TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — As far back as 2016, the Council of Agriculture (COA) began promoting smart production and digital services in the agricultural industry to optimize workforce, resources, and the overall industry through the Smart Agriculture 4.0 Program (Agriculture 4.0).

The essential idea was that Taiwan could overcome many of its agricultural supply shortages by using smart agricultural production technology and smart service support systems. Agriculture 4.0 also envisaged that intelligent production technologies and smart management applications would help small farmers overcome challenges and increase overall production efficiency and quantity.

Big data techniques would establish comprehensive consumption service platforms, enhancing agricultural product safety and consumer loyalty. Ultimately, Agriculture 4.0 would then lead to international brand visibility for Taiwan’s unique smart agricultural technologies and services.

Fine ideals, but if this has been in motion for seven years, it is difficult to see real evidence of success with Agriculture 4.0. since Taiwan remains heavily dependent on imported food and agricultural products due to limited arable land and a small agricultural sector. Livestock producers rely on imported animal feed products and consumers continue to seek out higher end fresh fruits, beef, dairy, and tree nuts.

In 2021, Taiwan imported US$3.9 billion (NT$122 billion) in U.S. bulk, consumer-oriented, and related agricultural products. In 2022, 22.8% of Taiwan's agricultural imports came from the U.S. The main products imported include soybeans, beef, wheat, corn, and poultry meat. The import value of U.S.-exported agricultural products was up to US$4.67 billion in 2022.

Australia is also a large supplier of food and beverages to Taiwan. It is said that Australian produce appeals to Taiwanese buyers looking to take advantage of the variety of counter-seasonal supply and a reputation for safe, high-quality food. Major export items include meat, grain, dairy products and seafood.

Euro zone

The European Union (EU) exports to Taiwan in April this year, of food, drink and tobacco, were a reported 110 million euros (NT$3.7 billion), making the EU a significant import market for Taiwan.

There is no doubt that Taiwan takes food security and public welfare seriously, as witnessed by rejections of imports that are deemed to include chemicals or pesticides not approved for use in Taiwan.

However, how to feed Taiwan remains a question for the COA, especially when the agriculture sector of Taiwan is facing challenges such as the low level of food self-sufficiency, aging farmers, small scale farming, soaring price of fertilizers, natural disasters accelerated by climate change, and rapid changes in the world food economy.

It is the rapid changes in the world food economy that should give some reason to pause and consider the risks of new food production methodologies. And whether Taiwan will eventually be lured into importing such foods.

We all know about organic food and ecological food production. But there is a new, and possibly disturbing “food” coming to the global market — gene-edited food.

A recent Financial Times (FT) article on the EU’s plans to lift controls on some genetically modified crops to help farmers cope with climate change is likely to reignite a Europe-wide debate about the controversial technique of gene-edited food. A draft EU regulation proposes that many modified plants should be approved as conventional rather than go through the bloc’s existing genetically modified organism (GMO) regime, which is regarded as laborious and expensive.

Gene editing

The plan would establish a category of plants that have used gene editing to create new varieties. These plants include wheat that can withstand drought, tomatoes resistant to fungus and potatoes containing less acrylamide, which becomes carcinogenic when fried.

EU officials are quoted in the FT article as saying the new techniques are vital to maintain crop yields as farmers contend with changing weather patterns, such as drought and floods. They would also reduce the use of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals.

The proposal sets out different regulatory options but favors a light-touch regime for most new plant varieties. Currently, only a handful of GMOs have been authorised in the EU, mainly to feed animals, because of public and political opposition.

It is also argued that lifting an effective EU ban on gene-edited crops will also help the developing world. If the EU is considering gene-edited foods, it does not take a wide leap of imagination to see other major food producing countries considering the same technology if they feel the EU is gaining an export advantage.

Unsurprisingly, big seed companies are major advocates of genome editing. These advocates argue that technology is simply mimicking what happens in nature and the risks are minimal. However, the issue of “following the money” arises here.

Who benefits the most? The big-seed companies and their shareholders wanting increased sales and profits — or global consumers needing food to survive.

Critics against gene-edited foods have, for years, argued that genome editing creates unknown risks and serious ethical and social questions.

Clearly, there are deep divisions on the topic of gene-edited foods and whilst Taiwan is only a small market in global terms, it has a clear on-going dependency on food imports. The COA, as the gatekeeper of Taiwan’s agriculture and food imports, must ensure it keeps abreast of the EU and/or global developments on gene-edited foods and keep the Taiwanese consumer safe.