[Young journalist Seohyeong Moon] summary | Including South Korea, about 60 countries worldwide have implemented the GMO labelling systems. Even the United States, which has previously been lenient about the issue, is now undergoing change. While the State of Vermont will be the first to require GMO labels in July, the food industry announced that it would label products sold nationwide in the United States to show whether they contain GMOs not just the products sold in Vermont. 

Protecting consumers' right to know is beneficial. The problem is that this policy might create the misconception that GMO products are not safe. China has emerged as a major challenger in the global seed market. In response, the United States said it would try to block the deal. As ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, agreed to acquire the Swiss agricultural company Syngenta in February, the US officials and senators expressed concern and showed their intention to review the approval of the acquisition. The rationale for the U.S. interference in business combinations between China and Switzerland is that Syngenta operates some production facilities and research institutes in North Carolina, U.S.

Although the U.S. used food security as a counter-argument, it appears that it is worried that China will undermine the U.S. hegemony in the seed industry. ChemChina beat the U.S. company Monsanto to buy Syngenta. Monsanto offered $47 billion while ChemChina offered $43 billion to pay the full amount in cash. ChemChina planned to raise $15 billion to help pay for the deal by April.

China develops GMO at a national level
ChemChina's acquisition of Syngenta was mainly introduced in Korea from the perspective of seed industry and competition between China and the United States. What has been less addressed is the Chinese government's commitment to genetically modified (GMO) crops. When GMOs are cultivated, they are resistant to pests and need to use less pesticides, thereby increasing production. In order to foster agriculture and secure food security, China needs to catch up with advanced GMO technology and take the lead in improving crops. Therefore, China used ChemChina to buy Syngenta.

Syngenta is the world's third largest seed company after Monsanto and DuPont. The three major global companies control 90 percent of the global GMO seed market.

Such a move by China could change the landscape of the dispute over the harmfulness of GMOs. Opponents of GMOs are saying that they are harmful to human bodies, emphasizing that European countries have banned them. It did not mention that China is trying to use GMOs as the "seed" to increase food self-sufficiency. If China actively develops and produces GMOs after the U.S., the objection that "except the U.S., major countries around the world do not cultivate GMOs" will be diluted.

GMOs are also a source of doubt for the Chinese. Not a few Chinese people believe in the "GMO conspiracy theory" that combines anti-Americanism and Maoism. Let's take a look back at the situation by going back about three years. According to a report by the British weekly The Economist, an official claimed in a video made in October 2013 for the training of military officers that "the United States is trying to dominate the world by controlling global food production." A retired general warned state media that "the U.S. is setting up a trap with GMOs, and the consequences will be worse than the Opium War." Some argued on the Internet that "GMOs cause infertility in Asians, and that this is a scheme by the U.S. targeting China."

The Chinese government returned genetically recombinant corn to the United States without customs clearance in order to quell public opposition to GMOs. At the same time, the Chinese government launched a public promotion and education campaign to alleviate concerns among its citizens that GMOs would be harmful to humans. Beijing Evening News reported President Xi Jinping's comments and emphasized the importance of growing GMOs. "China should ensure that biotechnology is safe and not allow foreign companies to dominate the GMO market," Xi said.

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture announced, "We will continue to support major GMO projects." Last February, China Daily quoted a senior Chinese government official, saying, "With a population of 1.3 billion, China is facing growing environmental and resource constraints in agriculture, and it must not lag behind in promising and emerging genetic recombination technologies in the future". The Chinese government chose the strategy of acquiring Syngenta to achieve the goal more quickly.

Regulations on GMOs are different in each region. In other words, the decision to regulate GMOs is not mainly based on whether they are harmful or not. European countries particularly have strict rules about GMOs not because they are harmful but to protect their own agriculture. In contrast, China has decided that GMOs are essential and safe in order to feed its citizens with crops grown in their own country.

There is no scientific evidence proving the danger of GMO products. The safety test of GMO soybeans and corns have been completed in the mid-1990s. Based on the cultivated area worldwide, 73% of soybeans and 29% of corns are genetically modified. The U.S. exports most of the soybeans and corn traded in the global market, with 90% of them being GMOs.

There is a research conclusion that Kim Seong-hoon, head of the CCEJ Consumer Justice Center, and others who suggest that GMOs are harmful often mention. It is a research done by Kean University in Canada by Professor Eric Cellarini's team. Kim Seong-hoon often introduces this project, stating “Cellarini’s team conducted the first long-term research project that used Monsanto corns and Roundup herbicide on laboratory mice for 2 years as per the average lifespan of mice, and as a result found terrifying disease phenomena (Monsanto typically tests for only 90 days)” on various media outlets and interviews.Kim Seong-hoon stated that “Massive tumors have increased from 200~300% and spoilage has been found in important organs such as kidneys and livers, and more than 70% of female laboratory mice died early.”

Food expert Choi Nak-eon criticised this experiment, stating that the research did not have the basic requirements of a carcinogenesis experiment by conducting actions such as feeding herbicide to mice in addition to corns. In October last year, he wrote on Slow news that “this experiment did not follow the guidelines of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Europe Ministry of food and safety stated that the protocol was incorrect along with Korea’s Ministry of food and safety.”

Spread of papers with inaccurate experimental process and interpretation
"According to experiments, rats fed 11 percent, 22 percent and 33 percent of genetically modified (GMO) products had a higher fatality rate," he said. "If GMO is toxic, the fatality rate should be higher, but it is against common sense that 11 percent is higher." Both the experimental process and interpretation are not accurate.

The results of the experiment were published in the September 2012 issue of the U.S. journal Food and Chemical Poisonics and were withdrawn by the editorial staff on the grounds of lack of evidence. Wallace Hayes, the editor-in-chief of the journal, held a press conference in Brussels in late November 2013 and said, "We found no evidence of fraud or intentional misinterpretation in the paper, but we are unable to reach a clear conclusion such as the one presented by this paper."

Another issue regarding GMO is a policy where you include the use of GMOs on ingredient labels. Including South Korea, 60 other nations enforced a GMO labelling system. Due to this, there are shifts happening in the United States’ loose system. Vermouth State will enforce the labelling system this July for the first time, and the food industry stated that they will label the use of GMOs in all products that are supplied across the United States. It is good that they are satisfying the customer’s right to know. However, the problem is that this may provide negative views regarding GMOs’ safety. The error can be split into two areas. One is that the criteria for determination may be instilled loosely that they accept empty husks, or that they enforce the rules too strictly so that they discard the good grains. It is worrying as the misunderstanding of GMOs may lead to the second error.

▶원문 기사: [따져 봅시다 | GMO 농작물은 진짜 해로운가] 콩·옥수수 안전성 시험 1990년대에 끝나 (이코노미스트, 2016. 4. 30_-)
 

 ◆이코노미스트가 글로벌 차세대 경제 리더, 청소년 기자단 영 저널리스트와 함께합니다. 영 저널리스트 기자단은 프리미엄 경제지 이코노미스트, 논술 전문 기관 Ni 에듀케이션과 함께 주요 시사 이슈를 팔로우업하고 직접 기획, 취재, 기사 작성 활동을 하며 사회적 문제를 고심하고 해결 방안을 제시하는 과정을 경험하게 됩니다. 이번 기사는 영 저널리스트 기자단이 이코노미스트 기사를 영문으로 번역하며 이슈를 팔로우업한 기사입니다. 차세대 글로벌 경제 리더, <영 저널리스트 with  이코노미스트> 영문 기사는 매주 연재됩니다. 

ⓒ이코노미스트(https://economist.co.kr) '내일을 위한 경제뉴스 이코노미스트' 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지