The Department of Health has again seized a shipment of toxic foodstuffs imported from China, this time baking ammonia containing the industrial chemical melamine. Following the recent scandal over tainted milk, the incident has again put food safety in the spotlight.
Since the melamine scandal broke, we have heard officials explaining the matter in terms of concentrations or permissible amounts of the substance, but rarely do they approach the problem from the angle of risk assessment, management and communication. Originally the department announced that melamine was not an allowed food additive. However it adjusted its position by adopting Hong Kong’s standard of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) as the maximum allowable concentration in foodstuffs. In so doing, health officials in effect said that it is legal for foods to contain melamine.
Considering that it is banned as a food additive, the melamine content of food and drinks should be zero, no matter what kind of test equipment is used.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents state that the reference dose for the concentration of melamine, in the absence of other toxic substances, that can be safely consumed is 0.63 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg bw-day). What this means is that if a person’s daily consumption of melamine is less than this then there is no appreciable risk to health.
If babies are fed 240g of infant formula containing 2.5ppm of melamine from birth until the age of two, and the average body weight of babies is 7.9kg, then the average daily consumption of melamine over two years will be 0.076mg/kg bw-day, only 12 percent of the FDA’s reference dose. Nevertheless, given that melamine is banned as a food additive, the allowable concentration of melamine in foodstuffs should be zero, or “not detectable.”
We hope that the government will set up a national risk assessment structure with decision-making powers. Only if a clear procedure and methods of risk assessment are laid out can we hope to handle incidents like the melamine scandal.
Chiang Chow-feng, Lan Yu-ching, Ling Ming-pei and Hsieh Hsien-tang are lecturers at the Department of Health Risk Management at China Medical University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS