Regulatory science, as defined by Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science, technology and social studies, refers to the scientific basis and principles that drive regulatory policies in various industries, and in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Taiwan is currently debating how administrative and regulatory departments can reduce the number of scandals over the use of industrial chemicals as food additives.
Industrial chemicals are raw materials used in chemical industries, while food additives are natural or synthetic substances are added to foods to preserve their flavor or improve their texture or enhance their appearance and color. China and Taiwan have both been hit by scandals over plasticizers in food, and Taiwan is now coping with a new scare over the use of chemical substances to make starch.
From the point of view of regulatory science, it would appear that these scandals have a number of threads in common.
The first common feature is proactive inspection. In the plasticizers case, a Department of Health researcher was searching for fake medicines using thin-layer and gas chromatography. Abnormal wave patterns in the test results confirmed that a probiotic product contained plasticizer.
In the starch case, the Consumers’ Foundation tested some rice noodles and found that they did not contain any rice. This finding led manufacturers to study their lists of additive ingredients. Then laboratory tests confirmed that there was a problem with the sources of some ingredients, namely the presence of maleic anhydride, which is not suitable for human consumption.
The second common thread to the scandals is the time lag before information was made public. In the case of plasticizers, a month-and-a-half elapsed from the initial detection of the substance until the primary supplier was traced and the information was announced. In the starch case, it took about a month from the time the authorities were notified until the manufacturer was traced, and a further month until the public was informed.
The third common feature is that secondary chemical businesses sold industrial chemicals to firms outside the chemical industry sector. Health authorities found the reason plasticizers had been used as food additives was a chemicals dealer had intentionally misrepresented these substances as food additives in marketing them to foodstuff manufacturers. In the present maleic anhydride case, the substance followed a similar path when it was sold into the foodstuff industry as “synthetic starch.”
The fourth commonality is that these two industrial chemicals introduced into the food industry originated from the same major chemicals manufacturer. Plasticizers and maleic anhydride are subject to different levels of regulation under the Toxic Chemical Substances Control Act (毒性化學物質管理法). Companies that produce and sell plasticizers are obliged to keep a record of whom they sell them to.
Although maleic anhydride is toxic and harmful to human health in that short-term exposure may lead to serious temporary or sustained injury, the law does not classify it as a toxic chemical or require a sales record to be kept.
In both cases, which occurred about one year apart, the authorities’ investigations found that the two questionable substances were both sold and delivered by the UPC Group, one of Taiwan’s main chemicals manufacturers.
The toxic flour scare arose close to the anniversary of the plasticizer incident, and it may serve as a reminder that the previous scandal did not prompt authorities to actively improve the regulation of sales channels for industrial chemicals. Proactive food tests and notification and regulation of toxic substances have their limitations, and appear incapable of preventing the malicious misuse of such substances beforehand, or of establishing regulatory procedures based on the concept of regulatory science. Instead, the authorities are using them as grounds to explain how the failure to notify them about maleic anhydride sales was not actually illegal.
In 1998, US authorities held discussions based on scientific evidence about whether to add maleic anhydride to the list of substances subject to export notification requirements under Section 12(b) of the US Toxic Substances Control Act. Although in the end it was not included in the list, at least the US authorities made the necessary efforts.
However, in Taiwan, it seems that we can only respond to incidents of the misuse of industrial chemicals in food manufacturing after they happen. This is done by tests carried out by government departments or the Consumers’ Foundation, which can be like looking for a needle in a haystack, rather than starting out by figuring out who is responsible at the head of the supply chain.
Regulatory science should be incorporated into society. Only if it is understood how industrial chemicals find their way from chemical factories into food processing plants can those responsible for such things happening be identified.
We must make a connection between scientific knowledge and principles and the day-to-day transactions in the chemicals and foodstuffs industries, and assess the practicability of applying regulatory science beyond the limits of existing laws. If this is not done, there is no knowing how many more chemical substances may turn up in our food chain.
Wong Yu-feng is an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine and the Center for Society, Technology and Medicine at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95