After Taiwan lifted the ban on beef imports from Canada, the question of whether to lift the ban on imports of agricultural products from Japanese prefectures affected by a nuclear disaster has once again come to the fore.
The government has cited data from Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, saying that among 260,538 samples inspected in Japan last year, only 279, or about 0.1 percent, were found to have excessive levels of radiation. The government felt this was a minuscule amount, and plans to lift the ban on food imports from the Japanese prefectures of Chiba, Gunma, Ibaraki and Tochigi, and to implement strict risk management and frequent sampling inspections. Meanwhile, the ban on food imports from Fukushima Prefecture is to remain in place.
However, the government should not rely solely on radioactive contamination and risk assessment reports from Japanese authorities. It should also use its own inspection and assessments.
Furthermore, an inspection of about 900,000 samples from Fukushima conducted by Austria’s Vienna University of Technology showed that 0.6 percent of the samples contained excessive radiation.
It is necessary for the government to have a good understanding of the sampling locations, methods and equipment employed in the study, and find out the causes of contamination. The ban must not be hastily lifted.
Furthermore, the government plans to handle agricultural and aquatic products from Fukushima separately from the other four prefectures.
However, some businesspeople have exported food products from Fukushima to Taiwan and China by presenting fake certificates of origin. In particular, Taiwan is a major importer of Japanese agricultural and aquatic products, and annual import volumes from Japan are large, so it will be difficult for the government to put public concerns to rest.
Also, with Japan dumping wastewater from the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant into the ocean, the effects of radioactive contamination on marine life would be much more profound and complex than it would be for life on land.
Some experts say that the effects on marine life would last for several decades, which is why it should be considered separately when looking at the duration, level and severity of contamination, rather than lumping all the aspects together.
Some nations, such as Canada and New Zealand, have lifted the bans on food imports from Japan, while others, such as the US and the EU, have restricted the area and scope of their bans.
In a survey of 3,000 people conducted last year by Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies, 33.4 percent said they would avoid products from the radiation-affected areas if possible.
At a time when food safety problems occur in Taiwan time and again, and the government’s ability to monitor the situation is being questioned, concerns among Taiwanese are higher.
As lifting the ban on food imports from Japan is not an urgent matter, and as the authorities still have not solicited public opinion on the matter, it is obvious that the decisionmaking process is flawed.
Democratic Progressive Party legislators should place public opinion over party opinion, and push for open and transparent government information, and the public should also make its voice heard. If it does not, the government might announce that it is lifting the ban.
The nation is two years away from the next election, and once the ban is lifted there is nothing people could do until then.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath