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
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS