[Insight & Opinion] GMO Fear Fueled by Unscientific Claims

The head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety reportedly expressed a strong intention at this year's National Assembly audit to expedite the introduction of a full labeling system for genetically modified agricultural and fishery products (GMO). It was stated that the legislation would be completed by 2024 and gradually implemented starting in 2026. This was a clumsy response to some lawmakers' incorrect criticism, who misunderstood the full labeling system as a government 'national agenda.' Fortunately, the emphasis was placed on a 'social consensus' reflecting experts' professionalism rather than a one-sided 'public opinion survey.'

The full GMO labeling system cannot be found among the '110 Major National Agendas' finalized last May. The full labeling system, which was a hot topic during the previous five years of government, was belatedly recognized by the transition committee as an excessive regulation with uncertain scientific basis and serious practical side effects. Of course, consumers' right to know is important. However, the government’s position is that the anticipated burden and confusion for consumers must also be considered.

The core of the full labeling controversy lies in intermediate raw materials such as fats, proteins, starch sugars, and edible oils from which GMO genetic material (DNA) has been removed. Intermediate raw materials that have had GMO genetic material removed are indistinguishable from traditional intermediate raw materials produced from non-GMO sources. This is because the carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and other components contained in GMOs are chemically perfectly equivalent.

Ultimately, confusion in the market is inevitable. If producers falsely claim that intermediate raw materials produced cheaply from GMOs are non-GMO products, consumers have no choice but to believe them. Unless the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety directly monitors every production site, there is little hope that the full GMO labeling system will be properly established. In the case of imported foods, even that is impossible. Such a clumsy system is unlikely to be internationally accepted. It could even lead to serious trade disputes.

In fact, consumers' anxiety about GMOs is difficult to justify with rational evidence. GMOs are not the only ones whose crops and livestock genes have been 'modified' or 'manipulated.' All crops, livestock, and seafood we cultivate, raise, and farm today have had their genes artificially modified or manipulated under the pretext of 'breeding improvement.' Without gene modification, apples and strawberries cannot be made sweeter or larger. Humanity developed the gene modification technology called 'breeding' through hybridization 12,000 years ago. Artificially modifying the genes of crops and livestock to suit our tastes was the beginning of human civilization.

The technology used to modify genes in GMOs is just different. It uses advanced biotechnology called gene 'recombination' or 'editing.' While it is no different from traditional breeding technology in that it modifies the genes of crops and livestock, it is a much more efficient technology than hybridization. There is no reason for consumers to be anxious just because the gene modification technology has changed.

No one doubts the safety of new fruit varieties made bigger and sweeter using breeding technology. There are not even consumers who reject watermelons with blue flesh. It is a clear contradiction that such consumers are anxious about the safety and environmental impact of GMOs. The global scientific community emphasizes the safety of GMOs.

Still, 795 million people worldwide suffer from hunger. It is absolutely unacceptable to be swayed by baseless claims that stir consumer anxiety without solid evidence.

Lee Deok-hwan (Professor Emeritus at Sogang University, Chemistry and Science Communication)