In this blog post, we will examine the definition of GMO foods, their current prevalence, safety concerns, and ecological and social impacts, and discuss potential solutions.
What is the most important factor for human survival? The answer is food. Among the technologies aimed at producing food more efficiently, GMO food technology has recently garnered significant attention. First, let’s briefly define what a GMO is. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. In other words, it refers to a technology that selects only useful genes from one organism and inserts them into another to impart the same traits. For example, if genes from an organism that resists rotting are extracted and applied to another vegetable, that vegetable will also become resistant to rotting.
At first glance, GMO foods may seem beneficial. However, many people are debating whether to allow them. The core reason for opposition is the suspicion that they are unsafe. For instance, even if there were a GMO fruit that doesn’t rot easily, it would be difficult to maintain that view if it were discovered that the gene had been unintentionally manipulated, potentially causing serious health problems for consumers. For this very reason, I also view the introduction of GMO foods onto our dining tables as problematic. Let’s now examine the issues with GMO foods in more detail.
First, let’s look at how much GMO food is produced and distributed. GMO research began in earnest in the 1980s, and the first commercially available GMO food was a non-browning tomato developed in 1994. Development progressed rapidly, and the area under cultivation increased significantly. For example, between 1996 and 2006, the area under cultivation grew from millions of hectares to hundreds of millions, with the primary crops being corn, soybeans, and potatoes—foods we consume regularly. As a result, GMO foods have become a common sight in large supermarkets. Given that consumers primarily purchase food at these supermarkets, GMO foods with unclear safety profiles have the potential to affect human health. Therefore, consumers need to accurately understand the negative aspects of GMOs.
First, the inherent limitation of genetic engineering is uncertainty. There have been many failures in the GMO development process, and defects such as deformities or poor maturation have often been found in these failed cases. Due to this uncertainty, there are concerns that genetic combinations could pose direct harm to the environment and human health. One such concern is the issue of allergies. Genetic engineering alters the proteins produced by specific genes, and since proteins play various important roles in the human body, allergies are essentially reactions to specific proteins. In particular, many allergies are caused by proteins ingested through food. The problem is that in many cases, consumers are not clearly informed about which genes have been inserted into GMO foods. For example, if a person with a peanut allergy were to eat GMO spinach containing a gene derived from peanuts, it could be fatal. There is no reason why consumers should have to bear this risk.
Allergies are not the only potential adverse health effects. In some cases, genetically modified crops may contain fewer nutrients than non-modified crops. A study by CETOS analyzed the nutritional differences between GMO soybeans and conventional soybeans and reported that the phytoestrogen content in GMO soybeans was approximately 14 percent lower. Phytoestrogens are important components that contribute to the prevention of osteoporosis and heart disease. This clearly demonstrates that it is difficult for consumers to know exactly what nutrients they are consuming through GMO foods.
Additionally, issues related to chemicals are significant. Many GMO crops are engineered to contain higher levels of insecticidal substances than non-GMO crops. A prime example is the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene; when inserted into a plant, it increases resistance to pests. However, consuming such foods can pose health risks.
For example, in an animal study conducted in 1999, side effects such as a weakened immune system were observed in mice that consumed genetically modified potatoes. Furthermore, there are crops engineered to be resistant to herbicides, and their safety has not been sufficiently verified. Chemicals are used not only in plant genetic modification but also in animal genetic modification. For instance, concerns have been raised regarding rBGH, a hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cows, as it may have harmful effects not only on cows but also on humans, potentially promoting the development of tumors such as breast or lung cancer.
GMOs affect not only humans but also ecosystems. Life on Earth has evolved by adapting to the environment, and diversity plays a crucial role in this process. This is because when diverse genotypes exist, some can survive in response to changes in the natural environment. Historically, the Irish Potato Famine of 1845 led to mass starvation due to a lack of genetic diversity in potatoes. There is significant concern that GMO crops will reduce biological diversity by repeatedly using the same modified genes. If diversity decreases, crops’ ability to adapt to environmental changes diminishes, leading to ecological problems that can in turn have adverse effects on humanity.
Furthermore, artificially inserted genes can disrupt the genetic harmony within plants. Over generations, plants may undergo a process of trying to eliminate these foreign genes, and during this process, new microorganisms that do not exist in nature may emerge. These newly created microorganisms could be bacteria or viruses, and they could have serious adverse effects on other animals and plants, including humans. Furthermore, genetically modified plants may secrete toxins to protect themselves, and over time, insects resistant to these toxins may emerge, causing a chain reaction that affects the entire ecosystem. If GMOs developed for human benefit disrupt the harmony of other living organisms in this way, it can be considered a highly selfish act.
Currently, it is difficult for ordinary consumers to know what genes are present in the food they eat. While food labels are supposed to allow consumers to verify the origin and ingredients, GMO foods are often distributed widely without proper labeling. This phenomenon stems from corporate strategies and government policy support. Companies seek to maintain their proprietary technologies as trade secrets, and trade secret rights are sometimes used as grounds to withhold information even when safety concerns are raised. Furthermore, governments in many countries have sought to secure genetic resources, convert them into economic value, and pursue patenting. For example, some countries have opposed ingredient labeling for genetically modified foods, and instances where individuals with corporate backgrounds exerted influence during international discussions have often been pointed out. If the safety of GMO foods were certain, there would be no reason for companies to oppose ingredient labeling.
Not only the absence of ingredient labeling but also the methods of safety assessment fuel consumer anxiety. Safety assessments are divided into the precautionary principle and the principle of substantial equivalence; the precautionary principle emphasizes prior verification to avoid regret after problems arise. This implies that confirming safety requires a significant amount of time. In contrast, the principle of substantial equivalence is an approach that deems a product safe if the nutritional content of GMO crops is similar to that of non-GMO crops. Some countries adopt substantial equivalence and often grant approval based on relatively brief evaluations. However, this method makes it difficult to hold companies fully accountable for products already in circulation, even if long-term risks emerge later. Even if financial compensation is offered for health damages, lost health cannot be restored.
So, what stance should we take to avoid these problems? First, farmers must recognize the importance of native seeds. Since farmers are the ones who decide whether to adopt GMO seeds, if they preserve native seeds and cultivate them effectively, they can reduce the fundamental demand for GMO seed development. From the perspective of general consumers, while there may be a price burden, it is advisable to purchase certified organic products produced in South Korea. Buying organic products protects your family from dangerous chemicals and helps preserve traditional seed varieties.
To this end, the government must require companies to label GMO ingredients and conduct safety inspections more thoroughly. Finally, the most important thing is to develop a sense of urgency regarding your food and take action against these threats. By joining forces with like-minded people, you can exert greater influence. This is because by joining forces as a group, we can help change laws and regulations regarding genetically modified foods and contribute to reducing the presence of GMO foods in the market. If everyone—not just individuals—properly recognizes the dangers of GMOs and takes consistent action, it will not be impossible to eliminate unsafe GMO foods from our dining tables.
