It was recently reported that the government has finished laying down the framework for its policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which will be discussed during WTO negotiations at the end of this month: Taiwan will take a neutral position, instituting a voluntary labelling system whereby companies will not be legally bound to state if their products have been genetically modified.
The Department of Health (|甈F院衛生署) only recently announced that it will establish a commission to screen GMOs before they can be placed on the market.
These developments reveal the government's lack of commitment to protect consumers' rights and its failure to set up a system to manage risk from GMOs, even though biotechnology is viewed by the government as a key industry.
The Council of Agriculture (
GMOs make use of a random gene splicing method, worlds apart from previous grafting techniques and rendering scientists unable to fully control the chemicals that result from their genetic engineering. This has spawned a giant scientific debate, with biotech companies stressing the advantages of GMOs (calling it a "new" green revolution), and environmental groups pointing to the inability of scientists to control the influence of GMOs on the ecosystem.
The two most famous examples are Dr. Arpad Pusztai's research, which shows that rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered stunted growth, and the report in the journal Science, which revealed that genetically altered corn affects environmental conditions crucial for the growth of Monarch butterfly larvae.
Protests against GMOs began in the early 1990s, and have been going strong ever since. European nations are more receptive to environmental and conservation issues, and this has led to great resistance there against GMOs. Anti-GMO food movements sprouted up in European nations in the 1990s, including Germany, Austria, Switzerland, England and France. These groups have now linked up with the anti-nuclear movement in Europe, creating a new space for environmentalist groups.
The anti-GMO movement reached its peak at the end of 1996 when the US put pressure on the EU to allow the import of GMOs. More than two-thirds of European residents were opposed to the importation at that time, and large protests erupted when the first batch of genetically altered crops arrived at the EU port of Hamburg.
European governments have been carefully reviewing drafts of GMO regulations since 1993, and the European Commission recently passed a resolution in 1997 forcing companies to label the genetically altered content of their products. The law also provides for strict controls and a stringent permit system for countries exporting GMOs to the EU, and stipulates that the total GMO content of imports to the EU should not exceed 8 percent of total food shipments.
Countries in Asia, however, have not yet developed a framework for bargaining with GMO exporting nations, allowing genetically altered products to freely enter the region. Taiwan's government has repeatedly stated that biotechnology will be one of Taiwan's most competitive future industries, but has not put forth any clear policy for managing the risks that the industry will bring.
The German Parliament established an "Information Technology Consultative Commission" and "Biotechnology Consultative Commission" a few years ago, bringing in a number of experts to provide estimates of risk from the new technologies. The legislative body was not only interested in developing the competiveness of high-tech industries, but balanced this with social and cultural development. Biotech in Taiwan, however, is following in the tracks of the domestic information industry, which was nurtured to international competitiveness by technocrats in the government.
Yet the risks from biotechnology are high, and require not only developed economic and advanced scientific facilities, but also an open and democratic system that allows for real democratic participation.
A democratic system to handle this new technology should include both consultative committees within the legislative branch, as well as an reporting system which could bringing together both government agencies and NGOs. The Department of Health and Council of Agriculture should compile risk assessment reports, and intra-ministerial organizations (ideally the National Science Council) should coordinate ideas from all areas within society and conduct discussion on disputed issues, such as the importation of GMOs, or the health effects of genetically altered foodstuffs.
The group should further publicize its findings. This would both start an inquiry into the present importation of GMOs into Taiwan, and would establish a model for the local biotech development. The government's willingness to allow genetically altered foodstuff to "sneak into" Taiwan, and its virtual blackout of information on the topic raises doubts about the government's ability to establish a system to avoid the dangers that biotech will bring.
Chou Kui-tien is Professor of Sociology at Munich University in Germany
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,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS