In this blog post, we will examine the issues with the GMO labeling system and potential improvements to ensure consumers’ right to know and freedom of choice.
The Controversy Over the Necessity and Safety of GMOs
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, referring to organisms created by combining genes from one organism with those of another to produce new traits that did not previously exist. In 1996, genetically modified soybeans and pest- and disease-resistant corn, developed in the United States, began to be commercialized on a large scale, drawing attention from environmental and consumer groups. Currently, South Korea is one of the world’s leading importers of GMOs, and imports of GMOs for food and animal feed continue steadily. However, despite the large volume of GMO imports, the current labeling system often makes it difficult for consumers to fully determine which products contain GMOs. Amid ongoing debates over the safety of GMOs, the situation where consumers cannot clearly verify whether a product contains GMOs requires improvement. Therefore, to ensure public safety and health, as well as to safeguard consumers’ right to know, it is necessary to continuously refine the GMO labeling system and related laws and regulations.
GMOs were developed as an innovative technology capable of solving humanity’s food problems. They are gaining attention as a potential solution in a situation where agricultural productivity is threatened by rapid global population growth, climate change, and natural disasters. GMOs have the advantage of offering higher yields than conventional varieties by using genetic modification to increase resistance to pests, diseases, and environmental stress, as well as to improve crop productivity and quality.
However, the issue is safety. Because GMOs possess genetic combinations that did not previously exist, research and debate continue regarding their potential impact on the ecosystem and their long-term effects on human health. Some argue that since natural mutations also exist, GMOs do not pose any particular problem. However, GMOs differ from natural crossbreeding in that they allow genes to be inserted even between organisms that cannot interbreed under natural conditions. Furthermore, while GMOs approved to date have undergone safety reviews in various countries before being distributed, there are opinions that ongoing research and post-market monitoring are necessary to assess the effects of long-term consumption. Given that there have been cases where certain chemicals once considered safe later caused unexpected environmental and health problems, it is difficult to deny that new technologies also require ongoing verification and oversight.
Practical Limitations and Problems with the Current GMO Labeling System
Consequently, some argue that the surest approach is to refrain from importing GMOs whose safety has not been sufficiently verified. However, this is not easy in practice. Currently, South Korea imports a variety of agricultural products from abroad, including soybeans and corn, and the food industry also relies heavily on imported raw materials. In particular, since soybeans and corn are widely used as raw materials for cooking oil, starch, sugars, and various processed foods, it is difficult to replace them all in the short term. While some countries apply stricter regulations on GMOs or restrict their cultivation, it is difficult to implement the same policies across the board, as food supply and trade conditions vary from country to country. Therefore, at the very least, an environment must be established where consumers of GMOs can verify information and make their own choices. However, there are criticisms that South Korea’s current GMO management system does not sufficiently reflect these consumer demands.
The current GMO labeling system mandates labeling based on specific criteria. However, not all GMO ingredients are subject to labeling. Under the current system, whether labeling is required is determined according to standards set by relevant laws and regulations, and factors such as whether recombinant DNA or proteins remain in the final product after manufacturing or processing also influence the determination of labeling requirements.
As a result, even if GMO ingredients are used, some products that have undergone a refining process—such as certain edible oils or sugars—may be exempt from labeling requirements. Furthermore, with some processed foods, it is difficult for consumers to determine whether GMOs were used based solely on the list of ingredients.
There have been consistent calls to review the “top five ingredient content” criterion, as it was established in conjunction with past food labeling systems and needs to be updated to reflect changing times. Although the food labeling system has been revised to require the labeling of all ingredients, there are criticisms that the GMO labeling standards are administered separately, making them difficult for consumers to understand. Furthermore, the permissible levels for unintentional contamination vary by country, with the European Union (EU) applying stricter standards than South Korea. Due to these differences, consumers may experience confusion because labeling practices differ by country even for the same product.
Directions for Improving the GMO Labeling System
Therefore, there is a need to improve the current GMO labeling system. To address the limitations of the system, the standard requiring labeling only for ingredients ranked in the top five by content must be reevaluated. This is because there are growing calls to provide relevant information—in the interest of consumers’ right to know—even if an ingredient ranks lower in content but is actually derived from GMOs. Furthermore, the permissible thresholds for unintentional contamination must be continuously reviewed, taking into account the practices of major countries overseas. Although the European Union (EU) and South Korea differ in terms of agricultural markets and import structures, countries that import large quantities of GMOs need to operate their labeling systems with greater reliability to ensure consumers can access accurate information.
Furthermore, various opinions have been raised regarding the current approach of determining labeling requirements solely based on whether recombinant DNA or foreign proteins remain in the final product. Some argue that a labeling system that also considers whether GMOs were used at the raw material stage—rather than just in the final product—would more fully guarantee consumers’ right to know. Additionally, measures to strengthen traceability systems—such as those in the European Union (EU)—that manage the history of products from production through distribution could be considered. Once such a system is established, consumers will be able to verify the production and distribution processes of products more clearly, and companies will also be able to provide more transparent information.
For the GMO labeling system to operate more effectively, it is also necessary to standardize GMO-related terminology and definitions. Currently, various terms such as “genetically modified food,” “genetically modified agricultural products,” and “recombinant DNA food” are used depending on the legislation and agency. Such inconsistencies in terminology and definitions can lead to greater consumer confusion. Since the purpose of the GMO labeling system is to clearly inform consumers about the use of GMOs, it is necessary to revise not only the labeling standards but also the related terminology and definitions to ensure they are easy to understand and consistent.
Some argue that it is premature to implement such a strengthened GMO labeling system, as it offers little tangible benefit to consumers while imposing a significant burden on businesses. There are also concerns that, contrary to its original intent of guaranteeing the public’s right to know and right to choose, it may only lead to unnecessary social controversy and additional costs. However, it is equally unconvincing to refrain from expanding labeling solely on the grounds of negative consumer perceptions when sufficient information about GMOs is not provided. In fact, the less information available, the greater consumers’ anxiety may become. If the government and companies provide objective information about the ingredients used, consumers can make rational judgments based on that information, and trust in companies can increase. Ultimately, it is up to consumers to comprehensively evaluate research findings and safety debates regarding GMO foods and decide whether to purchase a product. An inadequate labeling system makes it difficult for consumers to make informed choices. At the very least, consumers’ right to know and their right to choose must be fully guaranteed. While exaggerated or distorted information can be problematic, objective and accurate information serves as a crucial basis for consumers to make their own judgments. Consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether to purchase GMO foods based on sufficient information.
GMO imports continue, and GMOs are already being used as ingredients in a wide variety of foods. In contrast, public perception of GMOs and the regulatory framework still have room for improvement, and research and discussions regarding their safety are ongoing. While GMOs approved to date are distributed after passing safety reviews in various countries, ongoing research and post-market monitoring will remain necessary. Furthermore, a complete ban on GMOs is not realistic. Therefore, the GMO labeling system can be considered one of the most fundamental institutional mechanisms for guaranteeing consumers’ right to know and their right to choose. If the current labeling system is continuously improved to meet its intended purpose and provides objective and accurate information, consumers will be able to make more informed product choices, and trust in the government and companies will also increase.
