In this blog post, we examine whether GMOs are the key to solving hunger or if they pose potential risks to human health and the environment.
GMOs have been on our tables for about 18 years. As of 2023, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, the agency responsible for testing the safety of GMOs in Korea, has approved a total of 37 genetically modified crops. In 2023, South Korea imported 4 million tons of corn for human consumption, of which 700,000 tons were GM corn. Additionally, 1 million tons of soybeans were imported, with 800,000 tons confirmed to be GM soybeans. As such, GMOs are already widely used in South Korea, with the majority being used as animal feed or raw materials for processed foods. Even if consumers are unaware that they are consuming GMOs, they may ingest them through processed foods available on the market or through livestock products fed with GMOs.
The use of GMOs is supported by the argument that they are necessary to produce enough food for the world’s growing population, and that they reduce environmental pollution because fewer herbicides are used in their cultivation compared to conventional crops. Additionally, since there have been no reported cases linking GMO consumption to disease incidence over the past decade, some argue that GMO use is safe. However, the absence of immediate health effects does not guarantee safety, as GMOs interact with the environment and could pose risks decades later. Therefore, further research from diverse perspectives is necessary before widespread use is justified. Additionally, despite over 15 years of GMO use, the issue of hunger remains unresolved, and concerns have been raised that GMOs may cause greater environmental damage than conventional crops. Therefore, GMOs should be produced under much stricter conditions than currently, and additional experiments and reviews focused on their potential harm to human health and environmental impact should be conducted before they are used in foods already approved.
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are agricultural products that have been bred to possess useful traits by inserting genes that are not naturally present in the original organism, and they cannot occur naturally. All living organisms on Earth possess genes, which contain the unique characteristics of each organism and are passed down to offspring through reproduction. Since genes are the basic units of trait expression and inheritance, inserting foreign genes into the original genes to induce trait expression results in the creation of organisms with new traits not present in their parents. Currently, the most commonly inserted traits are herbicide resistance and insect resistance. The goal is to create agricultural products that can survive even when exposed to strong herbicides, thereby achieving the desired effect with minimal herbicide use, or to incorporate components harmful to insects into the agricultural products themselves, causing the insects to die on their own, thereby increasing agricultural productivity. The genes inserted can come from biologically unrelated species, including human genes; however, no agricultural products utilizing human genes have been approved to date.
The primary reason why the production and consumption of GMOs must be handled with caution is that their safety for humans and the environment has not been fully verified, and comprehensive and long-term reviews are necessary. In South Korea, the agency responsible for verifying the safety of GMOs is the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, which conducts reviews based on the principle of “substantial equivalence.” Substantial equivalence involves comparing differences between conventional agricultural products and GMOs in terms of nutrients, toxins, new proteins, etc., and evaluating the toxicity, allergenicity, and nutritional value of any differing substances to determine if there are no issues. This approach, discussed primarily by the OECD, is widely used in countries such as Japan, the United States, and the EU. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety conducts a 270-day review based on this principle. However, the review period is too short to assess the long-term effects of GMOs on human health or the environment, making it difficult to determine their potential impacts over time. In other words, if GMOs are considered solely as food, the above testing method may be valid. However, if GMOs are viewed as agricultural products that interact with the surrounding ecosystem, the testing method based on substantial equivalence is insufficient. In 2012, Professor Seralini of the University of Caen in France conducted an experiment feeding NK603, a genetically modified corn certified and consumed worldwide, to mice. The results showed that mice fed NK603 had significantly higher tumor incidence rates and early mortality rates compared to the control group. It is noteworthy that different results emerged when the experiment was conducted over a two-year period, which is much longer than the safety verification period conducted by regulatory agencies. While it is difficult to conclusively determine that NK603, a genetically modified organism, is harmful to humans based solely on this experiment due to numerous variables beyond the consumption of genetically modified corn, it suggests that different results may emerge when experiments are conducted over sufficiently long periods, potentially contradicting what we currently know. Furthermore, since GMOs are closely linked to what we eat and how we live, it is not reasonable to claim that GMOs are safe simply because no direct harm has been observed so far. They should only be used after their safety for the human body has been fully proven.
Currently, over 7 billion people live on Earth, and it is estimated that the population will exceed 10 billion by 2050. Traditional agricultural methods alone may not be sufficient to produce enough food for everyone, leading to arguments that GMOs are necessary to address this issue. In fact, approximately 840 million people suffer from hunger, and over 3 million children die from starvation each year. However, according to the United Nations World Food Programme, there is currently enough food on Earth to feed everyone a healthy diet. The primary causes of hunger are conflict, natural disasters, poor infrastructure, and overdevelopment. The issue is not so much a lack of food as it is the inadequate distribution of food. Despite the widespread use of GMOs over the past decade, the number of people suffering from hunger has actually increased slightly, which suggests that the problem is not one of food production. Meanwhile, GMOs are often used as feed for livestock or as raw materials for processed foods. These products are primarily intended for people in developed countries who are far removed from hunger, rather than those suffering from it. Therefore, the argument that GMOs are inevitable because they help eradicate hunger is not valid.
The traits inserted into GMOs are primarily herbicide resistance and pest resistance. Herbicide resistance involves inserting a trait that makes crops resistant to specific herbicides, allowing for the use of smaller quantities of herbicides while targeting only weeds and sparing crops. Pest resistance involves inserting traits that enable crops to directly harm pests, thereby aiding in their elimination. Both methods allow for the use of smaller quantities of herbicides, making them environmentally friendly, and thus there is an argument that GMOs are more environmentally friendly than conventional crops. In the short term, using fewer herbicides than conventional crops may be environmentally friendly and economically advantageous. However, after years of GMO cultivation, herbicide-resistant “superweeds” or pest-resistant “superpests” may emerge, requiring significantly more pesticides and ultimately leading to environmental destruction. Additionally, it is impossible to completely isolate GM crops from conventional crops during cultivation, so genetically modified crops can mix with conventional crops, disrupting ecosystems. This is referred to as the ecological leakage of GMOs, and even if not intentionally mixed, interaction with conventional crops can occur, as evidenced by the case in Canada where GM seeds leaked and were cultivated by the general public without their knowledge. If GMOs accidentally mix with organic agricultural products that we consume directly, the inability to distinguish between GMOs and organic agricultural products for consumption is a serious issue, and it may lead to an irreversible situation over time.
A larger issue is that most GMO foods, whose safety has not been thoroughly verified, are released into the market in processed food forms, making it difficult for consumers to recognize them. According to Article 18 of the Korean Food Sanitation Act, GMO products must include a label stating that they contain genetically modified organisms for the purpose of providing accurate information to consumers. However, this label must be printed in small font (10 points or smaller), making it difficult for all consumers to check individually. Additionally, during the import process, if GMO and conventional agricultural products are unintentionally mixed, and the GMO content is 3% or less, there is no requirement to label the product as containing GMO. Furthermore, even if GMO is used as an ingredient in processed foods, if it does not rank within the top five ingredients, there is no obligation to disclose its presence. In other words, many consumers do not check whether GMO is included when purchasing products, and even foods without labeling may contain GMO. Additionally, if GMO is used in animal feed, consumers may indirectly consume GMO through livestock, and this is difficult to detect. The fact that GMOs can enter our bodies through processed foods or livestock raised on GMO feed, even if we do not directly consume GMO foods, poses a significant threat to consumers. Therefore, stricter regulations are necessary, even if only for consumers who do not want GMOs.
GM corn, GM soybeans, and numerous other GMOs are currently being cultivated and are actively consumed in many countries around the world. Korea is no exception, with genetically modified agricultural products already being imported in large quantities, and the annual import volume is increasing. Proponents of GMOs argue that they are inevitable for reasons such as solving hunger and protecting the environment. While they may seem to offer short-term solutions by increasing agricultural productivity, GMOs have not played a significant role in eradicating hunger and have instead been shown to destroy ecosystems. Additionally, many consumers are exposed to GMOs without realizing they are consuming them. As demonstrated by Professor Seralini’s experiment at the University of Caen in France, long-term comprehensive studies have concluded that GMOs can be dangerous, and we must exercise extreme caution when verifying their safety. Therefore, when discussing the use of GMOs, it is necessary to conduct thorough and long-term research from various perspectives, not only on their effects on the human body but also on their impact on the entire ecosystem. Furthermore, even for GMO foods that have been verified through experiments conducted from diverse perspectives, stronger regulations should be implemented to ensure that consumers are aware of them and can make informed choices.
