In this blog post, we will look at why GMO foods are still distrusted even though they have been on our tables for over 30 years, and examine the scientific basis for this distrust.
There has been a long-standing debate in the United States over whether processed foods should be labeled as “organic.” This debate became particularly heated in the early 2020s. In January 2021, a lawsuit was filed in a California court over whether hydroponically-grown foods can be labeled as organic. The lawsuit dealt with whether the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) certifying hydroponically grown crops as organic violated the Organic Foods Production Act. One of the main arguments related to this was the various farming methods that are not included in the organic certification standards. In particular, there was much debate over whether non-traditional farming methods such as hydroponic cultivation met organic standards. This debate continued in 2022, with controversy surrounding the strictness and transparency of organic certification persisting among the agricultural industry and consumers. This controversy led to calls for stricter regulations to ensure the reliability of organic certification systems and protect consumers.
Recently, controversy has arisen in Korea over whether to recognize processed foods from the United States as “organic.” According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in order to obtain organic certification in Korea, crops must be grown without the use of any synthetic pesticides or chemical fertilizers. In addition, processed foods are allowed to contain up to 3% of GMOs. However, in the US, up to 5% of GMOs are allowed in organic products, and the number of permitted additives is also higher than in Korea. As the organic certification system in the US is less strict than in Korea, there is controversy over whether organic foods imported from the US should be recognized as organic in Korea.
So, what exactly are GMOs that they are causing such controversy between the two countries? According to the definition of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, GMOs are genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms are organisms that have been transformed into superior organisms by injecting useful genes that they do not possess through genetic recombination technology. Only foods that have been processed in this way and proven safe by the MFDS can be used as food, and these are called genetically modified foods. As of 2024, there are 125 types of foods certified as safe in Korea, including soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and potatoes.
GMOs are cultivated for various reasons. First, genetic modification can make agricultural products resistant to herbicides and pests, enabling environmentally friendly cultivation without the use of pesticides. In addition, it can greatly increase crop yields by making agricultural products resistant to drought and provide more nutritious agricultural products by regulating the nutritional content of plants. In other words, genetic modification makes it possible to harvest agricultural products in an environmentally friendly manner, in greater quantities, and with higher nutritional value.
However, GMOs are opposed for the following reasons. First, GMOs are artificially modified organisms, so there is a risk that they may cause harm to the human body if ingested. And although GMOs are good for environmentally friendly cultivation because they are resistant to weeds and pests, this ultimately leads to the emergence of strong superweeds and pests that can overcome this resistance. Furthermore, this resistance can kill beneficial insects, which can have a devastating effect on other organic farming. Furthermore, in the case of nutritionally superior agricultural products obtained through genetic modification, genetic engineering technology is not precise enough, so they may actually produce harmful substances and allergens. In addition, most GMO crops are produced by corporations, so there are claims that promoting GMO foods only leads to corporate growth and actually disadvantages farmers.
However, there are several flaws in these arguments, which we will examine one by one. First, let’s look at the claim that GMOs are harmful to humans. Bt protein, derived from the soil microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis, is a protein inserted into crops to make them resistant to pests. When this protein enters the body of an insect, it is activated by the alkaline solution in the digestive tract, where it binds to receptors in the digestive tract and pierces it, killing the insect. However, this protein is not active in the human body because the environment inside the human digestive tract is mainly acidic or neutral and, above all, there are no receptors that can bind to the Bt protein. In addition, Bt protein has been used as a microbial pesticide for 70 years. Given that no other problems have been found despite its long history of use, Bt protein cannot be considered harmful to humans.
In addition to Bt protein, another experiment conducted by Arpad Pusztai at the Rowette Institute in the UK raised concerns about the safety of GMOs. In this experiment, rats were fed potatoes containing a lectin gene for 110 days, and the results showed a significant decline in the rats’ immune and gastrointestinal functions. However, there are serious flaws in this experiment. The potatoes used by Dr. Pusztai were artificially created for the experiment and have never been commercialized, and lectin genes are known to be harmful to humans. Therefore, Pustai’s experiment cannot be applied to real life. In addition to this experiment, there are several other experiments that question the safety of GMOs, but most of them can be refuted, and so far, there have been no significant reports raising concerns about the safety of GMOs.
In addition, those who claim that GMOs are dangerous are concerned about the emergence of superweeds and pests caused by GMOs. In fact, there have been reports of rapid spread in the Midwestern United States. However, there is no clear evidence that the emergence of these weeds is caused by GMOs, and it is more likely that it is caused by excessive use of herbicides. Even if GMOs are no longer used, herbicides and pesticides will continue to be used, so humanity will never be able to escape the war against weeds and pests. Rather, it would be more effective to develop genetic engineering technology to invent weapons to fight them.
The claim that GMOs may contain harmful substances is also invalid. This is because safety assessments for GMOs are conducted thoroughly. Safety standards for GMOs have already been established by international organizations and have been applied in Korea since 1999. Safety assessments are also mandatory under the Food Sanitation Act, and only agricultural products that have passed safety tests can be distributed in Korea. Safety is mainly evaluated based on data on toxicity, allergenicity, and antinutritional potential obtained through genetic testing, and if the standards are not met, the development of GMOs is discontinued. If GMOs pass the safety review, public comments are collected on the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety website for 30 days, and if they pass, they are recognized as safe.
Finally, there are doubts about the claim that promoting GMOs is detrimental to farmers. If the public actively accepts GMO foods and the government begins to actively promote GMO production companies, many companies will emerge and enter into competition. This will encourage companies to produce higher quality and cheaper seeds, which will actually benefit farmers.
As mentioned above, there are currently more than 100 items approved by the MFDS. This means that GMO foods are already included in our daily diet. Now that GMO foods have been introduced for more than 30 years, and no problems have been reported, I wonder if it is really necessary to remove GMO foods from the agricultural product category. Rather, what needs to be researched now is how to improve consumers’ perceptions of GMOs. Consumers’ vague fears about GMOs are not based on scientific knowledge, so efforts by the government and local organizations are needed to dispel them.
