The controversy over US beef imports has yet to be resolved, but the issue has to be dealt with, because Washington has made it clear that it wants Taiwan to allow imports of US beef containing traces of the leanness-enhancing agent ractopamine, and that this will be a precondition for negotiating and resuming talks on the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).
The US beef issue has widespread implications. Aside from questions about food safety and health, its effects encompass economics, politics, diplomacy and Taiwan’s participation in the international community. Therefore, the issue is significant for the nation’s future prospects and development. If the battle lines over the US beef issue are extended indefinitely, it will not be a good thing for Taiwan.
Let us consider the international realities. When the US was negotiating trade agreements with Japan and South Korea, it also bundled up the issue of beef imports with the negotiations. Taking food safety considerations into account, the Japanese and South Korean governments both agreed to allow imports of US beef containing less than 10 parts per billion of ractopamine, and signed free-trade agreements (FTAs) on that basis.
However, Japan maintains a total ban on the use of ractopamine within its own borders and has strengthened various measures for protecting its citizens’ health.
Some people may insist that meat containing ractopamine is completely harmless, but consumer protection groups will definitely not agree.
As media reports have shown, the Democratic Progressive Party is not opposed to importing US beef or doing trade with the US; it is only opposed to importing beef that contains ractopamine. The government’s task then is to communicate better with the public, respecting expertise and assessing the issue according to technical data and risk management.
The government must promise that after it allows imports of beef containing ractopamine, it will set a rigorous standard for the permitted amount of ractopamine, in line with international practice.
It must include ractopamine and growth promoters in the list of substances for which meat has to be tested according to the law and ensure that imported meat is clearly labeled with its country of origin.
This way, suppliers, retailers and restaurant owners can keep consumers fully informed and consumers can refer to the labels when deciding what products to choose or reject. That would serve to protect the health of people living in Taiwan.
South Korea’s experience is that the impact of allowing US beef imports has not been as serious as was originally thought. Although local beef is three times more expensive than US beef, South Koreans still prefer to buy local beef whose safety is guaranteed by the government. Hence, high-quality South Korean beef is not threatened by US imports.
Newly slaughtered beef produced in Taiwan is fresh, sweet and tender. Imported frozen beef cannot compare with it. However, Taiwanese beef accounts for less than 10 percent of the supply, so consumers do not have much opportunity to choose it.
Agricultural policy departments will have to think long and hard about how to ensure that local beef producers can continue to develop sustainably.
Relaxing restrictions on US beef imports will cause many problems for Taiwan’s agriculture. Notably, the US beef issue is tied up with prospects for the TIFA and an FTA. Apart from beef, such agreements may also require Taiwan to lift restrictions on related imports of pork, rice and other products.
In other words, once Taiwan has got a ticket to a TIFA by allowing imports of US beef that contains ractopamine, Taiwanese agriculture will face pressure to liberalize completely.
So, when signing trade agreements, the government should consider the welfare of farmers and the agricultural industry. It should provide more agricultural subsidies, safeguards and complementary measures, as it did when Taiwan joined the WTO. In addition, steps must be taken to make producers more competitive. Even if Taiwan could get out of allowing imports of US beef containing ractopamine, it would not be able to avoid demands from future FTAs with other countries, as well as from the existing Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China. Upgrading the entire structure of Taiwan’s agricultural production is an unavoidable task.
To ensure that pork produced in Taiwan is safe to eat and to inspire consumer confidence, the government should persuade local livestock producers not to use ractopamine and encourage them to provide high-quality meat products that can be differentiated from ractopamine-treated imported meat.
Then consumers will have a choice. That would turn a crisis into an opportunity by establishing an image of Taiwanese livestock products as being healthy and of fine quality.
Doing that and building up consumer awareness are good ways to increase demand for local meat products and reduce meat imports.
Peng Tso-kwei is a chair professor at Asia University and a former minister of agriculture.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS