The food scare involving the use of the banned substance di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, as an emulsifier or clouding agent does not look like it is going away any time soon. Since the story broke and has been investigated by the government, many products have been identified as containing the substance — in items found in five-star hotels as well as food outlet chains around the country.
The government has started to become concerned about the effect the scare is having on spending, as consumers become distrustful of what is on the shelves. Furthermore, we are now discovering that the contamination goes beyond just drink products and that the banned substances have also been found in food. The problem also spreads beyond our stores and shores, as items containing the plasticizer have been exported to at least 16 other countries and areas, including the US, China, the EU, Australia, Vietnam and the Philippines.
The point is that this incident has already aroused fears among consumers, making the public deeply mistrustful of both drink and food products on the market as well as the government’s food safety monitoring system.
There is a crisis of trust looming and in order to deal with the plasticizer fright, the government will need all hands on deck, with an integrated approach, being both interdepartmental and inter-regional and including non--governmental bodies, too.
There is already a small amount of cross-departmental cooperation under the guidance of the vice premier, although it would be better if more departments joined in. As far as cooperation between different government levels is concerned, the Department of Health (DOH) has already set things in motion, launching a nationwide investigation that has been largely successful, with only a couple of local governments abstaining. The government should also be encouraging civic groups and members of the public to monitor the situation, assist efforts and provide information about products containing DEHP.
There is also room for putting more pressure on companies to come clean and regulate themselves. The point being that we — or rather the Control Yuan — should not be preoccupied with pointing the finger: We should be addressing the situation at hand, trying to resolve the issue. If any finger-pointing is to be done, it can certainly wait until the scare is over.
The sensible thing to do upon discovering something like this would be for a specific individual or government department to take responsibility for the mess and to have them clear it up, although this would not be entirely fair.
This is because political accountability — in which the responsibility for the problem does lie with the various government agencies and departments that failed to fulfill their duties adequately — notwithstanding, there is also the matter of corporate responsibility that many companies have apparently disregarded, intentionally or not.
Although the government did hold a press conference a few days ago to announce the establishment of a cross-departmental task force, instigated by the vice premier and includes the DOH, the Environmental Protection Administration, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice, to demonstrate its resolve to tackle the issue, its handling of the scare thus far is not without its critics, who argue that it is too little, too late.
This is because this incident is very serious and has caught us pretty much unaware. Also, because it involves exported food products, it is very much an international issue. It is therefore not good enough for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to hang around on the sidelines: it has to get involved.
The government at both the national and local level should mobilize staff from all departments to deal with the crisis and to take an integrated approach.
If the public is kept in the dark it will start to panic and this could lead to a complete loss of faith in products on the market. The crucial point here is that, at the moment, consumers lack the information they need or do not know how to make informed decisions about whether food or drink products are safe to consume.
There is also something even more important. The presence of this plasticizer in what we have been eating may well have already affected the health of the next generation.
If authoritative information is unavailable or not readily forthcoming from the government, the public may well lose its faith in the government. The government should set up a special Web site where it can provide comprehensive information about the situation.
The government has its work cut out, above and beyond getting relevant information out to a concerned public. In addition to having to scrape back credibility for itself in the public’s mind, it also has to find a way to restore public trust in the market. Even more pressing, perhaps, is for it to restore trust in Taiwanese products in other countries.
The situation is therefore already well beyond the remit of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, given that it is no longer the responsibility of a single department and since it is unlikely to be resolved any time soon, the government should also set up a disaster response system to facilitate a cross-departmental, inter-agency, multi-level response. Whereas disaster response centers are usually staffed primarily by members of the fire department, in this case it would be staffed by members of the DOH.
The point is that the government has to do something to come to grips with this crisis and individual departments have to overcome their natural proclivity to work in isolation and find a way to work together to resolve the problem at hand.
Yang Yung-nane is director of National Cheng Kung University ’s department of political science.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry