In this blog post, we will examine whether GMOs can be the key to solving food shortages or a potential threat to the ecosystem from both sides of the debate.
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, commonly translated as “genetically modified organism.” GMOs are organisms whose genes have been manipulated to insert certain components or remove existing genes to enhance productivity and marketability. In other words, genetic engineering is the technology of modifying an organism’s genes to alter its existing characteristics, and the history of GMOs has evolved alongside advancements in DNA research. In 1953, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA. In 1971, a technique was developed to selectively cut specific sections of DNA, and in 1973, a method emerged to combine cut DNA with other DNA. This enabled the mass production of insulin, which greatly aided in the treatment of diabetes. Subsequently, various GMO foods, including rice, corn, and potatoes, were developed and distributed worldwide. In the United States, a major grain-producing country, the area dedicated to GMO crop cultivation reached 70 million hectares as of 2013, with 93% of corn and over 99% of soybeans being GMO varieties. With over 80% of food in the United States containing GMOs, GMO foods have already deeply penetrated our daily lives. However, the debate over GMO foods remains intense.
The primary concern of GMO opponents is safety. GMOs are foods produced by manipulating genes to maximize productivity and quality. However, opponents argue that the technology itself is still unfamiliar to us, and since its commercialization has only been in full swing for 20 to 30 years, sufficient safety testing has not been conducted. They cite experimental results showing that GMOs may be harmful to humans and that animals fed GMO foods have developed diseases or tumors. They also express concerns that GMOs could disrupt natural ecosystems, much like invasive species such as the brown marmoset and red-eared slider turtle have disrupted the Korean ecosystem. Opponents also criticize companies leading the GMO market for selling GMO foods not for the greater good of solving food shortages but for commercial gain, and claim that companies like Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer are hiding the harmful effects and misleading consumers and farmers.
I believe that the arguments of opponents are valid and logical. GMO foods do pose risks, and there is merit to the argument that commercial interests are deeply entrenched behind their global distribution. Nevertheless, I believe that the benefits of GMOs outweigh their drawbacks.
GMO crop development involves manipulating the DNA of specific seeds to express desired traits. This is primarily done to increase productivity. One common method is to increase the number and size of fruits. For example, “super rice” has been introduced in China, which produces twice as many grains per ear as regular rice, resulting in more than double the harvest. Additionally, the “super corn” developed by Dr. Kim Soon-kwon in the past was a crop that contributed to alleviating Korea’s food shortages, as it was more than twice the size of regular corn.
Conventional agriculture relies heavily on chemical substances such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Among these, chemical fertilizers deplete soil nutrients when used repeatedly, leading to soil degradation. Furthermore, pesticides and herbicides can spread improperly, leading to the emergence of pests or weeds with resistance, creating a vicious cycle where stronger pesticides must be used. In contrast, by genetically modifying crops to have resistance to pests and weeds through GMO technology, the use of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides can be reduced, helping to maintain ecological health. GMO organisms can be strictly managed to prevent their spread into natural ecosystems, making them less likely to spread than pests or weeds. Additionally, by genetically modifying plants to grow without fertilizers, fertilizer use can be reduced, thereby preventing soil degradation.
Chemical fertilizers may be harmful to humans, and proponents argue that thorough safety tests have been conducted to confirm their safety. This is a common argument used by GMO supporters to counter concerns raised by opponents regarding safety issues. We are already using new chemical substances that do not naturally exist in nature, and the fact that no adverse effects from GMO crops have been detected in humans so far lends credibility to the arguments of proponents.
The global population is growing at an unprecedented rate, exacerbating food shortages. By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9 billion, with 800 million already suffering from hunger. The economic growth of China and India will drive increased meat consumption, further boosting demand for grains.
At the same time, global urbanization and development are reducing farmland, making food shortages even more severe in the future. GMO crops can contribute to solving food shortages at low cost because they are highly productive and can produce more food in a smaller area. Of course, GMO crop development companies will reap huge profits, but those profits will also benefit farmers who use GMO seeds and those who are starving.
In fact, Indonesia has agreed to produce GMO grains to solve its food shortage and has enacted relevant laws, while some countries in Africa and Eastern Europe are making similar efforts. Rather than focusing on the profits that companies will gain from the spread of GMO crops, we need to focus on the positive impact they will have on poor farmers, people suffering from hunger, and our descendants who will face food shortages in the future.
In addition to increasing agricultural productivity, GMO crops can also have various functionalities. For example, rice containing “isoflavones,” an anti-cancer component, tomatoes rich in “resveratrol,” an anti-cancer substance, and rice with high levels of “anthocyanins,” an antioxidant, are among the functional GMO crops being developed. This will not only increase consumer satisfaction but also enable agriculture to grow into a high-value-added industry, providing new opportunities for farmers.
GMO can also be utilized in the bioenergy field. In modern society, petroleum resources are becoming increasingly depleted, and the development of alternative energy sources is urgently needed. Bioenergy is emerging as a major alternative energy source. Bioenergy is energy derived from biomass (living organisms), with bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas being representative examples. GMO crops are suitable as raw materials for bioenergy due to their high productivity and can be utilized as low-cost resources for energy production with reduced concerns about stability.
Safety concerns raised by opponents of GMOs are at the core of the debate. However, to date, no cases of harm to human health have been reported during the distribution period of GMO foods. The animal experiments cited by opponents are primarily conducted on animals with different structures, and many lack sufficient control variables. On the other hand, companies developing GMO seeds conduct over 75 tests, including assessments of toxicity, allergies, and environmental impacts, and it reportedly takes an average of 13 years and 136 million dollars to commercialize a GMO.
For these reasons, I believe that the continued development of GMO crops is necessary. Of course, the safety concerns, commercial viability issues, and ecological disruption raised by opponents must be taken seriously. However, the benefits of GMO crops are too significant to abandon their development despite these issues. GMO crops have the potential to contribute to solving various human challenges, such as food shortages, alternative energy, and cancer treatment. The issues raised by opponents can be addressed through alternative approaches while advancing GMO policies. Therefore, I support the development and distribution of GMO crops.
