Before Fukushima Products Flood In, 'Complete Labeling System' Must Be Established [Kim Taemin's Food and Drug Story]

Japan's Persistent Demand to Resume Imports
If Korea Joins CPTPP in April
Pressure Likely to Increase Following Taiwan

Currently, 'Agricultural and Fishery Product Origin Labeling'
Difficult to Guarantee Public's Right to Know

Government to Revise Standards and Laws
Must Display All Possible Information
So Consumers Can Make Informed Decisions

More than 10 years have passed since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but due to a lack of clear information on radioactive leakage and controversies over poor management, the import of seafood from Fukushima is still banned in South Korea. However, Japan's strong demands to resume imports continue, and recently this issue has resurfaced in connection with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), causing public anxiety. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement led by the United States and Japan among Asia-Pacific countries, became void after U.S. President Donald Trump announced withdrawal in January 2017. Subsequently, Japan led the formation of the CPTPP, signed by 11 countries. South Korea is reportedly preparing to apply for membership in April, and recently Taiwan, as a strategic move for joining, fully lifted its ban on food imports from Fukushima, which seems to have emboldened Japan to pressure South Korea as well.

The government's primary reason for banning seafood imports from Fukushima is 'safety.' However, since import approval may become inevitable to join the CPTPP, it is necessary to reorganize labeling regulations in advance to prepare for such a situation.

Currently, the South Korean government manages food labeling through the 'Act on Labeling and Advertising of Foods' and the 'Act on the Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products.' However, there are criticisms that the public finds it difficult to fully trust government policies, as some regulations still prioritize industry opinions over the public's right to know.

A representative example is the labeling issue regarding genetically modified organisms (GMO). Since the current administration took office, it pledged as a presidential campaign promise to implement a full labeling system for GMOs, but only formed consultative bodies to avoid responsibility. Citing concerns over cost increases and unnecessary public anxiety, the government has instead represented industry interests and delayed the implementation of the system. In this process, the Supreme Court recently drew attention by ruling that government policies and existing laws were flawed and that administrative actions based on them should be canceled.

The case began when a dairy company labeled its products as 'antibiotic-free + raised with Non-GMO soybeans.' The competent administrative agency, Jeollanam-do Province, judged this as deceptive labeling under Article 8, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 of the Act on Labeling and Advertising of Foods and issued a corrective administrative order.

In the first trial, the court ruled that 'when Non-GMO labeling is applied to foods like dairy products that are not subject to GMO labeling, consumers might mistakenly believe that other dairy products contain genetically modified DNA or proteins. To protect consumers' right to know, labeling only GMOs according to the GMO labeling notice is sufficient, so this does not constitute deceptive or misleading labeling.'

However, the second trial completely overturned the first trial's decision. The case was ultimately finalized by the Supreme Court without oral arguments, which is interpreted as opening the door to various GMO food labeling based on consumer perception. Nevertheless, there have been no changes to laws or policies on GMO labeling since this case.

If food safety is the government's responsibility, providing consumers with all possible information to make informed decisions is equally important. So far, the government has taken it for granted to handle fundamental policies and laws, including consumers' right to know, under government leadership. Labeling is the safest and most objective way for consumers to judge food. Given the difficulty of the government blocking every false or exaggerated advertisement, it should not forget that labeling is the best system the government can offer consumers. The government should start by revising laws and implementing systems based on reasonable consumer standards.

Lawyer, Food Hygiene Law Research Institute

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.