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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which