In this blog post, we’ll examine the concept of GMOs, the safety debate, environmental concerns, and their potential to solve food security issues, while exploring the various arguments surrounding GMOs and their implications.
What Are GMOs?
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) generally refer to agricultural products developed using genetic engineering technology to possess traits or genes that cannot be obtained through conventional breeding methods, typically to increase yields or facilitate distribution and processing. In other words, they are agricultural products whose genes have been modified—for example, by introducing genes from other plants, animals, or microorganisms—to confer traits such as herbicide tolerance or resistance to pests and diseases, or to enhance nutritional value and shelf life.
As biotechnology began to develop in earnest in the mid-1970s, these technologies began to be applied to the food sector in the 1980s. A prime example is when Monsanto in the United States successfully commercialized herbicide-resistant soybeans in 1996; at that time, GMOs were hailed as the “Second Green Revolution” expected to solve humanity’s food problems. Nearly 30 years later, the debate over the safety of GMOs continues, alongside ongoing scientific research and social discourse. In this article, from a pro-GMO perspective, I will examine the main arguments of the opposition and explore why GMO research and development must continue.
Problems with the Anti-GMO Stance
Looking back at history, new technologies in the food sector have often faced strong opposition whenever they emerged. Even pasteurization of milk—which is taken for granted today—encountered significant opposition in the early 20th century. As such, people tend to react negatively at first when encountering new technologies that deviate from established practices. There are also various negative perceptions surrounding GMOs, and I would like to examine two of the most prominent ones.
First, are there safety concerns regarding GMOs?
Notable examples include the “GMO potato experiment at the Rowett Research Institute in the UK” and the “MON863 GMO corn controversy.” First, the GMO potato study sparked major controversy in 1998 when Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in the UK announced that rats fed genetically modified potatoes exhibited abnormalities in growth and immune function. However, criticism was later raised regarding flaws in the study’s design and analysis process, and several scientific institutions, including the Royal Society, concluded that the study could not be considered evidence proving the harmfulness of GMOs.
Another example is MON863 corn. In 2005, some media outlets reported that laboratory mice fed this corn exhibited abnormalities; however, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) subsequently concluded, after a comprehensive review of the submitted data, that there were no safety concerns for humans or animals. Since then, several countries have approved its use for food and animal feed, and to this day, regulatory agencies in various countries continue to conduct ongoing safety assessments and post-market monitoring of approved GMO products.
Of course, the debate surrounding the safety of GMOs continues to this day. However, major scientific institutions—including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—maintain that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that GM foods that have undergone the approval process are inherently more dangerous than conventional foods.
Meanwhile, Mark Lynas, a former British environmental activist, has also publicly criticized his past involvement in the anti-GMO movement and argued for a discussion grounded in scientific evidence.
As such, the debate over GMOs is influenced not only by scientific research findings but also by media reports, claims made by civic groups, and distrust of corporations. Therefore, to properly understand GMOs, it is necessary to examine not only individual cases but also the accumulated body of research and international scientific consensus.
Second, do GMOs cause environmental problems?
Environmental groups argue that GMO genes can transfer to weeds, creating so-called “superweeds,” and that the disappearance of certain insects could disrupt the ecological balance.
First, regarding the issue of “superweeds,” opponents argue that herbicide-resistant genes transfer to weeds, creating resilient weeds that are resistant to herbicides. However, herbicide resistance is not a phenomenon unique to GMOs; it can also occur through natural evolutionary processes and in existing crop varieties, and agricultural practices involving the repeated use of the same herbicide over long periods are also known to be a significant cause. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the problem of “superweeds” is solely attributable to GMOs.
Another argument is that insect-resistant GMOs eliminate insects and disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. However, representative Bt GM crops have been developed to act selectively only against specific pests. For example, Bt corn is primarily effective against certain moth pests that damage corn. In contrast, broad-spectrum insecticides used in conventional farming can affect a much wider variety of insects. Therefore, the environmental impact must be evaluated by comprehensively considering not only GMOs themselves but also actual farming practices and pesticide usage.
The Need for GMOs
First, GMOs are necessary because they can contribute to solving food problems by improving productivity.
Even today, hundreds of millions of people around the world suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The latest data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations (UN) also highlight that food security remains a critical challenge for humanity. Furthermore, the global population is projected to continue growing, while climate change and the decline in arable land are placing an even greater strain on food production. In this context, I believe GMOs can serve as one of several alternatives to solving the world’s food problems.
Dr. Norman Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to the Green Revolution, emphasized that while environmental protection is important, improving productivity through science and technology is essential to feeding a growing global population. Thus, to solve the problem of food shortages caused by population growth, agricultural technology must continue to advance, and GMOs can be an important option in this effort.
Not only is the population growing, but climate change and urbanization are also gradually reducing the amount of land available for farming. Therefore, technologies that enable the production of more food on a limited area will become even more important in the future. Furthermore, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), a significant amount of crops is currently being damaged by pests and diseases. This means that vast amounts of food resources are being lost during the production process. GMOs can contribute to increasing the efficiency of food and grain production by enhancing resistance to pests and diseases and developing desired varieties. Furthermore, they have the potential to be utilized in various ways, such as developing varieties that thrive in extreme conditions—including high salinity, severe drought, and high temperatures—or shortening harvest times and increasing yields. Such technologies can play a crucial role in strengthening future food security.
Of course, opponents argue that the cause of food shortages lies not in production but in distribution. In other words, they are concerned about the possibility that a small number of multinational corporations will monopolize seeds and dominate the grain market. These concerns are certainly worth careful consideration. However, imbalances in food distribution were issues that existed even before GMOs, and they need to be examined separately from GMO technology itself.
The issues of fair food distribution and market monopolies should be addressed through national and international food policies, competition policies, and seed industry policies.
Second, GMOs can improve the nutritional quality of food.By introducing specific genes through genetic modification, it is possible to enhance the taste and nutritional value of food or develop crops to produce necessary functional components. This can help supplement nutritional deficiencies in regions lacking specific nutrients and can also be used to improve nutritional imbalances.A prime example is “Golden Rice.” This variety is a GMO rice strain developed to produce beta-carotene, which is converted into vitamin A in the body. Vitamin A deficiency is known to be one of the leading causes of blindness and weakened immunity in some developing countries. Golden Rice was developed to address these nutritional issues, and following extensive research and safety assessments, its cultivation and consumption have been approved in some countries. It is of great significance in that it can provide essential nutrients through rice, a relatively inexpensive staple food.As such, recently developed GMOs go beyond simply increasing productivity or creating crops resistant to pests and diseases. Various studies are underway to contribute to human health and sustainable agriculture, such as fortifying nutritional content, enhancing adaptability to climate change, and improving food quality. Vegetables with increased calcium content and crops with improved protein content are cited as examples of such research.As we have seen, GMOs clearly hold a variety of positive possibilities. Of course, it is also true that concerns and controversies exist, and since this is a new technology, continuous safety verification and thorough management are absolutely necessary. In fact, regulatory agencies and scientists around the world are continuously evaluating the potential risks of GMOs and accumulating new research findings.Science and technology are not something to be unconditionally accepted or rejected. What is important is to understand both their advantages and limitations in a balanced way, based on sufficient scientific evidence. GMOs, too, should be viewed based on objective research results and verified facts, rather than on vague anxieties or excessive expectations. Moving forward, as humanity addresses food security and climate change, GMOs will continue to be discussed as an important technological option, and we must maintain a balanced perspective that recognizes both their potential and their limitations.
