Why are organic certification standards different in the U.S. and South Korea, and why are GMO foods still controversial?

The differences in organic certification standards between the United States and South Korea and the GMO food controversy illustrate the different perspectives on the reliability and safety of organic food. The debate continues to center around the impact of the different organic standards and GMO tolerance in both countries on consumers and the agricultural industry.

 

The debate over whether processed foods should be recognized as “organic” in the United States has been going on for a long time, especially in the early 2020s. In January 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over whether hydroponically-grown food can be recognized as organic. The lawsuit addressed whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violates the federal Organic Foods Production Act by certifying hydroponically-grown crops as organic. One of the main arguments involved 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 hydroponics, meet organic standards. These debates continued in 2022, with controversies surrounding the rigor and transparency of organic certification persisting among the agricultural community and consumers, leading to calls for increased regulation to ensure the credibility of the organic certification system and consumer protection.
In South Korea, the debate over whether to recognize U.S. processed foods as “organic” has also recently erupted. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Forestry and Rural Affairs, to be certified organic, food must be grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and if processed foods contain GMOs, up to 3% of the volume is allowed. However, in the U.S., up to 5% of GMOs are recognized as organic, and the number of allowable additives is also higher than in Korea. Since the organic certification system in the U.S. is looser than in Korea, it is controversial whether organic foods imported from the U.S. are recognized as organic in Korea.
So, what is GMO and why is it so controversial that it causes discord between the two countries? According to the definition of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, GMO is a genetically modified organism. A genetically modified organism is an organism that has been transformed into a superior organism by injecting useful genes that the organism does not possess through genetic recombination technology. Foods processed in this way can only be used as food if the KFDA proves their safety, and are called genetically modified foods. As of 2024, there are 125 types of foods that have been certified as safe in Korea, including soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and potatoes.
GMOs are grown for a variety of reasons. To name a few, genetic modification can be used to make produce more environmentally friendly by making it resistant to herbicides and pests, so that it can be grown without pesticides. It can also be used to make produce more drought tolerant, which can significantly increase yields, and it can be used to modify the nutritional content of the plant to provide more nutritious produce. In short, genetic modification can make produce greener, bigger, and more nutritious.
However, GMOs are opposed for several reasons. First of all, GMOs are artificially modified genes in living organisms, which can cause harm if they enter the human body. Secondly, GMOs are resistant to weeds and pests, which is great because it allows for more eco-friendly farming, but it also leads to the emergence of superweeds and pests that can overcome the resistance. This resistance can also kill off beneficial insects, which can have a devastating effect on other organic farming systems. And in the case of genetically engineered produce with superior nutrition, the imprecise nature of genetic engineering can lead to the production of harmful substances and allergens. Some argue that since most GMO crops are produced by corporations, promoting GMO foods will only lead to corporate growth, while penalizing farmers.
However, there are several holes in these arguments, which we’ll examine in turn. First, let’s look at the claim that GMOs harm humans. The Bt protein, derived from the soil microbe Bacillus thuringiensis, is a protein inserted into crops to make them resistant to pests. When it enters the body of an insect, an alkaline solution in the digestive tract activates the Bt protein, which binds to receptors in the digestive tract and pierces the digestive tract, killing the insect. However, this protein is not active in the human body because the environment in the human digestive tract is predominantly acidic or neutral and, most importantly, there are no receptors that can bind to the Bt protein. In addition, Bt protein has been used as a microbial pesticide for more than 70 years. This long history of use and the fact that no other problems have been found suggests that Bt proteins are not harmful to humans.
In addition to Bt proteins, the safety of GMOs has been called into question by Arpad Pusztai at the Rowette Institute in the UK, who reported that rats were fed potatoes with a lectin gene for 110 days and found that their immune and gastrointestinal functions were significantly reduced. However, there is a major error in this experiment: the potatoes that Dr. Fustai used were artificially created for the experiment and have never been commercialized, and separately, lectin genes are known to be harmful to humans. Therefore, Fustai’s experiment cannot be applied to real life. There are other experiments that question the safety of GMOs, but most of them have evidence to refute them, and so far, there have been no major reports that call into question the safety of GMOs.
Additionally, those who claim GMOs are dangerous are concerned about the emergence of super weeds and pests caused by GMOs. However, there is no solid evidence that these weeds are caused by GMOs, and it is more likely that they are caused by overuse of herbicides. And even if GMOs are eliminated, herbicides and pesticides will continue to be used, so humanity will not be able to escape the constant war against weeds and pests. It would be more effective to invent weapons against them by developing genetic engineering techniques.
The argument that GMOs may contain harmful substances is also not valid, because the safety assessment of GMOs is well established. GMO safety standards have already been established by world organizations, and Korea has been applying them since 1999. Safety evaluation is also mandated by the Food Hygiene Act, so only agricultural products that have passed safety verification are allowed to be distributed in Korea. Safety is primarily evaluated based on data on toxicity, allergenicity, and anti-nutritional potential through genetic research, and development of GMOs is halted if they fail to meet the standards. If a GMO passes the safety review, public comments are collected on the KFDA website for 30 days, and if it passes, it is recognized as safe.
Finally, the argument that promoting GMOs penalizes farmers is also questionable. If the public actively approves of GMO foods and the government starts to actively promote GMO production companies, there will be multiple companies and a competitive system, which will spur companies to produce better quality and cheaper seeds, which may actually benefit farmers.
And, as mentioned above, there are currently more than 100 GMOs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which means that our daily diets already contain GMO foods. After more than 30 years of GMO foods being introduced and no problems being reported, I don’t think we really need to remove GMO foods from the food chain. Instead, what needs to be studied now is how to improve the perception of GMOs among consumers. The vague fear of GMOs among consumers is not based on scientific knowledge, and it needs to be addressed by the government and local organizations.