding the environmental impact of GMO crops or how to respond when they threaten South Korea’s food sovereignty, I believe opposition to GMOs can be accepted as a fully reasonable stance. Conversely, opposing GMOs based on rumors or ignorance is clearly a misguided approach. I believe that campaigns such as the “Save Korea” million-signature petition—in which hundreds of thousands of people sign to oppose GMOs on the grounds that they cause all sorts of diseases due to being “junk food”—actually hinder proper discussion on the subject. The GMO debate should be a process of discussing the potential environmental impacts of GMOs, developing various technologies to address such issues, and verifying their effectiveness. It should not be a process of rejecting GMOs based on vague fears regarding health and other concerns simply because of their introduction. Excluding health-related issues from the anti-GMO argument would be an essential step toward achieving this.
