THE MELAMINE-CONTAMINATED milk powder scandal has shaken Taiwan’s food industry and has scared the living daylights out of the public. However, prior to this incident, there were many warning signs such as poor quality starch, poisonous hairy crabs and grouper fish as well as pork containing ractopamine, an additive used in pig feed to tenderize pork. But what have our authorities learned from these incidents?
The commotion surrounding the contaminated milk powder will subside sooner or later, but will we ever be able to trust that our food is safe after this? I have been teaching food safety for more than 20 years in university and am active in issues related to the Department of Health (DOH) and the health bureau in several cities and counties.
Taiwan still lacks a complete system for managing food safety and with all the questionable Chinese products, similar incidents will continue to occur if we cannot establish a thorough system for managing food safety.
Can the establishment of a food and drug administration really resolve the problem? If there is no change in the attitude or the way our senior officials think, nothing will ever change. I want to share some observations made over the years in the hope they may be a useful reference.
First, it was wrong of legislators and the public to solely blame the health department for the melamine scandal. The Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection (BSMI) is responsible for controlling food imports, while the department is responsible for food safety after products reach stores.
Testing for melamine was not part of the regular food-safety tests, and this was the same in other countries worldwide. Now that there has been melamine contamination, all the health department can do is prepare itself to guard against future occurrences, although officials there have seemed confused and erratic about their plans.
Second, the Bureau of Food Sanitation (BFS) is severely underfunded and the least respected agency in a system that emphasizes medicine and medical treatment. In addition, apart from BFS and BSMI staffers, most employees of health bureaus nationwide have backgrounds in veterinary science, public health or nursing.
The lack of staff with a background in food safety is widespread. This situation has not improved for more than 20 years. The BFS has had five directors, two whose backgrounds were in pharmacology. With non-specialists leading specialists, how are we supposed to draw up effective policies for national food safety?
Third, although some DOH managers have administrative ability, many have become arrogant and incapable of listening to advice, not to mention the public’s concerns. Each year, the health department, the Council of Agriculture and the Industrial Development Bureau allot huge sums to private organizations for national technology development programs. However, it is not clear who is in charge of assessing the effectiveness of these programs.
There are also senior officials who take on health-related managerial positions in the private industry after they retire. This leads to the question of how effective our “revolving-door” restriction has been.
Fourth, in the past few years, government restructuring has resulted in the merging of health bureau food and drug departments into a food and drug division, where most directors have pharmacology backgrounds. This is proof that food safety has been neglected to the point of nonexistence.
Finally, food inspections by health authorities are mostly focused on inspection, sampling and doling out fines. But what good has this done? More and more products are found violating the limits on hydrogen peroxide, additives, coloring and chemical pesticides.
Three years ago, Taoyuan County’s Bureau of Food Sanitation came up with a breakthrough strategy to establish certifications for local brands to encourage them to improve their practices. This strategy was reportedly praised by a head of the DOH.
Taiwan’s food industry is not very large, and lacks specialized technical knowledge. We do not need idealistic slogans for food safety policies.
If we are unable to solve the fundamental problems in our system, what use are strict punishment and more legislation?
We need to focus our attention on the fundamentals. The general public do not need to be told about parts per million this or that. What they want is to be able to eat their food without having to worry about negative side effects.
Perry Chiu is a food science professor at Fu Jen Catholic University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS