In this blog post, we examine the potential of GMOs to increase food supply, their environmental impact, safety controversies, and the reliability of regulations, using key evidence and case studies.
What Are GMOs?
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) generally refer to agricultural, livestock, and aquatic products created using genetic engineering technology to increase yields and facilitate distribution and processing, as well as foods processed from these raw materials. The first GMO permitted for commercial sale was a tomato that did not spoil in 1994, and in 1996, major crops such as soybeans and corn were commercialized, drawing significant public attention.
Can GMOs solve the food problem?
GMO proponents argue that developing crops resistant to pests, diseases, and climate stress can increase yields and ultimately resolve food security issues. However, the core of the food problem is not simply a shortage of production. Hunger in the developing world cannot be explained solely by the inability to obtain food locally or by population density issues, and there are historical examples where increased food production did not directly lead to a reduction in hunger.
In fact, while the number of countries growing GMOs and the area under cultivation have increased rapidly, there is no clear evidence that this has solved the problem of hunger. Furthermore, since seeds developed by biotechnology companies are protected by patents, corporate profit motives may conflict with issues of food distribution and accessibility. There have been reports of farmers being sued for damages based on patent rights, which raises concerns about the spread of specific seeds and farmers’ rights.
Seed Monopolies and the Relationship Between Corporations and Governments
GMO seeds are protected by patents as intellectual property, and a few multinational corporations hold a large number of these patents. This raises concerns that corporations may force farmers to use specific seeds or exert pressure through seed costs and cultivation conditions. Furthermore, allegations of collusion between corporations and government agencies breed distrust in the fairness of regulatory and approval processes.
This structure undermines crop diversity and weakens farmers’ autonomy, which could negatively impact productivity in the long term. Seed monopolies by multinational corporations and certain governments can threaten the food sovereignty of other nations; therefore, food issues must be viewed not merely as a matter of production but as a socio-political issue.
GMOs and Environmental Impacts
The argument that GMOs benefit the environment is based on the claim that introducing herbicide-resistant or insecticidal genes can reduce pesticide use. However, when herbicide-resistant crops are cultivated, herbicide usage may actually increase, and a vicious cycle can arise where weeds develop resistance, leading to the repeated use of stronger herbicides. This causes soil contamination and pesticide residue problems, negatively impacting the environment.
Furthermore, if GMO seeds spread to neighboring fields and cross-pollinate, crop diversity may be compromised and the surrounding ecosystem altered. As cases of contamination resulting from unintentional releases or illegal cultivation are reported, concerns are growing about the potential for genes to spread into the natural environment and disrupt ecological balance.
Safety Concerns and Regulatory Credibility
The safety controversy surrounding GMOs is perhaps the most sensitive issue. Since genes are combined across species boundaries, unintended effects, allergies, or toxicity issues may arise, and it is difficult to predict these possibilities. Therefore, thorough review is necessary across various areas, including toxicity, allergies, genetic safety, and nutritional impacts.
In the case of South Korea, there are criticisms that the safety review period is limited and that evaluation capabilities are relatively insufficient compared to those of developed countries. Furthermore, transparency issues have been raised, such as the fact that the composition and identities of the expert review committees responsible for safety assessments are not disclosed. To resolve these issues of credibility, consideration should be given to expanding the participation of stakeholders, including farmers and consumers.
Amid these safety concerns, research findings suggesting that GMOs may have adverse health effects continue to be published. One study investigating three types of herbicide-resistant GMO corn reported toxicity primarily in the liver and kidneys, while another study found that rats fed GMOs exhibited metabolic decline due to mitochondrial and nuclear mutations, as well as adverse effects on the liver during the aging process.
Although opposition to GMOs is growing for these reasons, South Korea’s imports of GMO foods continue to rise steadily due to the dominance of seed companies, international issues such as free trade agreements (FTAs), and government support for the biotechnology industry. Past statistics indicate that a significant portion of imported soybeans, corn, and processed foods were GMOs, with soybeans in particular being overwhelmingly GMO. Considering that South Korea’s self-sufficiency rate for soybeans was less than 7% at the time, it is highly likely that a significant portion of the soybean-based processed foods currently on the market are made from GMO soybeans.
Despite the widespread distribution of GMO foods in South Korea, the labeling system has significant loopholes. Currently, the five types of GMOs subject to labeling in South Korea are soybeans, corn, cotton, rapeseed, and sugar beets, and this requirement extends to processed foods made from these ingredients. However, items such as soy sauce, oil, and starch syrup—in which genes or proteins are not detectable during the processing stage—are excluded from labeling requirements.
Furthermore, the threshold for unintentional admixture is also an issue. This threshold represents the maximum percentage of GMO agricultural products that may be mixed during production and distribution; products containing less than this percentage are exempt from labeling. The standard in South Korea is 3%, but since current detection technologies are highly sensitive and can detect even lower levels, the contamination threshold could be adjusted to reflect technological capabilities.
A study investigating the impact of GMO labeling on consumer purchasing behavior reported that a significant number of people were unfamiliar with GMOs or had never heard of them, and that over half of respondents stated they would not purchase GMO foods. Taking these points into consideration, a significant amount of GMO food is currently in circulation, and some corn varieties for which toxicity has been reported are included among the items permitted for sale in South Korea. Therefore, consumers’ right to know and their right to choose must be guaranteed.
To this end, the scope of GMO labeling should be expanded to include not only GMO foods but also all foods processed from them, and the criteria for unintentional contamination should be strengthened so that consumers can make choices based on accurate information.
