The case of genetically modified Starlink corn finding its way onto supermarket shelves has already been extensively reported on by the major news media. In Japan and Korea, government agencies have already requested that the US recall questionable genetically modified corn and have formally demanded that this kind of product not be imported again. I want to ask, why has our government remained indifferent to this problem? Where are the relevant government agencies in Taiwan?
At the outset, because US officials feared that special proteins in this brand of genetically modified corn might cause an allergic reaction in humans, they only approved it for use as animal feed. Just as many consumers and environmental groups feared, once these kinds of genetically modified foods pass through international political and commercial lobbying mechanisms, they steal across borders and spread unchecked through the world's markets. The essence of the problem is very simple. It lies in the capital and profits demanded by commercial groups in return for the enormous research and development costs they have incurred.
The Starlink case was exposed in September this year when Mexican-style taco shells were "discovered" to contain genetically modified corn only approved for use as animal feed. Food manufacturers recalled over 300 types of food products for this reason and initiated a series of genetic tests. More recently, reports have come out about 44 people suffering allergic reactions, including rashes, diarrhea, vomiting and so on. The report also points out that it is only because of the recent spate of events in which Starlink
tainted their food products that the above-mentioned cases were reported to the US Food and Drug Administration. Since the US is the primary producer and exporter of genetically modified crops, its scientific inspections and administrative controls superficially appear to be those of an "advanced" nation. Real management practices are quite loose, however. For instance, of 14 genetically modified crops approved for distribution in the market by the US, only four were allowed on the market in Europe and Japan.
Let's review the way Taiwan handled the problem. When news of the Starlink case first broke internationally in September, our neighbors Japan and Korea, which also import genetically modified crops from the US, strongly criticized the US and requested that over 10,000 tonnes of corn be recalled. The responsible attitude of their authorities showed their committment to safeguarding consumer health and safety.
However, from September to the end of November no urgent action was taken by any of the relevant departments in Taiwan. There was no investigation into the sources importing the corn, the processing routes, or the end-products of which it was to be an ingredient, nor was any formal explanation given to consumers. We must ask, where are our relevant authorities?
The most important aspects of environmental and consumer protection are prevention and management. Since Taiwan ? which may also have imported Starlink genetically modified corn ? has no mechanism to guard against the import of this kind of product, we should quickly move to manage and rectify this situation to meet the current dangerous crisis. The most basic approach would be the establishment of an inspection system to determine the origins of imports. We want to emphasize that the establishment of a system of compulsory labeling of genetically modified food products has recently taken a small step forward in Taiwan. Although we are a stage behind other nations, such as Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, this is still worth affirming. The Department of Health, for example, has already set up an information network regarding genetically modified food products. However, the information they provide to safeguard consumer health, rights and interests and to avoid further harm from Starlink corn is insufficient. Consumers still have no way of knowing where to go for information or how to avoid buying food products containing Starlink corn.
The Starlink case also gives optimistic supporters of genetically modified food products several warnings. Usually, the reason many people trust genetically modified foods, which are still shrouded in uncertainty in terms of their safety, is because they believe that if food proteins remain essentially the same when genetically modified, there is nothing to worry about. "It should be safe to eat." There are many uncertain factors, however, in the process of controlling technology. After leaving the laboratory, technology will be faced with the influence of commercial, political and social mechanisms, perhaps even resulting in distortion. The Starlink case is a perfect example.
At the same time, the second generation of genetic modification techniques will implant chromosomes with a particular function, e.g. producing vitamins, etc., and thereby cause essential changes in food content and proteins. When that happens, the ethical dispute will be even greater. Therefore, in confronting this new technology, we should abide by strict testing procedures and experimental time schedules. The rapid marketing of genetically modified food products throughout the world by the manufacturers of genetically modified crops is a dangerous, possibly fatal, joke on world consumers and ecology.
With genetically modified foods being rejected in Europe and other advanced countries, they are turning toward the opening Asian markets with the belief that we are not well acquainted with the problems of genetically modified foods. In fact, among the five million metric tonnes of soybeans Taiwan has imported in the last couple of years, nearly 50 percent were genetically modified, and among the two million metric tonnes of corn imported in the same period, nearly 30 percent was modified. Is it possible that we are indeed guinea pigs?
Chou Kuei-tien is an assistant professor at the future studies division, Educational Development Center, Tamkang University.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
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
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS