[Column] Rice for food security? Think again

Now, the presidential office and his party are left to draw up a bigger picture of our agricultural industry.

Lee Hyun-sangThe author is a senior editorial writer for the JoongAng Ilbo.

The Democratic Party (DP) railroaded a controversial revision to the Grain Management Act on the grounds of food security. DP Chair Lee Jae-myung called President Yoon Suk Yeol’s veto of the revision “an abandonment of his strategy on food security.” Did the DP take action to prepare for a complete cease of food imports due to a war around the Korean Peninsula?

South Korea’s self-sufficiency rate on rice exceeds 90 percent. The rate could be 100 percent if not for the import requirement under the tariff-rate quota of the World Trade Organization regulation. In a nutshell, the DP’s insistence on the mandatory government purchase of surplus rice for food security reasons does not make sense.

Since the public rice reserve system was adopted in 2005, the government has spent up to 1 trillion won ($758.5 million) to buy rice from farmers each year. The rice stock is sold cheaply for processed foods three years later. As a result, the government must spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year only to store rice stock.

When rice prices fall, the government buys some excess rice to prop up the prices by segregating it from the market. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the government has spent a total of 23 trillion won on rice purchases to stabilize the market since 2005. The money entirely comes from taxpayers. Taxpayers cannot agree to the idea of paying “insurance premiums” to ensure their food security. Even an insurance premium cannot be raised without convincing reasons.

I doubt if the DP really knows the concept of food security. Finland topped the 2022 Global Food Security Index (GFSI) compiled by The Economist. The Nordic country could not have scored highest in food security on rich resources. The index measures food affordability by consumers, availability based on agricultural output and on-farm capabilities, quality and safety in food supplies, sustainability and adaptation against risks like climate change and shortage. Finland ranked highest in all four categories. The country was able to maintain a stable food import system mostly thanks to its vibrant economy, stable food import networks, as well as a reliable food management system in light of consumers’ safety and preferences.

Food security cannot be measured by the self-sufficiency rate alone. When living standards go up, the rate naturally goes down. In short, Korea affords to import a larger variety of foods from many parts of the world. Our dinner table had not been as rich as today in the 1970s when our food self-sufficiency rate hovered around 80 percent. A country aiming at a per capita income of $40,000 needs to consider nutritional balance, diet, and food preferences. That’s why high-income northern European countries like Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden are ranked in the Top 10 in the food security index even though they are not major grain exporting countries.

South Korea ranks No. 39 in the GFSI. The score is not so poor, given the lower agricultural share of the GDP. High tariffs on food imports are largely blamed for the lower rank. Korea received zero points in the tariff category. The country imposes a whopping 513 percent tariff on imported rice to protect farmers.

Rep. Park Hong-geun, center, floor leader of the Democratic Party, leads a rally in the National Assembly, Monday, to urge President Yoon Suk Yeol to promulgate a revision to the Grain Management Act railroaded by the majority party to mandate the government to buy a certain amount of surplus rice each year. The revised bill was vetoed by the president the following day. [KIM SEONG-RYONG]

But we must confront the uncomfortable fact that our average rice price — six times higher than the international price — eats up our overall farming competitiveness. Thanks to generous government support, rice farming has become nearly 100 percent automated. There is no need for marketing either, as the government is the biggest customer. Although it may not bring big riches, rice farming cannot fail. It is why aged farmers cannot give up farming. Instead, younger farmers must struggle to find other crops to make money.

Japan — a country whose food habits and climate are similar to Korea’s — ranks No. 6 in GFSI. Although its self-sufficiency rate is not that different from Korea’s, Japan ranks high in food security because of its strong import capabilities. The country has active trading houses like Mitsui, Marubeni, and Mitsubishi with “grain elevators” — facilities designed to stockpile or store grain — in major grain-producing countries. ZEN-NOH, a state-invested federation of agricultural cooperative associations in Japan, runs 60 grain elevators overseas. Korea has just two.

Stockpiling grain within the frontier is an outdated concept. It is as uneconomical — and nonsensical — as the idea of becoming fully sufficient in part and material supplies for chipmaking. Korea became a chip powerhouse thanks to its efficient utilization of global supply chains and networks. Of course, a higher self-sufficiency rate can help the government when it negotiates for import quota. But Korea’s self-sufficiency rate on rice is almost 100 percent. The government must pay more attention to other strategic grains like wheat and beans showing low self-sufficiency rates.

The DP may welcome President Yoon’s veto of the revision as it won’t help his People Power Party win the parliamentary elections next year. But the DP’s railroading of the contentious revision has exposed a critical lack of policy ideas as a supermajority party holding 169 seats in the 300-member legislature. Now, the presidential office and his party are left to draw up a bigger picture of our agricultural industry. Certainly, clinging to rice does not help.