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 as feed and processing ingredients, genetically modified ingredients account for a significant portion of the supply chain. Even so, the debate over GMOs keeps repeating. ChosunBiz looks at the situation at home and abroad to examine the GMOs around us. [Editor's note]
In Feb. last year, the genetically modified (GMO) potato "SPS-Y9," developed by the U.S. agrifood corporation J.R. Simplot, received a determination of conformity for environmental risk from Korea's Rural Development Administration. It came seven years after it requested import approval in Apr. 2018. The Rural Development Administration said a committee with private-sector experts reviewed gene flow and weediness potential and impacts on surrounding organisms before reaching its conclusion. But that is only the conclusion of the environmental risk assessment process. For GMO potatoes to be distributed and used in Korea, follow-up steps such as a food safety assessment by the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety are required.
SPS-Y9 is a potato touted for improved storage and processing quality and disease resistance. Overseas, some countries have already conducted and completed reviews. In 2017, Canadian health authorities evaluated and approved SPS-Y9 for food and feed and also approved its domestic cultivation. Japan in 2019 added GMO potatoes to its food and feed approval list.
Industry officials said the J.R. Simplot case symbolically illustrates Korea's GMO approval system. As such delays piled up, U.S. corporations raised the issue through the U.S. government and business groups, and language reflecting the aim that "Korea will streamline regulatory approval procedures for agricultural biotechnology products and resolve delays in U.S. applications" was included in a U.S.–Korea leader-level joint fact sheet released in Nov. last year.
◇ "Non-experts ask for irrelevant materials… leading to approval delays"
The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), among others, have repeatedly raised concerns about Korea's LMO (GMO capable of reproduction) review system, saying "the process is long and the timeline is unpredictable."
Korea's LMO regulations are based on the Act on Transboundary Movements, etc. of Living Modified Organisms (LMO Act). Import approval reviews are divided by use, such as food and feed, with reviews by the lead agency accompanied by consultations with relevant agencies. The Ministery of Food and Drug Safety leads LMO reviews for food use, and during the review process relevant agencies such as the Rural Development Administration, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) submit their views. LMO reviews for feed use are led by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Rural Development Administration), with interagency consultation procedures involving the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries proceeding in parallel.
Applicants face a dual gate of a lead-agency review and interagency consultations. If the materials requested by each agency differ during this process, or if requests for supplements with the same intent are repeated at each step, the timeline grows longer.
Choi Yang-do, a professor at Seoul National University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, said, "Overseas, typically one or two ministries lead and the rest only provide opinions, but in Korea, multiple agencies repeat the same procedures," adding, "It's not as if there are enough experts to have five ministries review; some non-experts even request irrelevant materials unrelated to the purpose of the review. This leads to approval delays."
◇ Approval delays can disrupt trade
The reason LMO approval delays are interpreted in trade as a non-tariff barrier is simple. The international grain and raw materials market does not move according to one country's approval schedule alone. Raw materials such as corn and soybeans are traded in large volumes by ship, and quantities can get mixed (trace commingling) during production, storage and transport. So when a new product is commercialized, exporters try to align approval timelines across major importing countries all at once.
But if some countries approve a particular item while others do not, exporters need separate controls. That adds segregated storage, dedicated lines, additional testing and paperwork management, which can raise prices due to higher expense, or even reduce volume allocations. If trace commingling occurs on top of that, it can lead to trade disruptions such as customs clearance delays, returns or disposal.
In a 2010 study, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development said, "The longer approvals take, the harder it is to separate and manage supply chains, increasing the risk of trace commingling and potentially leading to trade disruptions."
Korea is sensitive to such variables because of its procurement structure. Korea imports feed and processing raw materials in large volumes from overseas and feeds them into livestock and processed food supply chains. If schedules and expense at the raw material stage are disrupted, the feed, livestock and processed food industries are also affected.
◇ "The most stringent reviews in the world… Europe commercializes with flexible systems"
Proposed remedies for Korea's LMO regulations largely point in one direction. It is not to loosen regulations, but to establish a responsible authority and clarify procedures and timelines to increase predictability.
In material released in 2025, the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea said, "The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, the national competent authority under Korea's LMO Act, should lead system improvements," adding, "Because the LMO Act mandates the participation of five agencies in reviews, there is limited room to streamline procedures without amending the law." Kwak Sang-su, emeritus professor of biotechnology at the University of Science and Technology (UST), said, "A structure in which the lead ministry takes responsibility for reviews and other ministries provide opinions only when needed is reasonable."
Some experts believe Korea should consider a system in which a single data package submitted by the applicant provides core information and results for evaluation that are shared and reused among ministries. For example, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and Health Canada reduce duplication in GMO food safety assessments through "assessment collaboration," under which one agency drafts the primary assessment report and the other conducts a secondary review and supplementation. However, each agency decides separately on final approval.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guides GMO applications through stages such as completeness check (whether formal and documentation requirements are met), verification (whether the application is acceptable), and scientific assessment. It says that after passing the completeness check, it aims to issue an overall opinion within six months in most cases.
Lee Hyo-yeon, a professor at Jeju National University, said, "Globally, Korea is considered the country with the most stringent reviews." Lee added, "Many countries, including Europe, have proceeded with commercialization through more flexible systems," and said, "At this stage, Korea should quickly establish a system that shares data across ministries and conducts consistent reviews in one place."