In this blog post, we examine the necessity and safety of GMO foods, as well as the debate over whether they should be allowed, using the latest terminology and a natural writing style.
According to UN demographer Patrick Galland and Professor Laftery of the University of Washington, the global population is projected to reach approximately 9.7 to 12.4 billion by around 2100. Given this expected population growth, the need to prepare for it is being consistently raised. Among these challenges, the most critical task is securing a stable food supply capable of adequately supporting the growing population.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) offer a potential solution to this food security challenge. GMOs are organisms developed using genetic engineering techniques to possess traits or genes that cannot be achieved through conventional breeding methods. Depending on which genes are introduced, GMOs can be engineered to have superior nutritional value, disease resistance, pest resistance, and herbicide tolerance compared to conventional crops. Consequently, by mitigating various factors that reduce crop yields, GMOs can be expected to deliver higher productivity than conventional crops. In fact, Hawaii provides a prime example of how the papaya industry recovered after the development and commercialization of a genetically modified papaya variety resistant to the papaya ringspot virus.
Beyond food security, GMOs can offer a variety of benefits. First, economic benefits can be expected. From the perspective of farmers, GMOs have higher resistance to pests and diseases than conventional crops, thereby reducing production costs associated with pest and disease management. While conventional crops suffer significant yield losses due to pests and diseases, GMOs can mitigate such damage, reducing the need to set aside excessive cultivation areas to compensate for potential yield losses. Furthermore, they can reduce the use of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and increase resilience to natural disasters such as droughts and floods, thereby lowering the costs associated with such disasters. In addition, the reduced management burden leads to savings in agricultural labor costs. Thus, the adoption of GMOs lowers production costs and increases yields, promising greater economic benefits than conventional agriculture. From an industrial perspective, the commercialization of GMOs can promote the advancement of genetic engineering technology and contribute to the creation of economic value for companies through the development of new varieties and patents. In fact, numerous studies have reported that GMOs have made significant contributions to improving agricultural productivity and economic efficiency.
Furthermore, GMOs can enhance quality compared to conventional crops by increasing nutritional value and improving taste and shelf life. By utilizing genetic engineering technology, various quality improvements are possible, such as GMOs with high levels of major or micronutrients, GMOs with high sugar content, and GMOs with extended shelf life. A prime example is Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a genetically modified rice variety with increased levels of beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, and was developed to address nutritional issues in regions with severe vitamin A deficiency. If this technology advances further to the point where GMOs containing a variety of nutrients can be developed and supplied, it could serve as one solution to alleviating nutritional deficiencies. Recently, research on crops enriched with specific nutrients or functional substances has continued, and efforts to enhance health benefits through food are also ongoing.
However, despite these various advantages, there is no shortage of opposition to GMOs. Among the concerns raised, safety for humans is the most frequently cited issue. Since GMOs are foods with artificially manipulated genes, there are concerns that they may be harmful to humans. However, it is also important to consider that most of the crops we currently consume are varieties developed through various breeding processes over a long period of time.
We often speak of improving crops; this is known as plant breeding. Plant breeding is a method of artificially altering a plant’s genetic characteristics to obtain desired traits. Ultimately, plant breeding—which is widely used in modern agriculture—can also be viewed as a technology that utilizes genetic changes. Corn is a prime example. Compared to its original wild species, modern corn has changed significantly in terms of form, productivity, and nutritional characteristics, having evolved into its current form through a long process of artificial variety improvement.
Some may believe that the genetic modification methods used in plant breeding are safer than the genetic engineering technologies employed in GMOs. However, traditional breeding has also widely utilized methods such as radiation or chemical mutagens to induce random genetic mutations, followed by the selection of useful traits from among them. In contrast, modern GMO technology has evolved to introduce or regulate desired genes with greater precision.
As such, many of the crops we have been consuming for a long time are also varieties developed through various genetic changes. While the term “GMO” itself implies genetic manipulation and may evoke aversion, considering that existing crops are also the result of long-term breeding, it is worth considering whether it is truly reasonable to conclude that GMOs are harmful to humans simply because they involve genetic manipulation.
However, those who argue that GMOs are harmful to humans present other grounds for their claims. The most common arguments are that antibiotic-resistance genes contained in GMOs could increase antibiotic resistance in humans, or that modified genes could have harmful effects on the human body. Yet, most of the animal and plant-based foods we consume on a daily basis contain genes, and these genes are broken down in the body by enzymes and digestive juices. Since GMOs undergo the digestive process just like conventional foods, the likelihood that their genes will remain intact in the human body and cause harm is extremely low. Furthermore, most GMOs currently cultivated and distributed commercially are being developed without the antibiotic-resistance marker genes used in the past, significantly reducing concerns in this regard.
The safety of GMOs for humans can also be confirmed by research findings accumulated over the decades since their commercialization. The key principle in evaluating GMO safety is to verify whether there are differences in toxicity or allergenicity compared to conventional foods. While there have been some reports of toxicity or allergic reactions related to GMO consumption, a significant number of these cases involved limitations in study design or failed to sufficiently consider other potential causes. Furthermore, in most cases where allergic reactions were reported, the crops in question were already known to be allergenic foods. This means that these cases simply reflected the inherent characteristics of the conventional foods. To date, no clear scientific evidence has been found to suggest that GMO foods currently on the market pose a greater risk to human health than conventional foods.
The next frequently cited concern is environmental harm. A typical worry is that if GMOs spread into the wild, they could disrupt or destroy ecosystems. In particular, claims have been raised that GMOs are more competitive than existing organisms and will dominate ecosystems, and that herbicide-resistant genes could transfer to weeds, leading to the emergence of so-called “superweeds.”
Regarding the first claim, long-term studies have been conducted on various crops in several countries. As a result, the claim that GMOs will completely replace existing plants or take over ecosystems in the wild is currently considered to lack clear scientific evidence. Most cultivated crops do not have high survivability in environments without human management, and GMOs are known to not deviate significantly from this characteristic.
The second claim suggests that weeds closely related to GMOs could crossbreed, leading to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. In fact, there have been reports of weeds resistant to specific herbicides in some regions. However, this phenomenon is generally attributed not to GMOs alone, but rather to natural selection resulting from the prolonged and repeated use of the same herbicide. Therefore, when resistance to a specific herbicide develops, farmers respond by using alternative herbicides or combining various weed management methods. In other words, the issue of herbicide resistance must be addressed in conjunction with agricultural management practices; it is difficult to attribute it solely to GMOs.
In addition, concerns have been raised that the Bt protein contained in GMOs may affect surrounding organisms. A representative example was an early study suggesting that Bt corn pollen reduced the survival rate of monarch butterfly caterpillars. However, subsequent studies with stricter experimental designs and field research confirmed that, in natural environments, it is highly unlikely for caterpillars to ingest a lethal amount of pollen. While current research acknowledges the possibility that Bt crops may affect some non-target organisms, the impact in real-world environments is assessed as limited.
Indeed, some argue that GMOs can have a positive effect on environmental protection. Cultivating pest- and disease-resistant varieties can reduce pesticide use and potentially decrease the amount of farmland needed to maintain the same level of production by increasing productivity. Of course, the environmental impact of GMOs can vary depending on the type of crop, cultivation methods, and management practices, so ongoing research and monitoring are necessary. However, based on the body of research accumulated to date, rather than categorically concluding that the environmental impact of GMOs is uniformly positive or negative, it is more appropriate to assess each individual variety through scientific evaluation.
To date, consumers’ negative perceptions of GMOs have been shaped by various research findings and vague anxieties regarding safety. However, some early studies had limitations in their experimental design, and many of these findings have since been reevaluated through various follow-up studies. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for consumers to feel vague anxiety because they lack sufficient access to scientific information about GMOs. In this situation, what is needed is ongoing communication among consumers, scientists, the government, and the industry to provide objective information. If a correct understanding of GMOs becomes widespread and rational judgments are made based on scientific evidence, GMO technology will be able to play a significant role in various fields, including solving food security issues, advancing agriculture, and improving the environment. Above all, we hope that an environment will be created in which consumers can accurately understand GMOs and make judgments from an objective perspective.
