Scientific and rational policy responses to pollution and other things that are harmful to human health, such as avian influenza, SARS, foot-and-mouth disease, leanness-enhancing feed additives and nuclear accidents, should all be based on what is called the precautionary principle. Taking precautions means putting safety first, because it is better to be safe than sorry. This notion underpins the Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle, which was jointly issued in 1998 by scientists, philosophers, jurists and environmentalists who took part in the Science and Environmental Health Network conference.
When faced with scientific uncertainties and risks, it is vitally important to minimize risk by adopting the precautionary principle. When scientific evidence indicates that a particular thing or action may cause pollution or pose a threat to public health, even if there is no absolute scientific proof of the risk, policy should assume that such a risk exists. That should be the case unless and until the thing in question is scientifically proven to be safe. To put it simply, the burden of proof is on those who are in favor of the thing or action in question, not on those who are worried about or opposed to it.
When it was suspected that some dried bean curd might be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum bacteria, health au-thorities took the precaution of ordering all dried bean curd that might be tainted taken off the shelves immediately. In incidents where a few pigs on some farms were infected by foot-and-mouth disease, they reacted promptly by slaughtering all the pigs on those farms, even though there was no proof that they had all been infected. When SARS broke out, some people were isolated because it was determined that they may have been infected, even though it could not be confirmed that they had been. These are all examples of precautionary measures taken to avoid the risk, however slight, of harm to public health.
There is already scientific evidence indicating that meat containing ractopamine may be harmful to human health, so the scientifically rational thing to do is to follow the precautionary principle. The overall message from research literature is that ractopamine has not been proven to be safe. That being the case, it should not be added to animal feed. It should be banned with zero tolerance, meaning that only meat containing no detectable ractopamine residue should be allowed. Besides, zero tolerance makes inspection and implementation relatively quick and precise, and it is relatively uncontroversial.
As for avian influenza, the standard operating procedure is to adopt the precautionary principle: If a dangerous virus is confirmed to be present on a farm, then all chickens on the farm must be slaughtered straight away. Although a nuclear accident like the one that happened at Fukushima in Japan a year ago may be improbable, it could still happen. So, unless science can prove that nuclear energy is completely safe, the public must be prepared for the possibility that such a deadly nuclear accident could happen here.
To change the standard for ractopamine from zero tolerance to a maximum residue level of 10 parts per billion and to delay responding to an outbreak of H5N2 avian influenza run counter to scientific and rational principles and exposes the public to considerable health threats. Who knows whether Taiwan would be able withstand a nuclear accident, should one ever happen? Surely, the government can’t be ignorant of the risk. Is it deliberately keeping the people in the dark, or is it under pressure? Or maybe it’s because some people stand to gain from the policies the government is pursuing.
Cheng Hsien-yu is a professor at the Department of Eco-science and Eco-technology, National University of Tainan.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS