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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of