The year 2026 marks 30 years since genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered commercial cultivation worldwide. Korea does not allow the cultivation of GMO crops. However, as imported grains such as corn and soybeans are used for feed and processing, genetically modified ingredients account for a significant portion of the supply chain. Even so, the debate over GMOs keeps recurring. ChosunBiz examines the situation at home and abroad to take stock of the GMOs around us. [Editor's note]
"How much soy do we import, and how much of that is genetically modified food (GMO)?"
This was a question President Lee Jae-myung asked during a Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs briefing at the Sejong Convention Center on Dec. 11 last year. GMOs refer to crops engineered to have new traits by inserting genes from other organisms such as microorganisms. In response to the president's question, Food Policy Director Byun Sang-moon of the ministry smoothly laid out the figures and picked up the nickname "SoyGPT."
However, the agriculture sector said his answer contained errors. In response, Minister Song Mi-ryung of the ministry clarified, "Corn for confectionery and baking is non-GMO, but some corn oil and starch syrup can use genetically modified ingredients." Some figures were corrected in the process of explaining soybean production and imports, whether they are genetically modified, and how they are used. The episode shows that even basic information about GMOs has not been properly conveyed.
◇ Korea has a place for GMOs at the table even without direct cultivation
GMOs spread rapidly from 1996, centering on the United States. Today, more than 90% of U.S. corn, soybeans, and cotton are GMO varieties. As of 2024, the global GMO cultivation area is estimated at about 209.8 million hectares (ha). That is comparable to the land area of Saudi Arabia. It is more than 21 times the size of Korea's land area (about 10.04 million ha). The figures show that GMOs are widely used in the global food and feed markets.
Korea does not allow the commercial cultivation (environmental release) of GMO crops. Instead, there are substantial GMO volumes brought in from overseas. As of 2024, Korea's GMO imports for food and feed total 10.92 million tons, 87% of which is for feed. By crop, corn accounts for most of the volume at 9.87 million tons, followed by soybeans. If you simply divide GMO imports by population, Korea brings in around 200 kilograms per person annually from overseas. The fact that "we do not cultivate GMOs" can easily lead to the perception that "we are far from GMOs," but in reality, they are already part of daily life through imports, feed, and processing ingredients.
Even so, the idea that GMOs have taken a place on our table may not feel real. That is because GMOs sit upstream in the domestic food supply chain. There are two main pathways for GMO crops to reach the table.
The first is feed. Imported raw materials such as corn and soybean meal go into feed, and chickens, pigs, and cattle that eat it reach consumers as meat, milk, and eggs. The second is processing ingredients. Soybeans are processed into cooking oil, while corn is processed into starch and syrup (starch sugar) used in various foods. Starch sugar is a catch-all term for liquid fructose and corn syrup made by breaking down corn starch, and it goes into a wide range of processed foods, including beverages, snacks, and sauces.
◇ Why GMOs are hard to replace
In reality, it is not easy to replace GMOs in the short term. A large share of soybeans and corn traded in the global grain market are GMO varieties, and Korea depends heavily on imports for major grains other than rice. If GMOs are entirely excluded, grain procurement options could shrink.
Costs cannot be ignored. Lee Cheol-ho, an emeritus professor of food engineering at Korea University and a food security expert, analyzed that switching from GMO to non-genetically modified food (non-GMO) could raise import costs by about 30%. Because non-GMO is traded under the condition that it is "not mixed with GMOs," it must be kept separate from GMO volumes throughout storage, transport, and loading after harvest. Ships, trains, and storage facilities can retain trace amounts of grain that may mix. To reduce commingling, separate storage, cleaning, and dedicated transport are required, and additional testing and paperwork add costs that inevitably feed into food prices.
Lee said, "In major producing countries such as the United States, GMO cultivation rates for soybeans and corn are overwhelming, so non-GMO volumes are limited," adding, "Non-GMO can be up to 70% more expensive than GMO depending on separation and management costs, and on supply volumes, items, timing, and contract terms. This is a significant burden on a national economy suffering massive trade deficits from food imports."
The economic impact of GMOs felt by farmers and consumers is considerable. According to a 2022 analysis by agricultural economist Graham Brookes, farm incomes from cultivating genetically modified crops increased by $261.3 billion (about 378 trillion won) from 1996 to 2020. That means average income rose by $112 (about 160,000 won) per hectare. Most of the income gains (72%) came from higher yields, with the remaining 28% from cost reductions. While such analyses can be evaluated differently depending on how GMO effects are measured, they show that GMO technology is not just about one crop but is intertwined with agricultural production, costs, and environmental debates.
Some argue that "reducing GMOs will raise the grain self-sufficiency rate and improve food security." But the grain self-sufficiency rate rises only if domestic production increases, and Korea's grain self-sufficiency base is structurally weak. According to statistics from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, domestic grain self-sufficiency stands at 9.3% for legumes and 0.8% for corn. The agriculture sector says simply switching imported GMOs to non-GMOs will not raise the domestic grain self-sufficiency rate. To realize the goal of "using fewer GMOs," alternative paths such as expanding domestic production or diversifying import sources are needed.
◇ "No evidence that 'GMOs are dangerous'… need to face reality instead of vague fears
Most research over the 30 years since GMO commercialization began has found no clear evidence that GMO foods are more hazardous to health than non-GMO foods. According to Graham Brookes' analysis for 1996–2020, advances in GMO insect resistance and herbicide tolerance technologies reduced the use of pesticide active ingredients—the substantive components of pesticide products—by 7.2% (748.6 million kilograms) over 24 years. During the same period, the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), a metric quantifying pesticide burden including toxicity, exposure, and residues, fell by 17.3%. The World Health Organization (WHO) says GMO foods distributed in international markets have passed safety assessments and are unlikely to pose risks to human health. The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also said in a 2016 report, "It is difficult to find conclusive evidence that approved GMO foods harm health."
Even so, the image that "GMOs are dangerous" has not changed easily. Civic and environmental groups have emphasized expanding GMO labeling and the consumer's right to know and worry that GMOs could alter pesticide use patterns, reshape the seed market structure, and strengthen corporate dominance. That is why the use of GMOs has moved beyond data alone and into the realm of institutions, trust, and policy. The gap is also reflected in public opinion. In a perception survey of 800 adults in Dec. 2024 by the Biosafety Information Center of the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB), 70.3% said "genetic modification technology benefits humanity," up slightly from the previous year. However, "concerns about human safety" remained high at 65.5%.
Professor Lee Cheol-ho said, "We can no longer question the safety of biotechnology new varieties that the world has been eating for 30 years without major issues," adding, "We need to restart the discussion based on reality. The starting point should be the accumulated assessments and the facts on the ground, not 'vague fears.'"