In this blog post, I will summarize the controversy surrounding the harmfulness of GMOs (genetically modified foods) and some key examples.
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are genetically modified agricultural products. Generally, they refer to crops developed using genetic engineering technology to possess traits or genes that are difficult to obtain through conventional breeding methods, with the aim of increasing yields or improving convenience in distribution and processing. A prime example is crops that have been engineered to contain the insecticidal gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis; corn, cotton, and soybeans possess these characteristics. There are also crops that have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides.
Currently, the debate surrounding GMOs is unfolding in various ways. Proponents support GMO development primarily on the grounds of increasing food production, while opponents oppose it based on concerns regarding potential harm to human health and safety issues. While it is acknowledged that GMOs can contribute to increased food production, there are arguments that restrictions are necessary on GMO development because their harmlessness to humans has not been definitively proven.
To date, the risks or safety of genetically modified foods have not been fully scientifically confirmed worldwide. However, the potential risks to human health from consuming genetically modified foods include the following. First, toxicity may occur upon consumption. Second, because genetically modified foods produce or combine new proteins, allergic reactions to these specific proteins may occur. Third, there is also concern that recombinant DNA could migrate into human cells and cause specific symptoms. This article examines the hazards of GMO foods by case.
According to a study by Jeong Ki-hye published in the Health and Welfare Forum, six cases related to the harmfulness of GMOs have been identified. First, genetically modified foods can cause stunted growth, weakened immunity, and gastrointestinal dysfunction. Second, they may trigger allergic reactions. Third, genetically modified foods that produce substances to kill pests may also pose a risk to humans. Fourth, there have been reports of sheep and goats in India dying after consuming genetically modified cotton. Fifth, there are reports of mass bee deaths caused by genetically modified crops. Sixth, there was an incident in which approximately 30 people died after consuming tryptophan produced by genetically modified microorganisms.
The sixth case, in particular, is frequently cited as strong evidence of the harmfulness of GMOs because it directly affected humans. For example, the 1989 incident involving the dietary supplement L-tryptophan resulted in dozens of deaths and thousands of patients. Such incidents are often used as grounds to argue for stricter investigation and regulation of the safety of GMOs and genetically modified products.
Jeremy Rifkin criticized GMOs in his writings, such as ‘Entropy’ and ‘The End of Meat’, viewing them as a risk comparable to a potential major disaster. He argued that GMOs involve cross-breeding that deviates from the principle of inbreeding and can spread easily through genetic dissemination via pollination. In 1981, he filed a lawsuit opposing the U.S. federal government’s decision to allow the release of genetically modified organisms into the open environment, thereby becoming a key figure in the anti-GMO movement.
Rifkin’s objections can generally be summarized into three points. First is the issue of cross-breeding. For example, the case in the 1990s where scientists introduced genes from fish adapted to cold waters into tomatoes to create frost-resistant tomatoes raises concerns that this could disrupt ecosystems formed through long-term inbreeding. Second, there is the issue of gene spread. If GMO genes are introduced into non-GMO crops, they can continue to propagate through pollination. In the past, some biotech companies claimed that genetic contamination could be prevented by erecting protective barriers around cultivation sites, but over time, the practical reality has emerged that virtually no land remains free of genetic contamination. Third, there are health concerns. Humans can exhibit allergic reactions to specific components, and this risk is particularly pronounced in children. Since GMOs have a genetic composition different from that of their natural counterparts, it is difficult to predict what allergies they might trigger.
Recently, new forms of genetic modification experiments, such as the creation of edible vaccines, have become a subject of controversy. For example, concerns have been raised that attempts to insert genes into bananas that function as vaccines for specific diseases could have serious health implications if carried out before resolving issues such as whether the dosage can be accurately controlled or whether vaccine components can be separated from food components.
Another major example is Monsanto. As a global seed company using genetic engineering technology, Monsanto has long been the subject of controversy regarding the safety of its various products. A prime example is the controversy surrounding rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), a hormone used to stimulate milk production in dairy cows for mass milk production. Cows treated with rBGH sometimes developed mastitis due to milk secretion exceeding their natural capacity, leading to pus in the milk and making antibiotic treatment unavoidable. This process raised concerns about antibiotic resistance.
Claims have also been made that IGF-I, the key component of rBGH, increases the risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer, and some studies have reported an increase in cancer incidence among specific age groups following the commercialization of rBGH. Furthermore, allegations have been raised that Monsanto exerted pressure to have papers claiming the safety of rBGH published in prestigious scientific journals such as ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’, and that measures restricting product labeling were problematic. Some studies have reported that MON863 and MON810, GMO corn varieties produced by Monsanto, exhibited hormone-related toxicity, which contradicted the findings of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. FDA. These cases suggest that research on the toxicity of GMOs and related pesticides may be insufficient.
GMO advocates argue that GMOs are necessary to ensure food supply in developing countries and other impoverished regions. However, the current global food crisis stems largely not only from a shortage of production itself but also from imbalances in distribution. If food, which is currently concentrated in a few affluent nations, were distributed more equitably, the food problem could be largely resolved. Furthermore, there is potential to address food security through environmentally friendly and traditional methods, such as plant breeding, rather than relying on genetic modification.
Considering the reasons for opposition presented above and the logic of the proponents, we can conclude that GMO development should be restricted at this stage and undergo more thorough research and verification. Even if there are benefits in terms of economic gains and increased food production, a cautious approach is necessary until the potential risks to human health and the ecosystem are fully identified.
