In this blog post, we’ll examine the key arguments for and against GMOs and summarize the edited and proofread content regarding the safety of GMOs and the need for labeling requirements.
GMOs are part of our daily lives, whether we realize it or not. Since the early 2000s, GMO crops have been cultivated on a large scale in various countries, including the United States, Argentina, Canada, and China, and today, they are primarily grown worldwide, focusing on soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Even if we do not consume GMO crops directly, we indirectly come into contact with GMO-related foods by eating pork, chicken, and duck raised on GMO feed. In other words, it is very rare today to find someone whose diet is completely free of GMOs. As the proportion of GMOs in our diets has gradually increased, so has public interest in the issue; consequently, South Korea has implemented a labeling system for genetically modified foods to ensure consumers can access relevant information. Despite the widespread use of GMOs today, the debate over their use continues.
Before discussing the pros and cons of GMO use, it is necessary to first understand what a GMO is. GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism” and generally refers to organisms developed using genetic engineering technology to possess traits that are difficult to achieve through conventional breeding methods, with the aim of increasing yields, improving resistance to pests and diseases, and facilitating distribution and processing. Major GMO crops include soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. While some people believe that GMOs—being agricultural products developed through science and technology—should be opposed or restricted, I am in favor of their development and use.
First, they can increase resistance to factors that hinder crop production—such as pests, viruses, and weeds—thereby helping to boost yields. Higher yields can have a positive impact on stabilizing agricultural prices and may also help address future food security issues caused by population growth. Additionally, since they can reduce the use of pesticides, they offer not only economic benefits but also positive environmental effects. The main reason I support GMOs is the potential applications of this science and technology. As technology advances further, it could be used to develop a variety of functional foods, such as crops with enhanced nutritional content or specific improved traits. However, as mentioned in the original text, the claim that inserting a fat-breaking gene into rice allows the body to break down fat simply by eating it is based on assumptions that lack sufficient scientific evidence at this time and is not yet a practical technology.
The most common reason cited by those who oppose GMOs is concern over safety. A prime example is the potato experiment published in 1998 by British researcher Árpád Pusztai, which sparked significant controversy. Although he presented the results of animal experiments using genetically modified potatoes, criticism was later raised regarding the experimental design and analytical methods, and the same results could not be consistently replicated. Opponents also worry that consuming GMO foods could cause unexpected changes or mutations in the body. However, most GMOs currently on the market were developed to improve productivity and pest resistance, and scientific reviews to date have found no consistent evidence that approved GMO foods pose a greater health risk than conventional foods. Furthermore, since the DNA and proteins in food are largely broken down during digestion—just as in conventional foods—the claim that ingested genes directly affect the human body is not scientifically accepted.
The safety of GMOs has long been reviewed by various countries and international organizations. To date, no conclusive evidence has been found to suggest that approved GMO foods pose greater health risks than conventional foods, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recognize that GMOs that have passed individual safety assessments are as safe as conventional foods. Although some past studies reported an increased incidence of tumors in laboratory animals fed GMOs, issues such as experimental design and sample size were later pointed out, and these studies faced significant criticism within the academic community. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize that all GMOs are dangerous based solely on the results of specific studies. Furthermore, even if an individual experiences health problems, it is difficult to conclusively attribute them solely to GMO foods.
Mark Lynas, a British environmental activist who was once a leading figure in the anti-GMO movement, later changed his position and argued that the scientific evidence regarding GMOs should be re-examined. He explained that no credible evidence has been found to suggest that approved GMO foods have caused serious health harm during their long-term use. He also argued that since organic foods are also at risk of contamination by pathogenic microorganisms during production and distribution, food safety cannot be determined solely by a specific cultivation method. In fact, food safety is determined by various factors—including production, distribution, storage, and hygiene management—not just whether a product is GMO or not.
While I do not believe there is a need to excessively restrict the use of GMOs, I agree that the GMO food labeling system should be operated in a manner that is clearer and easier for consumers to understand than it is now. Currently, GMO foods are managed through safety assessments in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, and South Korea also operates strict review procedures. However, from the consumer’s perspective, they have the right to accurate information about the food they eat; therefore, sellers must provide sufficient relevant information and must not intentionally omit or misrepresent it. At the same time, public discourse on GMOs must be grounded in scientific evidence. When both consumers and sellers build trust based on accurate information, healthier eating habits and more rational consumption will become possible.
