The year 2026 marks 30 years since genetically modified organisms (GMO) 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 ingredients, genetically modified ingredients account for a significant portion of the supply chain. Even so, the controversy over GMOs continues to recur. ChosunBiz examines the situation at home and abroad to look into the GMOs around us. [Editor's note]
As recently as 15 years ago, genetically modified organisms (GMO) were a concern for consumers in Europe. According to a 2010 survey by Eurobarometer, the European Union (EU) polling agency, 66% of European respondents said they were "concerned about foods containing GMO ingredients." But in the same survey in 2025, the share saying they were concerned about GMOs fell to 25%. This does not mean European consumers prefer GMOs, but it does indicate a shift in preconceived notions about GMOs.
The body that led the shift in perceptions about GMOs in Europe is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The European Food Safety Authority is responsible for scientific hazard assessment of regulated products such as GMOs. Edward Bray, Director of public relations at the European Food Safety Authority, said in a written interview with ChosunBiz on the 21st, "The conclusion we present is not a single line that reads 'safe or dangerous,' but a scientific judgment that organizes what has been confirmed in food and feed safety, nutritional changes, and environmental impacts based on the submitted data, as well as what needs further verification," adding, "We focus on disclosing and explaining the risk assessment process and the grounds for judgment in a way the public can understand to reduce misunderstandings."
◇ EU: "We distinguish hazard and risk and explain the process… we do not hide scientific uncertainty"
Director Bray said, "The role of the European Food Safety Authority includes not only risk assessment for food and feed but also communicating with citizens about the scientific hazard assessment of regulated products." He cited the distinction between "hazard" and "risk" as a concept that confuses the public. The European Food Safety Authority explains hazard as a property or possibility that can cause harm, and risk as the likelihood that the hazard will become a problem in real life. The fact that sharks are in the sea is a hazard, but the risk grows when one swims in that sea.
In GMO assessments, the European Food Safety Authority also communicated the distinction between hazard and risk. Director Bray said, "We first checked hazard factors such as whether newly created proteins might be linked to allergies, whether GMOs might change nutrients in a way that creates meaningful differences, and whether they have properties that could affect certain organisms in the environment," adding, "We then communicated the likelihood that hazard factors would turn into risk, such as how much of the relevant components remain in the final food, how much people would consume, and whether the effects at that level would actually be meaningful." He added, "If hazard and risk are muddled in the GMO discussion, a single possibility could harden the conclusion that GMOs are dangerous."
The European Food Safety Authority also worked to clear up misunderstandings about uncertainty surrounding GMOs. Director Bray said, "Uncertainty in science does not mean 'we know nothing'; it is closer to saying that with the data we have now, we can say this much, and that part needs more confirmation," adding, "To reduce the misunderstanding that uncertainty about GMO assessment immediately reads as 'unsafe,' we sought to disclose, for example, why data are lacking and how that was reflected."
◇ U.S. focuses on consumer education; Japan discloses monitoring results; UK uses expert opinions
The United States is focusing on consumer education to change preconceived notions about GMOs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), together with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is running the consumer education campaign "Feed Your Mind." Through this, it explains genetic modification technology and the regulatory framework to the general public. Rather than simply declaring a conclusion that a sensitive technological issue is safe, it has made a public program of explaining why it reaches that judgment.
The United States is also proactive in activating GMO-related labeling and information provision. The Department of Agriculture goes beyond putting information on GMO products and communicates in various forms such as symbols and QR codes. The key is not to make the label itself a warning, but to secure a path for consumers to find additional information when needed, as with phrases like "Scan here for more detailed food information."
Japan responds to consumer concerns about GMOs not with large-scale campaigns but by accumulating and disclosing ongoing monitoring results. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) has continuously disclosed findings from surveys of the growth status of genetically modified rapeseed and other plants around ports where genetically modified plants were previously confirmed. GMO safety assessments are conducted through a system in which the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) accepts applications and the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) evaluates them from a human health perspective, and the Food Safety Commission discloses the results in risk assessment reports that anyone can view.
In the United Kingdom, experts are used to reduce exaggeration and misreading when issues such as GMO safety controversies arise. The Science Media Centre (SMC), established in the UK in 2002 amid intense social conflict over alleged GMO harms, quickly gathered expert opinions on GMOs and provided them in an "expert reaction" section. Rather than promoting policy, it is a method that helps ensure at least the basic facts and context are maintained in reporting.
◇ In Korea, procedures and evidence communication are obscured by the debate over a full GMO labeling system
In Korea, debate over GMOs is heating up again with the push for a full labeling system, but critics say efforts to explain and communicate the procedures and evidence underlying GMO safety assessments are being sidelined. The full GMO labeling system imposes labeling requirements on final products even if genes or proteins do not remain after manufacturing and processing, as long as GMOs were used at the ingredient stage or unintentional mixing has been confirmed.
The National Assembly passed a bill in Dec. last year to introduce a full GMO labeling system, and the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety is refining detailed standards with the goal of implementation on Dec. 31 this year. The core of the debate is focused less on implementation itself than on what to include and how far to extend the labeling targets. Although the intent is to strengthen consumers' right to know, the dispute has intensified as the labeling language could read like a hazard warning to some consumers. The problem is that in this process, the social discussion about GMOs has been reduced to a fight over wording—"whether to label or not"—and that explanations and communication that would allow people to see at a glance the order in which GMO safety assessments proceeded and the grounds and data for the judgments have become insufficient.
Ha Sang-do, a professor in the department of food science and biotechnology at Chung-Ang University, described the debate over the full GMO labeling system as "a situation where there is almost no communication about GMO safety and the evaluation process." He said, "The government views GMO safety as an already settled issue and does almost no separate communication," adding, "Opposition groups operate on the premise that the safety debate is ongoing, and regulators, not wanting to be drawn into this, tend to leave only the line that 'safety has already been verified' and move on."