DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of risk evaluation procedures and consideration of risk assessment issues of living modified organisms for agricultural use in Korea

농업용(사료용) 유전자변형생물체의 위해성심사 제도 분석 및 환경위해성평가 관련 쟁점에 대한 고찰

  • Myung-Ho Lim (Ja-Yeon Living Science Coordination) ;
  • Sang Dae Yun (School of Applied Biosciences, KyungPook National University) ;
  • Eun Young Kim (School of Applied Biosciences, KyungPook National University) ;
  • Sung Aeong Oh (School of Applied Biosciences, KyungPook National University) ;
  • Soon-Ki Park (School of Applied Biosciences, KyungPook National University)
  • 임명호 (자연생활과학코디) ;
  • 윤상대 (경북대학교 응용생명과학부) ;
  • 김은영 (경북대학교 응용생명과학부) ;
  • 오성앵 (경북대학교 응용생명과학부) ;
  • 박순기 (경북대학교 응용생명과학부)
  • Received : 2023.12.11
  • Accepted : 2023.12.15
  • Published : 2023.12.22

Abstract

Since the implementation of the Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) Act in 2008, approximately 10 million tons of genetically modified corn, soybean, potato, canola, and other crops have been imported into South Korea. The import approval procedures have been completed for approximately 191 cases that include seven crops. Of these, approximately 90 cases, excluding crossbreeds of approved LMOs, were reviewed via consultation risk evaluation in four areas: human health, crop culture, natural ecology, and marine fishery environment. LMO developers in South Korea, who are major stakeholders in the import of LMO crops produced overseas, have raised concerns regarding procedural inefficiency in consultation reviews and the need of excessive reviews that are unsuitable for food-feed processing purposes. These procedures reflect the perspective of consultation agencies that deviate from the nature of risk assessment and demand specific supplementary data that do not reflect familiarity and substantial equilibrium. Based on frequent instances of unintentional environmental release of LMO crops imported into Korea, the ministries responsible for consultation insist on a review that considers the climate and natural environment of Korea. In addition, the ministries mandate that their reviews reflect the expertise of competent ministries and are based on risk assessment principles and methods in accordance with international guidelines. In this regard, considering that traits introduced into LMO crops involving familiar agricultural crops have been considered safe for more than two decades, we have suggested reasonable alternatives to several risk assessment items for agricultural LMOs. These alternatives can mitigate conflicts of interest among key stakeholders within the scope of the current LMO regulations.

지난 2008년 유전자변형생물체 관련 법이 공식 발효된 이후 연간 평균 일천만톤 정도의 유전자변형 옥수수, 콩, 면실, 카놀라 등이 수입되고 7개 작목에서 약 191건에 대한 수입 승인 절차가 진행되었다. 이중 후대교배종을 제외한 약 90건은 인체, 작물재배환경, 자연생태환경, 해양수산환경의 4개 분야의 협의심사를 통한 위해성심사가 수행되었다. 해외에서 생산된 유전자변형작물을 한국으로 수출하는 주요 이해 당사자인 개발사들은 협의심사의 절차적 비효율성, 위해성 평가의 본질에서 벗어난 협의기관의 관점이 반영된 심사, 식품사료가공용 용도에 맞지않는 과도한 심사, 친숙성과 실질적동등성을 반영하지 아니한 한국 특이적인 보완자료 요구 등의 문제를 제기하였다. 이에 대하여 협의심사를 담당하는 부처/기관은 국내로 알곡 형태로 수입되는 유전자변형작물의 빈번한 비의도적 환경방출 사례를 근거로 한국의 기후와 자연환경을 반영한 심사가 필요함을 주장하였다. 또한 협의심사를 담당하는 부처는 국제적 지침에 따라서 위해성 평가의 원칙과 방법에 근거하여 소관 부처의 전문성을 반영하는 심사를 수행함을 주장하였다. 본 논문은 이들 유전자 변형작물이 식품, 사료(농업), 또는 가공(산업) 용도로 수입되는 친숙한 농업 작물으로 안전하게 이용된 사실에 근거하여, 논란이 되어온 농업용 용도에 해당되는 위해성평가 세부 몇개 항목에 대해 합리적인 대안을 제시하고자 하였다. 이러한 대안들이 현재의 LMO법 규정의 범위 내에서 주요이해당사자의 이해충돌을 완화할 수 있는 현실적인 대안이 되기를 기대한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 2023년도 농촌진흥청 LMO위해성평가기관 과제(과제번호: RS-2023-00219422)의 지원으로 수행되었다.

References

  1. Bachman PM, Anderson J, Burns A, Chakravarthy S, Goodwin L, Privalle L, Song S, Storer N (2021) Data transportability for studies performed to support an environmrntal risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) crops. J Regulatory Science 9:38-44  https://doi.org/10.21423/JRS-V09I1BACHMAN
  2. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission) (2003) Priciples for the risk analysis of food derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44-2003 
  3. Choi WK, Jo BH, Seol MA, Eum SJ, Park JH, Song, HR (2014) Presence of environmental risk assessments for LMOs in nature and future considerations based on new technologies. Korean J Int Agric 26:297-302  https://doi.org/10.12719/KSIA.2014.26.3.297
  4. EC (European Commission) (2019) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm. GMO Register 
  5. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2006) Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal 99:1-100; and, EFSA Guidance Document on the ERA of GM plants 
  6. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010:8(11):1879 
  7. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization) (2000) Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on foods derived from biotechnology. 29 May - 2 June 2000. World Health Organization, Geneva 
  8. ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) (2020) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops:2019. ISAAA Brief No. 55. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, USA. 
  9. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2003) Ruth Mackenzie, Francoise Burhenne-Guilmin, Antonio G.M. La Vina and Jacob D. Werksman in cooperation with Alfonso Ascencio, Julian Kinderlerer, Katharina Kummer and Richard Tapper. An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. UCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No.46 
  10. JBCH (Japan Biosafety Clearing House) (2021) https://www.biodic.go.jp/bch/lmo.html#nourinBunya 
  11. Jin Y, Drabik D, Heerink N, Wessler J (2019) Getting an imported GM crop approved in China. Trends in Biotechnology 37:566-569  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.02.004
  12. KBCH (Korea Biosafety Clearing House) (2008) An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 
  13. KBCH (Korea Biosafety Clearing House) (2021) Major statistics on genetically modified organism in 2019.
  14. KBCH. No.2021-01 KBCH (Korea Biosafety Clearing House) (2023) https://www.biosafety.or.kr/portal/page/f_01 (LMO status) 
  15. Kim DY, Heo JH, Park IS, Park JH, Um MS, Kim HJ, Park KW, Nam KH, Oh SD, Kim JK, Seo JS, Kim CG (2021) Natural hybridization between transgenic and wild soybean genotypes. Plant Biotechnology Reports 15:299-308  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-021-00685-2
  16. Kim HY (2018) Establishment of risk assessment criteria for agricultural LMO and improvement of regulatory system. (Final Report for the research project (PJ013923), Next Generation BioProgram 21, Rural Development Administration Korea) 
  17. Kim IR, Lim HS, Choi WK, Kang DJ, Lee SY, Lee JR (2020) Monitoring living modified canola using an efficient multiplex PCR assay in natural environments in South Korea. Appl Sci 10:7721 
  18. Kwon MH (2022) Proposal number:2115477. Partial amendment to the LMO Act (Rep. Kwon Myung-ho and 10 others, 2022.05.03.) https://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billId=PRC_U2T2K0O3O2Z9M1Y6T1P9O5G6E7M6R1 
  19. LMO Act (2018) Act No. 16868 (Partial amendment, 2018.12.18) https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?efYd=20190612&lsiSeq=205608#0000 
  20. MFDS (Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (2011) Good review practice for safety of genetically modified food. (Publication registeration number: 11-1470000-002736-01) 
  21. Park HJ (2007) Environmental risk assessment and risk evaluation of LMOs for agricultural use. Biosafety 8(4):48-53 
  22. Park SH, Cho JI, Kim YS, Kim SM, Lim SM, Lee GS, Park SC (2018) National program for developing biotech crops in Korea. Plant Breeding and Biotechnology 6:171-176  https://doi.org/10.9787/PBB.2018.6.3.171
  23. Shin YD (2021) Proposal number:2113028. Partial amendment to the LMO Act. (Rep. Shin Young-Dae and 10 others, 2021. 10.29) https://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billID=PRC_Z2V1Y0T9H0C3Q1A0R3H8L4Z9Q8E4X2 
  24. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) (2016) Guidance on risk assessment of living modified organisms and monitoring in the content of risk assessment. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-Mop/8/8/Add.1 
  25. Yoo MS (2022) A study on improvement measures according to the review of the necessity of the consultation evaluation system for living modified organisms. (Final report for the research project: Korea Biosafety Clearing House)