GMO Labeling to Be Required for Edible Oil... Food Industry Cites Ongoing Supply Chain and Cost Concerns

The National Assembly has chosen a "selective labeling system" as a compromise regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods (GMOs).

According to political sources on August 21, the amendment to the Food Sanitation Act, which passed the second subcommittee of the National Assembly Health and Welfare Committee's legislative review the previous day, exempts foods from mandatory GMO labeling if genetically modified DNA and proteins disappear during processing, even if GMO raw materials were used. However, labeling will be required only for items designated by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Instead of the complete labeling system demanded by consumer groups, a "middle-ground solution" was adopted, taking into account opposition from industry and government ministries.

This proposal was prepared based on an amendment sponsored by Assemblywoman Nam Insoon of the Democratic Party of Korea, reflecting the opinion of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. All previous amendments were absorbed into the committee's alternative proposal and subsequently discarded as "alternative-reflected disposal."

▲"What food is on your table today?".
[Photo by Asia Economy DB]

원본보기 아이콘

The current system mandates GMO labeling only for foods using six raw materials-soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, alfalfa, and sugar beets-if genetically modified DNA or protein remains after processing. If none remains, labeling is not required.

The amendment maintains this framework but requires labeling of "GMO use" for specific items designated by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, regardless of DNA residue. The definition of "genetic modification" is also clearly included in the law as "altering the genes of agricultural, livestock, or marine products using biotechnology."

Debate over GMO labeling began in earnest in the late 1990s, when large quantities of U.S. soybeans and corn were imported. The government introduced the system in 1998 and expanded it through a 2001 amendment to the Food Sanitation Act, but the scope remained limited. In 2017, a Blue House petition calling for a "complete GMO labeling system" gathered 200,000 signatures, making it a social issue. However, the government responded cautiously, stating that "social consensus is needed."

원본보기 아이콘

The food industry remains uneasy, citing unresolved policy uncertainty. Companies are closely watching how far the scope might expand during the process of enacting enforcement ordinances and notifications. An industry insider said, "If a complete labeling system had been fully implemented, the supply chain would have been disrupted from the raw material import stage," and added, "The biggest variable is how far the labeling targets will expand in future enforcement ordinances and detailed notifications." The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety plans to finalize the list of items subject to labeling through future enforcement ordinances and notifications.

The industry's main concern is sourcing raw materials. The starch sugar and edible oil industries are virtually dependent on imported GMO soybeans. Over the past three years, about 69% of imported soybeans have been GMO. There are no domestic imports of GMO cotton, alfalfa, or sugar beets. The domestic self-sufficiency rate for soybeans is only 7.5%. To secure non-GMO raw materials, companies must rely on a limited number of suppliers such as Ukraine, increasing risks due to international grain price volatility.

Cost burdens are also significant. According to the Korea Food Industry Association, the price gap between GMO and non-GMO raw materials ranges from 20% to 70%. For staple processed foods used in large quantities, such as soy sauce, starch sugar, and edible oil, production costs are bound to rise, leading to higher consumer prices. An industry official said, "If the phrase 'genetically modified raw materials used' is labeled regardless of scientific risk, consumers may misunderstand it as a health risk," and added, "This will only increase social anxiety and ultimately pass the cost burden onto consumers."

Furthermore, in products such as edible oil and starch sugar, DNA and proteins are completely removed during manufacturing and refining, making it scientifically difficult to verify GMO status. In such cases, if the "GMO use" label is required, the industry would have to rely solely on import documentation, reducing the effectiveness of the system and potentially being seen as a double standard in international trade.

Consumer groups criticized the compromise, saying, "It still fails to guarantee consumers' right to know."

원본보기 아이콘

Meanwhile, in Japan, labeling is required for nine agricultural products including soybeans and corn, and 33 processed foods, but only if the ingredient is among the top three by weight and accounts for more than 5% of the total. In the United States, labeling is required only if DNA or protein remains, with a threshold of 5% or less. The EU mandates GMO labeling for all foods regardless of DNA residue, with a threshold of 0.9% or less. Australia also applies labeling to 20 items, including soybeans, corn, and canola, with a threshold of 3%.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.