In an age of information, we’ve been trained to check the label. Whether scanning a package in a grocery store or a menu in a restaurant, we look for clues about what we’re eating—calories, ingredients, and country of origin—to make informed choices for ourselves and our families. These labels are meant to provide a clear window into our food. But what if that window is showing an incomplete picture?
A critical piece of information is often missing, especially when you eat out or get food from a cafeteria: the mixing ratio. You might know your beef comes from Korea and Australia, but you don’t know if it’s 90% Korean or 1% Korean. This gap in transparency creates an illusion of choice, leaving consumers without the full story. The label remains, but the standard has disappeared.
1. The Critical Detail Your Restaurant Menu Isn’t Telling You
When you order a meal at a restaurant or get a tray in a cafeteria, the menu is required to list the country of origin for key ingredients like rice, beef, and the components of kimchi. You might see “Beef: Korean, Australian” and assume you have the necessary facts. However, the regulations stop there. There is no legal requirement to disclose the percentage of each origin.
This is a crucial distinction. Consumers can see the types of origin but have no way of knowing the quantity or proportion of each. Is the dish made primarily with domestic ingredients, with a small amount of imported product mixed in, or is it the other way around? This lack of information about mixing ratios means you never have the full story about what you are eating.
“In the food service industry, the mixing ratio is the information that is almost never spoken.”
2. Packaged Foods Have Stricter Rules Than Served Meals
What makes this lack of transparency even more surprising is the inconsistency in labeling regulations. Over time, the rules for processed foods sold in grocery stores have evolved. They now require origin labeling for the top two ingredients by their mixing ratio, giving consumers a much clearer picture of what’s inside the package.
However, the rules for the restaurant and mass-food-service industries—a sector worth over 20 trillion won annually in schools and the military alone—have not kept pace. They remain focused on simply listing the names of the countries. This creates an “information resolution gap.” The meal on your cafeteria tray is held to a lower standard of transparency than the packaged snack in your grocery cart, affecting everything from consumer choice to the ability to trace food sources during public health emergencies.
This gap has profound economic consequences. In price-driven bidding markets, like those for school and military cafeterias, the absence of a ratio standard creates a market structure that inherently favors the lowest bidder. A supplier using a minimal amount of a high-quality domestic ingredient mixed with cheaper imports can win a contract over a supplier using a high-content domestic product. Without a standard to verify content, quality becomes an unenforceable claim, and the system structurally penalizes those who don’t cut corners.
“Even when placed on the same dining table, the resolution of information is different for each sector.”
3. It’s Easier to Fix a Standard Than to Rebuild One
The government recently abolished a higher-level, voluntary “certification system” that allowed producers to verify that their product was made with at least 95% of a single-origin ingredient. The official reasoning was that the system had low usage and that eliminating it would improve administrative efficiency.
But this perspective misses the system’s most important function. Its value was not in its daily use, but in its existence as a benchmark—a higher standard that was available if needed. When a standard exists, it can be adjusted through “modification,” like changing the percentage requirement. But when the standard is gone completely, bringing it back requires “creation”—a far more complex process that involves re-registering standards, re-defining terms, and rebuilding entire tracking systems from scratch.
“If a standard exists, you can respond with ‘modification’ when it needs to be adjusted later. But if the standard disappears, ‘creation’ is required… And creation is far more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than modification.”
4. Without Standards, Plausible Stories Replace Hard Facts
This issue of food labeling standards points to a much larger, future-facing risk. As we enter an era of advanced artificial intelligence (AGI), the danger of plausible-sounding explanations replacing objective facts grows. When clear, objective standards are removed from society, we become vulnerable to compelling narratives that are disconnected from reality.
The absence of a clear standard for ingredient ratios creates ambiguity. This ambiguity doesn’t benefit everyone equally. It burdens the general public with the “cost of discernment,” forcing them to navigate a confusing information landscape without reliable tools. The real beneficiaries are the small group who hold an information advantage and can operate within the gray areas that a lack of standards creates.
“In a society where standards have disappeared, who benefits? The few with an information advantage.”
5. A Path Forward: Rebuilding the Language of Trust
Identifying the problem is only the first step; a systemic issue requires a systemic solution. A path to restoring transparency and trust can be built on a practical, three-step framework:
1. Pilot Programs in the Public Sector: Begin with pilot disclosures of mixing ratios for key ingredients in public-sector food services, such as schools and the military. This would create an immediate, high-impact test case for broader implementation.
2. Advanced Voluntary Labeling: Introduce a voluntary “High-Content Label” (e.g., “Domestic ≥90%”) for restaurants. This allows businesses committed to quality to differentiate themselves and incentivizes a market-driven race toward transparency.
3. Standardized Digital Infrastructure: Implement digital tracking for supply lots and batches as a standard practice. This creates a robust, auditable system for traceability, ensuring accountability and building consumer confidence.
Conclusion: Standards Aren’t Regulation; They Are a Language of Trust
Demanding more transparent food labeling, including the disclosure of mixing ratios, is not about heavy-handed market intervention. It is about building a “language of trust” between producers and consumers. Clear, consistent standards enable genuine choice and create a system where quality and traceability are valued. They provide a foundation for accountability in good times and bad.
For in the end, a standard is not a regulation; it is a language of care. Demanding clarity on our plates is how we ensure the well-being of our communities, one ingredient at a time.
English