In this blog post, I will examine the current status and issues surrounding GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and discuss urgent measures that need to be implemented regarding labeling, safety assessments, and agricultural structures. I will take a broad look at everything from public perception to legal and institutional loopholes and long-term risks.

Issues Raised and Loopholes in the Current Labeling System

Recently, GMO crops produced using genetic engineering technology in the fields of genetics and biotechnology have garnered attention as a potential solution to food security issues. Consequently, there is significant support for the practical application of GMOs. However, at the same time, many citizens remain unaware of the specific implications and safety of GMOs. In other words, some of the public support for GMOs is based on vague expectations rather than a thorough understanding, which poses a risk in terms of policy formulation and consumer protection.
In fact, several cases have demonstrated the consequences that arise when this lack of awareness combines with institutional loopholes. For example, a major controversy erupted when it was revealed that genetically modified crops were included in the raw materials of canola oil, a product widely used by consumers. Canola oil was a popular product because it is low in saturated fat and rich in omega-3 fatty acids; however, since it is often exempt from labeling requirements on the grounds that DNA or protein cannot be detected during the refining process, consumers were left unaware of the specific ingredients used to produce the oil they were consuming. This seriously undermines consumers’ right to choose and their access to information.
Current labeling standards rely heavily on the possibility of detection, mandating GMO labeling only when DNA or protein is detected at the final processing stage. Furthermore, there are exceptions for trace amounts, meaning products with levels deemed to be unintentional contamination are exempt from labeling requirements. As long as products exist that are not labeled because genetic material is degraded or undetectable during refining and processing, it is difficult for consumers to obtain accurate information.
These standards are problematic in that they rely excessively on technical and scientific detection limits. The effects of genetic modification cannot be determined solely by the presence of DNA or specific proteins; byproducts generated during processing, changes in nutritional composition, or indirect exposure through animal feed are difficult to comprehensively manage under current labeling standards. Therefore, to fully achieve the fundamental purpose of the labeling system—guaranteeing consumers’ right to know—it is necessary to reexamine the system in a direction that requires broader disclosure of the fact that GMOs were used, regardless of whether they were detected.

Limitations of Safety Assessments, Industry Concentration, Long-Term Risks, and Necessary Countermeasures

While GMO safety assessments focus on human health impacts (toxicity, allergies, nutritional value, etc.), the current review process has several limitations. The relatively short review period and the fact that evaluations rely heavily on data submitted by the applicant companies raise concerns regarding objectivity and reliability. In situations where corporate interests may be involved, the risk of overlooking potential hazards increases if there is insufficient independent external verification.
In fact, there have been cases in the past where suspicions were raised that negative results from animal tests conducted by companies were not disclosed or were concealed. These historical cases suggest that it is difficult to thoroughly assess long-term human and environmental impacts based solely on the uncritical acceptance of corporate data and short-term reviews. Therefore, safety assessments require independent re-verification that does not rely solely on data submitted by applicants, long-term and multigenerational animal testing, and evaluation designs that consider various exposure pathways.
Meanwhile, the commercialization and spread of GMO crops may promote the concentration of related industries, such as seeds and herbicides. If a specific global corporation dominates the seed market by emphasizing superior quality and productivity, the conservation of native varieties and the self-reliance of small-scale farmers may be undermined. Such market concentration has the potential to undermine agricultural biodiversity and threaten food sovereignty in the long term. Furthermore, if certain companies generate profits through business models that combine seeds and pesticides, there is a risk that the agricultural ecosystem and farmers’ freedom of choice will become subordinate to corporate strategies.
To resolve these issues, the following measures are proposed. First, in parallel with the introduction of a comprehensive GMO labeling system, the non-GMO certification system should be strengthened to enhance consumer choice. Labeling standards should shift away from relying solely on detectability and toward transparently disclosing the entire history of raw materials, feed, and processing. Second, safety assessments must mandate independent re-verification of data submitted by applicant companies, and the review period and research standards should be raised to include studies on long-term and multigenerational impacts. Third, policies supporting the conservation of traditional seeds and organic-based agriculture must be implemented to prevent farmers from becoming dependent on large-scale GMO expansion. Finally, we must strengthen the review of imported GMOs and simultaneously pursue diplomatic and trade strategies to defend consumers’ right to know and agricultural sovereignty in international negotiations.
In conclusion, while GMOs are a technology with the potential to contribute to solving humanity’s food problems, it is difficult to sufficiently control the risks they pose under the current labeling system, safety assessment, and agricultural policies. Considering the past behavior of corporations and the potential for changes in technology and market structures, it is necessary to immediately establish a comprehensive policy package that includes stricter information disclosure, independent evaluation, and the protection of the agricultural ecosystem. Just as it is difficult to put spilled water back in the bottle, we must establish a preventive and transparent regulatory system before GMOs become deeply entrenched throughout society.