The Department of Health (DOH) announced yesterday it would use the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method to test for melamine in raw materials used for making creamer, milk powder and baby formula and conduct random checks on 20 percent of all finished versions of these products from high-risk countries.
The DOH deserves credit for employing this method to test for the toxic substance as experts say the LC-MS/MS method is capable of detecting melamine at levels as low as 1 part per billion (ppb) — a much more stringent level than 1 or 2.5 parts per million (ppm) that were previously considered.
Until the DOH publicized its decision yesterday, its handling of the melamine scare raised doubt as to whether it had the public’s interests at heart.
Shortly after toxic milk powder from China first sparked panic in Taiwan, contaminated non-dairy creamer was discovered, casting doubts on the safety of instant coffee powder, cookies, candy, soup powder and other products.
The government won some applause for its response when an emergency meeting headed by Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) first decided last Tuesday that all vegetable-based protein products must be pulled from store shelves until they could be tested for melamine. Even President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) lauded the decision as a “good expression of determination.”
However, less than 12 hours later, the government flip-flopped and said that only selected China-made products needed to be pulled. Furthermore, it eased the standard of acceptable melamine content, adopting the 2.5ppm standard used in Hong Kong.
After coming under fire for its 2.5ppm statement, the DOH changed its mind again, employing the stringent LC-MS/MS method to test for melamine — but only on raw materials for creamer, milk powder and baby formula.
After so many 180-degree turns, the public is understandably confused about what products are safe, and after waiting so long for the DOH to make up its mind, the policies it has implemented still leave gaping holes of risk.
First, the LC-MS/MS testing — while very stringent — will only be used on 20 percent of finished creamer, milk powder and baby formula products from high-risk countries. What about the 80 percent not tested?
Second, there was no word about testing other types of finished products. Chinese-made products have already been banned, but products in other countries using Chinese materials have not. That means cookies, candies, soup powder and other products that have been recalled in countries around the globe would remain on store shelves — untested — in Taiwan.
It’s possible that DOH officials are comforting themselves with the notion that these other products wouldn’t pose “that much” risk because they don’t contain “that much” of the contaminated raw material. This is a slippery slope and one which Taiwanese must refuse to sit on.
The only “acceptable” risk in this case is zero.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS