In this blog post, I will summarize the spread of GMOs, the pros and cons of the debate, their potential risks, and the reasons for opposing their commercialization.
1. The Spread of GMOs and Related Concerns
Genes are the units that carry information about an organism’s unique characteristics—such as its form, color, and properties—and pass them on to the next generation. Genetic recombination technology involves extracting a useful gene (e.g., a herbicide-resistant gene) from one organism and inserting it into another to express that trait. Foods cultivated or bred in this way, or those manufactured or processed using such organisms as raw materials, are classified as genetically modified foods only if their safety has been evaluated and approved by the government.
It has not been that long since GMOs first appeared on our dining tables. In the early days, modified tomatoes were introduced, followed by the development of varieties convenient for agriculture, such as herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn, and insect-resistant corn. Historical data shows that a significant portion of imported edible agricultural products consisted of GM corn and soybeans, and even today, it is not uncommon for agricultural products used as feed or processed foods to contain GM components. Research and development are also underway for ingredients commonly used in Korean cuisine, such as potatoes, squash, chili peppers, garlic, sesame, and perilla. Given this widespread adoption of GMOs, it is necessary to re-examine whether they pose any problems.
2. Arguments by GMO Proponents
Proponents primarily cite two main arguments. First, they claim that GMOs can serve as a solution to global food issues because they yield higher production per unit area. This perspective is rooted in concerns about population growth, as predicted by Malthus, and the need for technologies that boost productivity. However, many experts and organizations point out that the global hunger problem stems not from a lack of production but from a problem of distribution. For example, past data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that there was no significant disparity between production and consumption levels; furthermore, when consumption for other purposes—such as biofuels—is taken into account, it suggests that hunger cannot be solved by simply increasing production.
Second, it is argued that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant and insecticidal GMOs reduces pesticide use, which is beneficial for the environment. However, as cases have been reported where herbicide-tolerant genes transfer to surrounding weeds, causing them to develop resistance, it is possible that even more herbicides will be required in the future. Furthermore, safety concerns have been raised regarding the potential effects of proteins produced by crops that express insecticidal properties on humans and other animals. Therefore, it is difficult to justify the commercialization of GMOs based on these two arguments alone.
3. The Risks of GMOs
Concerns regarding the potential hazards of GMOs have been raised through various animal experiments and reports. In one case, a study was published reporting abnormalities in rodents fed genetically modified potatoes, and changes in kidney function and blood composition have been reported in experiments involving the feeding of GMO corn. These studies have raised concerns about the potential effects of GMOs on humans and animals.
When recombining genes, elements such as promoters that regulate gene expression are used, and viral-derived elements are commonly employed among these. The insertion of such viral elements raises concerns that they may activate latent viruses within host cells or increase the likelihood of recombination with other viruses. Furthermore, if antibiotic resistance marker genes are used during the recombination process, there is a risk that these resistance genes could be transferred to pathogenic bacteria, thereby reducing the effectiveness of antibiotic treatments.
In the natural environment, the movement of recombinant genes can also pose a threat to ecosystems. Reports from international organizations point out that species diversity may be threatened by gene flow from GMOs, and experimental studies have reported that the number of wild organisms observed around GMO crop fields was lower than in fields planted with conventional crops. Thus, there is a possibility that substances such as herbicides used on farms could harm wildlife, or that gene flow could alter wild genes and disrupt existing ecosystems.
Above all, there are unpredictable long-term issues. While the landscape of genetically modified foods is changing rapidly, research on ecology and human nutrition and metabolic processes is not keeping pace with these changes. Regulatory agencies’ safety assessments generally involve comparing GMOs with conventional crops to verify new proteins, nutritional components, toxicity, and allergenicity, and to examine potential metabolic changes or gene transfer. However, we must not forget that for these assessments to be fully trusted, a sufficient understanding of metabolic processes within the human body and gene transfer mechanisms must first be established. Current science has not yet fully elucidated all metabolic pathways and transfer mechanisms, and therefore, there are limitations to safety verification.
4. Conclusion
As discussed earlier, GMOs have the potential to cause harm to humans and the environment, and there are concerns about long-term and intergenerational effects that have not yet been identified. Even if proponents argue that no major problems have emerged immediately, given that the commercialization of GMOs is a relatively recent development, it is impossible to predict what problems may arise in 10 or 20 years. Therefore, as long as the risks have not been fully elucidated, we must exercise caution regarding the commercialization of GMOs, and I support the position opposing their commercialization.
