In this blog post, we will examine the social and environmental impacts of GMO foods by summarizing their concept, the background of their introduction, representative examples, and associated issues.
GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) refers to new varieties created by extracting genes useful to humans from specific organisms through genetic recombination technology and inserting them into other organisms. Foods produced using genetic recombination technology refer to those varieties whose safety has been confirmed and are approved for human consumption.
Genetic recombination technology shares similarities with traditional plant breeding. Both are similar in that they combine useful genes to create varieties with desired traits. However, there is a significant difference: while traditional plant breeding involves crossbreeding similar species to produce hybrids and then selecting the desired variety from among them, genetic recombination technology allows for the direct insertion of desired genes into entirely different organisms to immediately create the intended variety. This results in fewer unnecessary varieties being created and offers the advantage of being able to recombine genes from other organisms.
The introduction of genetic recombination technology into food production was driven by global population growth and the resulting increase in food demand. As the global population grows rapidly, it has become difficult to meet the increasing demand through methods such as expanding arable land, using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or traditional breeding alone, and the need for more efficient breeding technologies has grown.
While genetically modified foods have contributed to solving food problems, they have also raised several concerns. The main points of contention are safety issues, disruption of ecosystems, and negative impacts on the market economy.
Since genetically modified varieties rearrange existing genetic structures, they can cause unexpected side effects. Currently, safety assessments are required by law before GMOs are released to the market, and the fundamental concept underlying this is “substantial equivalence.” This concept holds that a genetically modified variety is considered substantially equivalent to existing crops if there are no differences in its major biochemical components. However, since this standard can only verify the presence of known toxins or changes in certain components, it is difficult to regard it as a comprehensive safety assessment system. Minor biochemical differences, the creation of new toxins, and gene transfer within the human body are difficult to detect through current evaluations. Therefore, if components not identified during safety assessments are present, there is a possibility of triggering abnormal immune responses or allergies.
As a real-world example, in 1994, an experiment to introduce Brazil nut genes into soybeans was halted after an allergen found in Brazil nuts was detected in the genetically modified soybeans. Although no harm occurred because the risk was identified during the development stage, this case demonstrated the potential risks of genetically modified foods. There have also been issues caused by contamination during commercial distribution. In one instance, corn containing an insecticidal protein not approved for human consumption was mixed into the food manufacturing process and exposed to consumers. This clearly demonstrated that ingredients whose safety has not been verified can easily be exposed to humans through the distribution system.
Genetically modified varieties can have adverse effects not only on human health but also on the environment. Throughout Earth’s history, organisms have maintained balance through the process of evolution, and crops have coexisted with humans while adapting to pests and diseases over long periods. However, since GMOs are organisms artificially created in a very short time, they have the potential to disrupt the balance of ecosystems, and the scope of such disruption is difficult to predict.
For example, studies have reported that Bt corn, engineered to be resistant to pesticides, has had adverse effects on beneficial insects such as monarch butterfly larvae and dragonflies. Furthermore, the resistance gene has been transferred to pests, leading to the emergence of “super pests” resistant to pesticides. Other studies have pointed out that genes from GMOs can be transferred to animals and humans. Therefore, while resistance to pesticides or pests was expected to be an advantage, in reality, it can lead to problems such as ecosystem disruption and the spread of resistance.
GMOs not only threaten health and the environment but can also have a negative impact on the global economic structure. It has been pointed out that the cultivation of genetically modified crops is concentrated in specific countries and corporations, failing to help solve problems in regions suffering from food shortages. Furthermore, as many GM crops are used for animal feed or biofuel production, they often deviate from their original purpose of food supply. In some regions, cases have been reported where GM crop yields are lower than those of conventional crops, leading to a decline in cultivation.
Ultimately, genetically modified crops tend to favor the interests of multinational biotechnology corporations. Critics have argued that mega-grain corporations have reaped substantial profits from GM crop sales and the expanding demand for bioethanol, which has exacerbated inequality and speculation in the global grain market. Furthermore, GM crops have led to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, resulting in increased herbicide use and, consequently, economic gains for herbicide manufacturers.
Growing interest in biofuels and increased policy-driven demand caused prices for crops such as corn and sugarcane to skyrocket, leading to land-use conversion and putting pressure on grain supply. This biofuel boom and the sharp rise in grain prices brought unprecedented prosperity to mega-grain corporations while exacerbating imbalances in production and supply.
South Korea is no exception to these effects. For example, since 2008, South Korean food companies have imported large quantities of GM corn for human consumption, citing corn shortages and rising prices, and low-cost GM crops have dealt a blow to South Korean agricultural producers who are losing out in price competition.
Taking the issues discussed above into account, there are many aspects in which genetically modified crops can be seen as having more drawbacks than benefits. The situation where people must consume food at the expense of their health and lives is a serious problem, and the inadequacy of variety management can lead to ecological disruption. Furthermore, the monopolization by mega-corporations and grain speculation exacerbate socioeconomic inequality. Even the anticipated benefits, such as solving food security issues and resistance to pests and pesticides, have been found to lack sufficient evidence or to produce adverse effects in practice.
To address these issues, a clear labeling system for genetically modified foods is first and foremost necessary. A national-level system must be established to guarantee consumers’ right to know what they are eating and to make informed choices. Furthermore, international cooperation on biosafety is crucial. Since exporting and importing countries inevitably have differing perspectives, mutual efforts from both sides are required; cooperation through international frameworks, such as the already adopted Biosafety Protocol, can serve as an example.
Regulations are needed not only regarding health and the environment but also regarding grain speculation. Along with establishing regulations, the most important factor is the appropriate distribution of food. Even without genetic engineering technology, humanity can produce the food necessary for survival; it is not desirable to use food—which is directly linked to survival—for speculation or to disregard consumer health.
GMOs are already widely distributed, making a complete return to the previous state difficult. However, it is necessary to recognize the risks and make efforts to minimize adverse effects through strict management, international cooperation, and transparent information disclosure to ensure they do not harm humans or the environment.
