The Cabinet’s Board of Science and Technology recently announced its intention to draw up a set of rules governing the regulation of genetic modification (GM) technologies in order to expand existing restrictions and encourage domestic research, development and production of GM crops.
After this news was announced, I-Mei Foods general manager Kao Chih-ming (高志明) publicly expressed his reservations, saying that such a move is “sure to turn Taiwan into the primary testing ground for major global GM manufacturers.” This stirred up quite a debate on Kao’s Facebook page, the general consensus being that the Cabinet’s policy was ill-conceived.
A spokesperson for the board said the aim was more to regulate GM research and development, not to promote it as such, and the Council of Agriculture (COA) spoke of the importance of maintaining openness and transparency concerning the development of agricultural GM products, and of exercising caution regarding which products are developed. Nevertheless, these official announcements were not enough to completely dispel Kao’s suspicions.
The official position is that the drafting of the new regulations was less concerned with the planting of genetically modified organisms (GMO) than it was R&D in the field. A lot of investment went into the early development of GMO in Taiwan, although there was little to show for it, and the COA is already aware of the problems. The precious little scientific research now being undertaken on cultivating GM crops notwithstanding, the focus has mostly shifted to risk management. Surely, if the Cabinet wants to encourage research and development into GMO, it does not expect the council to start afresh.
Hawaii is one of the global centers of GMO development, and it is known for its GM papayas. Over the past few years, major GMO producers have been setting up their own labs around the archipelago. This has major repercussions because of the wide expanses of land available for GM crops on the US mainland. The planting of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, and the consequent wide usage of herbicides, has led to the emergence of super-weeds resistant to agricultural chemicals.
Genetically modified pesticides have also resulted in the creation of “super insects” which have become resistant to pesticides. This has meant that the GM companies are having to continuously cultivate multiple pesticides and genetically engineer multiple hybrid toxic proteins. This development is a matter of some concern for many Hawaiians who are worried that genetic engineering could negatively impact human health and the environment. For this reason they are actively seeking to legislate against the planting of GM crops, creating a major headache for GMO producers.
Are these same producers planning to relocate to Taiwan? Taiwan is similar to Hawaii in that crops can be grown for three seasons of the year, and with the proper facilities available, it is a good place for GMO labs to be set up. Information released by WikiLeaks in 2010 reveals that the American Institute in Taiwan has been lobbying for Taiwan to become a springboard for GM technologies in Asia.
It is reasonable to assume that the government’s decision to develop the facilities for GMO research and development has something to do with attracting major GM companies. If this is the case, and Kao’s suspicions are proven to be well-founded, would the public find this acceptable? One can only hope that the Cabinet offers a public guarantee that it does not plan to allow foreign institutions to make GMO tests in Taiwan.
Warren Kuo is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Agronomy.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS