Food safety problems occur in developed countries, but thanks to quick responses by governments, most of these issues are quickly dealt with.
In addition to a highly developed consumer awareness, most governments have in place a complete response system for food safety crises, which means that there is no need to panic or shirk responsibility.
First, such a system needs legislation so that government agencies can respond to a sudden food safety crisis with timely and unified action, and to avoid a situation in which no one is held accountable.
Second, an agency, such as the EU’s Food Safety Authority, dedicated to dealing with sudden food safety problems should be established to do risk assessment and management, which should be contributed to by multiple sources to boost scientific integrity and limit government interference.
Third, an early warning system should be set up with different agencies responsible for the management and announcement of information. The US’ Emergency Prevention System for Food Safety is an example.
Finally, an urgent-response mechanism should be set up — such as the UK’s systems for food product traceability and recall — market controls should be improved, and producers and sellers who violate the law should be punished heavily.
Developed countries have made far-reaching amendments to food safety standards, and legislation has been implemented to put the responsibility and risk onto manufacturers and sellers of inferior products. This has been done to increase the willingness of buyers and importers to cooperate with companies that can provide products that meet national standards.
The US has gone further still, completing a system that records place of origin as well as wholesaler and retailer data, such that contaminated food products can quickly be traced. This means that safety controls are present throughout the supply chain, and the US government, businesses and consumers share responsibility for food safety.
These are solutions that Taiwan can learn from.
In Taiwan, no one, from the government down to companies and consumers, seems to have learned anything from past food safety scares.
Moreover, these issues have a short shelf life. If it drags on a bit, the issue is forgotten and penalties are low despite all the fuss. Lawbreaking, unscrupulous individuals and businesses have not had to pay a heavy price. That is why these food safety scandals continue to occur.
This behavior affects commercial activities and also has an effect on the human body. The government has never released detailed calculations of production losses and the medical costs due to tainted food products.
Food safety monitoring and controls are a bit like monitoring and controlling the financial industry: They must be running continuously. In addition to promptly setting up a food product traceability system and improving unequal access to information among businesses and consumers, the government must stop blaming a lack of human resources and finances, and not rely solely on the trustworthiness of manufacturers. Doing so requires cooperation between government, businesses and the general public.
Government officials cannot simply ask consumers to stop eating inferior food products — they have no way of separating good from bad — or try to placate them by saying that ingesting small volumes — how much is a “small volume”? — is not dangerous. It is a fundamental responsibility of government to provide people with an environment where they do not have to worry about what they eat and drink.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with