In this blog post, we will examine how the price of GMO foods is determined, the reality behind the safety controversy, and facts that we may not be aware of.
As someone who has been living on my own for five years, I go to the market about two to three times a week. The items I purchase range from food items like vegetables, fruits, and meat to daily necessities such as shampoo, conditioner, and toilet paper. However, when I try to choose something to buy, I can’t help but hesitate. This is because there are so many types and price ranges for even a single item. In such cases, I usually choose a product within a reasonable price range, assuming that the price varies depending on the brand name or whether it is organic. However, I sometimes wonder if the product I chose is cheaper simply because it is not organic or a brand-name product. Could there be other factors I am unaware of that influence the price?
Years ago, there was a controversy in the Korean food industry over “GMO canola oil” products. This was because it was revealed that an imported canola oil product might have been made using GMO ingredients. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, which is referred to in Korean as “genetically modified organisms” or “genetically modified crops.” Genetically modified organisms are organisms created by taking useful genes from one organism and inserting them into another organism that does not possess those genes, thereby imparting useful traits to the recipient organism. South Korea is the world’s second-largest importer of GMO crops, importing approximately 8 million tons of GMO products annually. This accounts for about 77% of the country’s total crop imports.
Despite the significant amount of GMO crops or products imported into South Korea, consumers cannot distinguish which products are GMO. This is due to the numerous exceptions to GMO labeling regulations. When examining GMO labeling systems in various countries, South Korea exempts foods such as soy sauce, edible oils, and sugars from labeling requirements if they do not contain detectable levels of genetically modified DNA or proteins. Additionally, out of the 18 GMO crops commercially available worldwide, only 7 (108 varieties) are subject to labeling. Furthermore, if a product does not contain GMO ingredients that rank among the top five most used raw materials or if the GMO content is 3% or less, labeling is exempted. In contrast, the European Union (EU) requires labeling for any product containing GMO ingredients, regardless of whether genetically modified DNA is detected. The United States, which accounts for a significant portion of GMO exports, does not have a labeling system in place, but requires labeling for foods made from GMOs that differ in nutritional content from conventional varieties.
GMO crops are primarily food crops such as soybeans, corn, and potatoes. These crops have genetically modified genes to enhance herbicide resistance or pest resistance, resulting in significantly higher yields compared to non-genetically modified crops. The increase in yield is expected to lead to lower prices, contributing significantly to addressing global food security issues. However, despite these advantages, there are reasons why GMOs are not widely accepted on dining tables. The first reason is the “safety” of GMOs. In 2000, Dr. Katz from the University of Jena in Germany announced on ZDF TV that the herbicide-resistant gene (pat) from GMO rapeseed had transferred to microorganisms in the intestines of honeybees. In 1997, Dr. Schwert’s team in Germany claimed that when mice were fed a virus containing antibiotic-resistant genes, viral genes were temporarily detected in the mice’s blood. While these claims were later refuted by counterarguments, no conclusive research has emerged to definitively establish that GMOs are safe, leading to ongoing controversy. The second concern is the potential ingestion of herbicides through GMOs. To produce crops that appear flawless and smooth, producers apply enormous quantities of herbicides to GMOs with enhanced herbicide resistance. Even when diluted to 99.8%, these herbicides are lethal enough to damage human genes.
GMO products remain highly controversial, so consumers have the right to know about GMO foods, and food companies have a duty to disclose this information. To achieve this, improvements are needed in South Korea’s GMO labeling system. First, the current method of determining labeling based on the presence of genetically modified DNA or proteins in products should be changed to include verification of nutrient levels (such as oleic acid and vitamins). This is because the absence of GMO proteins does not necessarily mean that GMO products were not used. Additionally, for products where qualitative testing is impossible, even if GMO ingredients are used as raw materials within the top five ingredients, verification is not straightforward. Therefore, the scope of GMO labeling should be expanded to include all components of food ingredients. While South Korea has established a “permissible level of unintentional contamination” of 3% or less, acknowledging the possibility of unintentional mixing between conventional crops and GMOs, this threshold is too high to be considered an accidental occurrence. Given the availability of sufficient testing technologies, reducing the “permissible level of unintentional contamination” to 1% could be a viable option.
Food companies oppose GMO labeling because they are aware of these various controversies. While it is true that GMO foods allow us to purchase food at lower prices, if safety is not guaranteed, consumers will inevitably avoid GMO products. Food companies should prioritize transparency by disclosing information rather than hiding it from consumers, conducting research on the safety of GMOs, and promoting these findings. Additionally, the government should strengthen safety standards for food and actively encourage the implementation of GMO labeling systems.
