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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS