GMO, 지속가능성을 위한 전략

Main ideas & concepts

• Food security as the core sustainability condition

  • Humanity’s sustainability depends on the stability of food production and supply.
  • Multiple external shocks (e.g., climate crisis, COVID-19, Ukraine crisis) and limited arable land intensify the need for solutions that raise productivity.

• GMO biotechnology as a productivity + environmental strategy

  • GMOs are framed as a tool to:
    • Increase agricultural productivity
    • Protect or reduce environmental impacts
    • Improve resilience (pests, disease, herbicide tolerance)
  • The discussion contrasts international use (where GM is already widely deployed) with Korea’s slower adoption and public controversy.

• Korea’s challenge: low domestic cultivation + high public skepticism

  • The forum emphasizes that although GM exists globally and is used in food and biotech, Korean public perception is strongly negative, creating policy and adoption friction.
  • A recurring theme: policy debates are not only about safety, but also about social perception, labeling, trust, and economic feasibility.

---

Methodologies / structure of the presentations (as described)

A) Ha Sang-do (Chung-Ang University): Food security, GMO issues, and regulation (institutional/regulatory perspective)

Key content blocks:

• Food security context & need

  • Korea’s grain self-sufficiency/availability is described as low, creating vulnerability.
  • Import dependence is high; GM products are major parts of feed/inputs.

• Definitions and scope

  • GMOs: genetically engineered organisms (animals/plants/microorganisms).
  • “GM food” includes foods made from GM agricultural products and also products using GM-derived microorganisms (e.g., enzymes).
  • Compares gene insertion (GM) vs gene editing/cutting (described as “scissor skills”).

• Global status (high-level)

  • GM cultivation is concentrated in regions such as the Americas and some in Asia; limited in Europe.

• Korea’s current adoption status

  • No domestic commercial GMO cultivation is described as currently approved/available.
  • Korea focuses on research and has some approvals for imports (edible ingredients and microorganisms).

• Safety assessment & management

  • GMO safety is handled through regulatory frameworks and review/approval procedures.
  • Import approval is linked to safety screening and applicant submissions (and not all approvals may be issued yet).

• Regulatory system in Korea (categorized by law/function)

  • Framework Act on Food Safety (mentions genetic engineering tech in food safety context)
  • Food Sanitation Act (food regulations/controls)
  • Quality Control Act (agricultural biotech/genetic modification product control)
  • International movement law: GMO definition/controls for cross-border movement
  • Ministry roles
    • MFAFF/related authority: domestic cultivation approval review (if applicants exist)
    • MFDS (Ministry of Food and Drug Safety): labeling and food-related safety/controls

• Labeling system described

  • GMO labeling began with implementation of mandatory labeling rules (time references given).
  • What must be labeled:
    • Labeling requirement when GM DNA/protein remains above relevant conditions.
  • Exemptions:
    • Highly processed products where genes/proteins are not present after refinement may not require labeling.

• Debate: “full/complete labeling”

  • Proposed shift (especially discussed for 2026 with phased approach and legislative preparation).
  • Core contention:
    • Pros: better consumer choice and transparency
    • Cons: potential economic effects (e.g., price increases, labeling language issues)
  • Discussion includes how the US uses different terminology/labeling categories (e.g., “bioengineered” rather than “GMO”).

• Policy/product strategy suggestions

  • Prefer less stigmatizing naming (e.g., avoiding “GM” branding; propose “biotech organism/crops” framing).
  • Nationwide public education campaign for accurate understanding.
  • If domestic cultivation is hard, consider export strategies.
  • Move from strict labeling toward possible certification/authentication approaches.
  • Suggest a more strategic labeling scope (not only “everything fully labeled,” but selectively where it matters for safety/trust/market relevance).

---

B) Kim Hye-young (Kyung Hee University): Technical and scientific perspectives (development methods, safety concepts, and gene editing trends)

Presentation content organized as follows:

• Four major items overview (stated)

  • Development of biotechnology (how GM traits are created and improved)
  • Comparison of breeding vs GM (time/cost and precision)
  • Safety assessment logic/“substantial equivalence”
  • Trends including gene editing regulation and classification

• Breeding vs GM: time and mechanism

  • Crossbreeding
    • Requires compatible interbreeding and repeated selection.
    • Typically costs time and resources.
  • GM approach
    • Direct gene insertion using transformation methods.
    • More targeted but still requires long safety assessment cycles.

• Safety assessment framework

  • Substantial equivalence
    • GM foods compared with conventional counterparts to determine whether differences are limited to intended changes.
  • Development pipeline duration and cost
    • Multi-year development; roughly ~10-year timeframe, with large budgets (figures provided).
  • Generational trait examples
    • First generation: disease/pest resistance
    • Later: quality improvements (examples given)

• Examples of common GM traits

  • Herbicide tolerance
    • Pathway interruption and enzyme-related mechanism described (EPSPS/EPS Beth mentioned; wording is noisy due to auto-subtitles).
    • Safety testing includes studies up to high concentration exposures.
  • Pest resistance (Bt-type concept)
    • Mechanism described: toxins/proteins affecting specific pests via receptor/activation differences in insect vs human biology.
    • Notes that BT products can appear in “organic” contexts (discussed as non-exclusivity of Bt as a method).
  • RNA interference (RNI)
    • Gene silencing example (browning suppression in apples/potatoes described conceptually).

• Stacked traits (“event stacking”)

  • Combines multiple traits by crossbreeding lines with single events.
  • “Event names” explained as identifiers of transformation events.

• Gene editing regulation (emerging policy issue)

  • Some editing categories may be treated differently than classic GM depending on method/outcome.
  • Regulatory discussion in the US/UK and Europe, including how editing products might be classified.

• Conclusion: role of life science tech

  • GM and related biotechnologies are framed as tools for agriculture, environment protection, and even medical/food processing innovation.

---

C) Roundtable discussion structure (moderator + discussants)

• Moderator

  • Park Hyun-jin (chairperson; Department of Food Engineering, Korea University)

• Discussants invited

  • Multiple experts and stakeholders introduced, each offering viewpoints.

---

Roundtable: main positions by speaker (high-level)

Kwak Sang-soo (Korea Biotechnology Research Institute) — national policy & development strategy

• GM crop development in Korea is described as proceeding through multiple government projects, then being disbanded/paused at points.
• Emphasizes:
  • Difficulty of evaluation by non-experts for complex GM assessment.
  • Need for consensus-making and policy stability.
• Highlights comparison factors in food security vulnerability:
  • Grain self-sufficiency/reserves of Japan/China vs Korea.
• Suggests:
  • Not total suspension—rather strategic continuation, including overseas expansion and climate crisis response.
  • Conventional breeding and gene editing are also needed alongside GM.

Kwon Su-jin (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences / Academy of Sciences; Genetics Division implied)

• Emphasizes food security as top priority and that future crises will increase.
• Argues for an ecosystem approach:
  • Government + scientists + seed industry + farmers + consumers.
• Defends safety governance:
  • GM crops undergo safety review and managed containment/monitoring.
  • Calls for transparent openness and public engagement to improve trust.
• Highlights overseas collaboration (Uruguay mentioned) and research bases.
• Notes big data / supercomputer support for faster seed development.

Jeo Yun-mi (consumer representative / organization representative; consumer-focused)

• Shifts from “safety only” debates toward economic impact and agricultural production structure impacts.
• Claims the core issue is not just science but:
  • values, perception, communication, and trust
  • international economic/technology power dynamics affecting policy choices
• Critiques “evidence-based” policy gaps using an example:
  • Eco-friendly certification systems (GP vs organic) and how political decisions shape outcomes.
• Presents consumer survey-style findings (percentages mentioned):
  • Concern about GM differs from concerns about radiation/heavy metals/bacteria; GM occupies a significant share.
  • Knowledge gaps and misconceptions persist, and education programs are insufficient.
• Concludes that public perception improvement requires continuous communication and trust-building rather than only labeling changes.

Park Jun-hyun (Daesang Corporation quality management / head role)

• Frames GM demand as driven by:
  • high import dependence for grains and feed inputs
  • increasing global population and worsening cultivation conditions
  • smart-farming innovation needs
• Explains company-side approach:
  • Uses approved grains/raw materials.
  • Separation management and safety evaluation criteria.
  • Stability through testing and compliance with domestic regulations.
• Notes:
  • Consumer safety concern is the biggest issue.
  • Differences in public opinion can reduce adoption competitiveness and raise economic uncertainty.
• Suggests:
  • Improve consumer understanding with scientific evidence.
  • Strengthen government monitoring/controls.

---

Q&A: recurring issues and conclusions (summarized)

• Are “GM safe” studies trustworthy?

  • Response emphasizes peer review, objective data, and that many commercial GM varieties (soy/corn) have passed government safety assessments and are considered safe under approved conditions.

• Are long-term effects and animal study concerns valid?

  • Safety evaluation described as multi-stage (toxicity/allergen assessment, pathology, monitoring).
  • Absolute certainty is difficult; international regulatory thresholds and practical risk management are emphasized.

• Allergy risk from new proteins

  • Response: allergy potential is assessed; comparable risk exists even with naturally occurring foods.

• Environmental gene transfer / ecosystem impact

  • Response: evaluates plausible transfer routes and manages risk as part of approval review; assumes environmental factors are considered in approval.

• Labeling “complete/full labeling” feasibility

  • Responses stress:
    • Consumer “right to know” matters
    • Implementation scope/timing are complex (especially when proteins/DNA aren’t present after processing, and when feed/animal products are involved)
    • Complete labeling could be economically disruptive and may confuse consumers without clear scientific rationale

• Why some GM ingredients aren’t used in imports despite approval? (example: low-acrylamide potato)

  • Response notes approvals differ by product type and applicants.
  • Acrylamide reduction is considered a consumer-choice driver, potentially improving market acceptance.

• Consumer perception vs scientific messaging

  • Multiple responses emphasize that science alone doesn’t resolve distrust quickly.
  • Calls for improved communication, transparency, traceability, and evidence-based system upgrades.

---

Overall lessons / takeaways

• GM/biotech is portrayed as a tool for food security under growing climate and supply risks, but adoption depends on trust, labeling policy, and perceived fairness/economic impacts.
• Korea’s unique challenge is not only technical safety review (institutionalized for imports), but public perception, terminology stigma, and uncertainty about “complete labeling” scope.
• A balanced policy approach emerges:
  • Continue/advance biotech R&D (including overseas and complementary tools like breeding/gene editing)
  • Strengthen safety governance and transparency
  • Improve public understanding with objective, consistent evidence
  • Implement labeling in a phased, scientifically justified way that minimizes confusion and economic shock

---

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

• Park Hyun-jin — Chairperson / Department of Food Engineering, Korea University (moderator)
• Lee Chang-wi — “General Vice President Lee Chang-wi” (opening remarks/intro)
• Ha Sang-do — Professor, Chung-Ang University (main presenter; institutional/regulatory GMO perspective)
• Kim Hye-young — Professor, Kyung Hee University (main presenter; technical/scientific GMO + gene editing perspective)
• Kwak Sang-soo — Director (Engineering Research Center), Korea Biotechnology Research Institute
• Kwon Su-jin — Manager / National Agricultural Research and Development-related role (Academy of Sciences / Genetics Division indicated)
• Jeo Yun-mi — Consumer-side representative / future consumer behavior discussant
• Park Jun-hyun — Head of Quality Management, Daesang Corporation
• Jo Yun-mi — Mentioned as CEO/representative in Q&A (consumer-related panel voice)
• Lee Cheol-ro — Professor (brief remarks later in discussion)

General references / institutions named:

• Korea University; Chung-Ang University; Kyung Hee University
• Rural Development Administration (RDA)
• Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS)
• Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MFAFF context)
• KISTEP / K-STEP forum (policy/innovation context)
• UN Convention on Biological Diversity (international regulatory context)
• Company names mentioned: Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, BASF, etc.
• Uruguay collaboration mentioned for overseas research base