Home > Opinion > Columns

Seventeen years later, mad cow hysteria returns as a political boomerang

Published: 29 Jul. 2025, 00:02

Choi Min-woo

The author is the editor of political, international, foreign and security news at the JoongAng Ilbo.

On April 18, 2008, less than two months after its inauguration, the Lee Myung-bak administration finalized a deal with the United States to fully reopen the Korean market to U.S. beef imports. It was part of the follow-up to the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiated under the previous Roh Moo-hyun administration. At the time, the Lee government failed to anticipate the political backlash the agreement would trigger. Riding high from sweeping victories in the 2007 presidential and 2008 general elections, the administration underestimated the response from progressive political forces.

Just ten days later, MBC’s investigative program PD Notebook aired a special titled “Is U.S. beef safe from mad cow disease?” The episode included alarming footage — such as healthy-looking cows suddenly collapsing — and fueled fears that consuming U.S. beef could cause variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), also known as human mad cow disease. No such case had ever been reported in Korea, but panic spread rapidly. Candlelight protests began at Cheonggye Plaza in early May. Soon, “stroller brigades” joined, and slogans like “Brain mush, hole punch” echoed across rallies.

Healthcare professionals chant slogans condemning the government's decision to resume U.S. beef imports during a press conference titled “National Statement by 1,174 Healthcare Workers Concerned About Mad Cow Disease,” held in front of the U.S. Embassy in Gwanghwamun, central Seoul, on the morning of Sept. 27, 2006. At the time, the Roh Moo-hyun administration was negotiating an FTA with the United States. [YONHAP]

For the Democratic Party, then in opposition, the moment was politically opportune. The party refused to attend National Assembly sessions and joined the protests, calling for renegotiations. By late May, demonstrators attempted to march to the Blue House. The Lee administration eventually renegotiated the deal, limiting imports to beef from cattle under 30 months of age. In August, the National Assembly passed a law requiring parliamentary review for imports of older cattle. The protests subsided, but the damage to the Lee government was lasting.

The reason this history is resurfacing now is because of the looming tariff negotiations with the United States, which must conclude within days. While Korean companies are making massive investments in the United States, the Trump administration is pressuring Seoul to further open its agricultural markets — especially beef. On July 25, President Donald Trump posted about Australia’s move to liberalize its beef market and warned he was “watching those who reject our excellent beef.”

Currently, Korea is the only country in active tariff negotiations with Washington that still imposes age-based restrictions on U.S. beef imports. The consensus is that Korea will need to lift these restrictions, making beef market liberalization a near inevitability in the talks.

Despite this, the ruling Democratic Party appears detached from these geopolitical realities. In a televised debate on July 27, both candidates for party leadership expressed resistance to lifting the 30-month age limit. Rep. Jung Chung-rae said, “The 30-month age restriction must remain the bottom line. The government should defend this to protect domestic cattle farmers.” Rep. Park Chan-dae added, “Any expansion of beef imports touches a nerve with the public due to mad cow concerns. The government must negotiate with the public’s sentiment in mind.”

But is there an alternative plan that would allow Korea to maintain beef import restrictions while lowering tariffs to 15 percent? Without such a strategy, the rhetoric seems out of step with economic realities.

In fact, beef imports may be the least damaging component of the broader tariff talks. The scientific basis for continued restrictions is weak. Not a single case of vCJD has ever been linked to U.S. beef consumption. Yet the Democratic Party clings to past fears, unable to distance itself from the 2008 mad cow hysteria.

The party missed an opportunity to correct course in 2011 when the Supreme Court ruled on the PD Notebook broadcast. The court found that three core claims made by the program — including the likelihood that “downer cows” were infected, the cause of Aretha Vinson’s death, and the genetic susceptibility of Koreans — were all false. Still, the court declined to hold the producers liable for defamation, citing the press’s role in public interest journalism. In effect, the content was false but not legally punishable.

Korean farmers stage a rally near the presidential office in Seoul, demanding that the government protect Korea's agricultural and livestock industries in ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, Monday, July 28. The banner at bottom reads ″Opposition to the opening of agricultural and livestock products in the Korea-US tariff negotiations.″ [AP/YONHAP]

Even then, the Democratic Party did not express regret. On the contrary, it has continued to benefit politically from similar fear-driven narratives — whether regarding Thaad radar emissions or treated wastewater from Fukushima.

One could argue that such tactics were forgivable in opposition. However, now that the ruling party is in power, the strategy is unsustainable. Relying on outdated fear campaigns will not strengthen Korea’s negotiating position with the United States. Instead, the administration must urgently consider how to support farmers and others who may be adversely affected by liberalization.

Above all, it is time for Korean politics to move beyond conspiracy-driven narratives.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.