While attending a food safety forum, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that a government unable to resolve the food safety problem is unqualified to rule. She proposed five measures to deal with food safety and stressed that the issue would be a top priority for her administration should the DPP return to power after next year’s election.
That Tsai, the candidate who tops opinion polls, fully understands the public’s urgent demand for food safety — and has promised to bring it under control — makes her candidacy worthy of the electorate’s support.
However, providing consumers with peace of mind through the implementation of genuine food safety controls will require more than just rebuilding the political responsibility of government departments, improving government efficiency and sharing an increased degree of responsibility and risk between manufacturers, producers and sellers, as there are several other considerations that need to be examined. For instance: How can food safety be kept permanently at the top of the agenda?
First, the right people must be placed in the right positions, rather than handing out positions as post-election rewards. The latter approach has led to the current situation, in which politicians and bureaucrats spend all their time worrying about their careers while achieving precious little.
Then there are academics who hold a position for only a brief period before returning to university teaching. Only through implementing real reform will it be possible to establish a working culture that encourages civil servants to actively take up the task without making excuses or simply doing the minimum to get by.
In the past, too many careless mistakes have been made over food safety. When public anger has reached boiling point, officials have failed to understand the plight of ordinary people, some even going so far as to make sneering remarks that incite a fresh wave of anger.
Despite all this, officials continue to enjoy the support of their superiors. In a state of sublime relaxation, they plump their feathered pillows and settle down for a good night’s sleep. Nobody cares about achieving results or bothers about the public’s reaction. This is one of the reasons behind the endless stream of food safety scares. Unfortunately, measures for tackling the problem were not included in Tsai’s food safety bag of tricks.
Second, the correct methods must be used. To help consumers identify which food products are safe, there are dozens of international quality assurance organizations and logos dealing with agricultural and fishery products. Each is aimed at a different area, such as the environment, food safety or organic accreditation. There are also differences in the cost and rigor of each system. However, accreditation systems are broadly designed to include quality control from start to finish; a fully traceable process, quality control and safety assurance documentation. In addition, each system emphasizes comprehensive quality control “from farm to fork.”
In recent years, Taiwan has lost its way with testing and inspection, overlooking such areas as the production environment, operational regulations, technology, farmers’ habits and local customs. The difference between what goes on here and how other nations operate is significant. With a testing and inspection regime that is of patchy quality and with frequent cases of counterfeit food safety logos, consumers have lost their faith in Taiwan’s food safety certification system. The next government should spare no effort in setting up a fully traceable system. It should also get a grip on suppliers and require that each link of the production and marketing supply chain — raw material suppliers, production, processing, marketing and sales — all assume responsibility for their part of the process. However, Tsai has only called for producers to take responsibility.
Nevertheless, it is only through improving the law and handing out stronger penalties for producers that it will be possible to achieve the goal of total quality control. After all, safe food products come from the hands of producers, not food inspectors.
Even if, as Tsai suggested, the number of market inspections are increased tenfold, there are not enough people available to do the work. The government would need to rely on the public to collectively supervise the market.
Since a large number of raw materials come from agricultural producers, to improve checks at the source the government must take a holistic view and examine the agricultural industry from the multiple vantage points of sustainable development, food safety, the environment and local culture, to name a few. Only then will it be able to implement true at-source controls.
Finally, the government must persevere in its actions. Maintaining long-term food safety is a marathon, not a sprint. Whether dealing with food safety education, daily inspections, legal decisions or evaluating the revision of existing laws, politicians should be persistent and work to keep food safety at the top of the agenda.
In the past, when a food-safety scandal has hit, government departments have taken swift and decisive action to mollify public opinion and reduce pressure on the administration, such as boosting the frequency of food product inspections and increasing fines. However, once the immediate danger has passed, the administration slips back into its old ways and the courts return to handing out soft punishments to unscrupulous businesses. This results in businesses becoming less vigilant and the cycle starts all over again, which in its turn leads to a never-ending series of food safety crises and public complaints.
In view of this, future governments must make food safety a top priority and a key performance indicator during assessment for promotion within the civil service. This will encourage civil servants to be more proactive in carrying out their duties and in coordinating inspections and investigations. The courts must also increase penalties for serious food safety cases, as well as speed up the trial process. If the government does all this, Taiwan can build a society where food is genuinely safe for consumption.
Du Yu is chief executive officer of the Chen-Li Task Force for Agricultural Reform.
Translated by Edward Jones
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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