[Consumer Climate Action Column] GMO Full Labeling System: The People's Right to Know and Choose

Choi Mi-ok, Co-Representative of the Consumer Climate Action Association (Sahoe)

On December 10, 2020, the Government of the Republic of Korea declared the ‘2050 Carbon Neutral Vision.’

‘Carbon neutrality’ refers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by fossil fuel use and other sources, and offsetting or removing unavoidable emissions through forests, wetlands, and other means so that the net emissions become ‘0.’

Accordingly, changes are occurring across various sectors, with a representative example being the transition to a ‘plastic-free’ society.

The Honam Reporting Headquarters of Asia Economy is running a series of ‘Consumer Climate Action Columns’ to empathize with and participate in the plastic-free movement.

Last year, the total imports of GMO (genetically modified organism) soybeans and corn amounted to 1.74 million tons, which is enough for every citizen, including newborn babies, to consume an average of 33.7 kg annually. South Korea is the largest importer of edible GMO agricultural products, and when processed foods are included, a very large amount of GMO is consumed. As of August 2022, according to the GMO approval status, 186 GMO agricultural products, 31 GMO food additives, and 9 GMO microorganisms are imported and produced.

However, there is no labeling on the foods we actually eat that allows us to identify GMO ingredients. Although GMO labeling is legally mandatory, the problem lies in the exceptions. In other words, even if GMO raw materials are used, if genetically modified genes are not detected in the final food product, it is excluded from GMO labeling requirements. Oils, sugars, starches, and other products made from soybeans and corn?which constitute the majority of imported GMO crops?are not required to be labeled as GMO even if GMO raw materials are used.

Consumers have long demanded a raw material-based GMO labeling system, or a ‘complete GMO labeling system,’ that labels products as GMO if GMO raw materials are used, similar to country-of-origin labeling, to provide accurate information about food. In 2018, with the hope of achieving complete GMO labeling, 200,000 citizens signed a petition, and consumers expected to be able to know whether the foods they eat contain GMOs. However, even after four years, the ‘complete GMO labeling system’ is still adrift.

Recently, during a national audit, Oh Yu-kyung, Commissioner of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, announced the government’s plan to promote the complete GMO labeling system as a national agenda, stating, “Based on social consensus among consumers, citizens, producers, and organizations, we plan to legislate in 2024 and introduce the complete GMO labeling system step-by-step by product category starting in 2026.”

More than 20 years after GMOs have dominated our dining tables, the complete GMO labeling system is not a matter for consensus but an issue of food companies’ obligation to provide information and consumers’ rights to know and choose. The current ‘incomplete GMO labeling system’ rather intensifies safety controversies, anxiety, and negative consumer perceptions about GMOs.

Consumers’ demand is simple. If GMO raw materials are used, label as GMO; if Non-GMO raw materials are used, label as Non-GMO, so consumers can know and choose. Therefore, the government should no longer retreat behind the excuse of social consensus.

Recently, as the climate crisis worsens and South Korea’s low food self-sufficiency rate persists, claims have emerged that GMOs are an alternative to the food crisis. However, since global GMO seeds are monopolized by specific multinational corporations, if the world relies on GMOs to solve food problems, seed diversity, food diversity, and ultimately biodiversity, environment, agriculture, and rural diversity will disappear, and we may become dependent on certain companies. Above all, monoculture production systems like GM crop cultivation damage ecosystems and biodiversity, accelerating the climate crisis and worsening the food crisis.

Moreover, glyphosate, a herbicide used in GMO cultivation, has been classified by the WHO as a Group 2 carcinogen. Beyond the carcinogenicity and genotoxic risks of glyphosate, the increase of glyphosate-resistant superweeds raises concerns about ecosystem destruction, leading to ongoing controversies such as damage compensation lawsuits related to glyphosate. For these reasons, Austria has legally banned the use of glyphosate, which is subject to carcinogenicity debates.

Despite the serious ecological impact of GMOs, the management system is very inadequate. In 2017, GMO rapeseed, which was banned from import in Korea, was cultivated and spread nationwide, prompting the government to conduct a large-scale disposal operation of GMO rapeseed across the country. However, some sprouts were still found remaining, and tracing the unauthorized GMO rapeseed’s domestic entry route revealed gaps in plant quarantine during the import customs clearance process.

Currently, two-thirds of imported GMO foods pass through customs based solely on documents submitted by importers. The government, responsible for public safety, must reform the lax customs clearance and quarantine systems to properly prevent GMO contamination and protect producers and consumers from harm. Furthermore, the current incomplete GMO labeling system, which does not even allow consumers to verify the raw materials of the foods they consume, must be revised into a complete GMO labeling system that prioritizes public health and the right to know.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.