In this blog post, we will examine the current state of affairs, the issues at hand, and possible solutions regarding how GMOs are drifting away from their original goal of solving the food crisis.
The nickname “Frankenfood” is a portmanteau of the monster ‘Frankenstein’ from the British novel and the word “food,” referring to GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which emerged in the early 2000s and sparked controversy. GMOs are new types of crops created by combining genes from existing crops to confer resistance to pests and diseases, and they were once expected to be an alternative solution to the food crisis caused by population growth. However, environmental groups and some civic organizations have strongly opposed them, raising questions about their safety, and the safety debate remains a key issue to this day.
Overshadowed by the safety debate, the issue of solving food shortages—the ethical basis for GMOs—has not been sufficiently discussed. Critics argue that GMOs are currently being transformed into a means of corporatizing agriculture through mass production, rather than serving their original goal of solving food problems. A point that must be considered just as importantly as safety concerns is that if GMOs lose their original direction, there is a high probability that they will fail to achieve their intended purpose even if their safety is later proven. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the current situation, identify the shortcomings of GMOs as a solution to the food crisis, and propose a direction to address them.
Looking at the current situation, GMO production is concentrated in developed countries such as the Americas and regions influenced by them, rather than in areas suffering from food shortages like Africa. In terms of figures, as of 2012, the area under GMO cultivation in some major countries accounted for a significant proportion of the total; in the same year, the crops cultivated included 80.7 million hectares of soybeans, 55.1 million hectares of corn, and 24.3 million hectares of cotton, with soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola constituting the majority. These crops were widely used not as staple foods for humans, but for livestock feed and for the production of value-added products such as oil, syrup, and textiles. Technologically, GMOs with herbicide-resistant traits are overwhelmingly predominant, leading to the widespread adoption of production methods that rely on herbicide use.
This situation reveals three problems that make it difficult for GMOs to serve as a solution to the food crisis. First, genetic modification technology requires significant capital and advanced technology, so research and cultivation are primarily concentrated in developed countries like the United States, failing to provide direct benefits to the Third World, which actually suffers from hunger. Second, herbicide-resistant crops increase productivity by relying on the heavy application of herbicides; therefore, supplying them as aid to the Third World risks exacerbating food problems through soil degradation and other issues. Third, the crops currently being developed are primarily corn and soybeans used for animal feed or industrial purposes, failing to contribute to improving the staple diets of regions actually suffering from food shortages. Consequently, there is a clear tendency for GMO technology to be utilized as a means of corporatizing agriculture through mass production.
So, what direction must GMOs take to become a genuine solution to the food crisis? First, the geographical bias in research must be addressed. Moving away from U.S.-centric research, multinational teams involving local scientists and farmers must be established to ensure that the developing world directly benefits and gains food sovereignty. The potential of such an approach can be seen in the case of Uganda, where private funding—such as that from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—and a partnership between public and private scientists improved the traits of bananas, a major crop in the country, thereby reducing spoilage and increasing yields.
Second, the focus must shift toward developing sustainable and environmentally friendly varieties. Rather than simply increasing herbicide resistance to promote corporate-style mass production, research is needed to introduce superior traits suited to local environments, thereby improving crop nutritional value, storability, and disease resistance. For example, the development of rot-resistant bananas reduced post-harvest losses, leading to a tangible increase in food supply.
Finally, the focus of research and funding should shift from corn used for animal feed or sweeteners to staple foods for people in the Global South, such as bananas, cassava, and African sorghum. Projects like “BioCassavaPlus,” which aims to improve the nutritional content of cassava—already a major calorie source in sub-Saharan Africa—are already underway, and more similar projects should be discussed and expanded.
In conclusion, the current trend in GMO development is drifting away from its original purpose of solving the food crisis and toward the industrialization of agriculture centered on multinational corporations. Even if safety is proven in the future, this poses a risk of infringing on food sovereignty and causing economic dependence. Therefore, we must closely monitor the trend toward the commercialization of GMO use and shift the direction so that GMOs function as a practical means of solving food crises by promoting research projects that focus on improving staple foods, are environmentally friendly, and involve the direct participation of the Global South.
