The Council of Agriculture has announced that paraquat would be banned as scheduled from the beginning of this month. This highly lethal herbicide, which leads to approximately 200 deaths per year in the nation, is finally being phased out.
A growing number of countries have banned paraquat, including South Korea, China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia. Taiwan finally joins them in removing the chemical, which is an important step toward protecting the lives and health of farmers and their families.
The ban would not only prevent painful deaths from paraquat poisoning, but also reduce the potential risk of developing Parkinson’s disease from long-term use of the herbicide.
In June last year, Taiwan passed and implemented the Suicide Prevention Act (自殺防治法), which requires authorities to reduce access to highly lethal means of suicide. The policy to ban paraquat is not only consistent with the council’s long-term goal to reduce the use of pesticides in farming, but also complies with the law.
This suicide prevention strategy is supported by scientific evidence, which shows that banning highly hazardous pesticides is the only effective approach in reducing this kind of suicide, while other strategies, such as restricting sales of the chemical to licensed users, have shown limited success.
The WHO recommends restricting lethal means of suicide, such as firearms or highly hazardous pesticides, as one of the multilevel strategies for countries to prevent suicide. The ban on paraquat is the realization of those recommendations.
Taiwan’s phased ban on paraquat is showing some initial effects in reducing suicide. When the government announced the two-stage ban on paraquat in October 2017, sales of paraquat went up substantially for a brief period, indicating that users were stocking up on the herbicide.
Subsequently, sales fell markedly from July 2018, and deaths from paraquat poisoning declined that year — from 2015 to 2017, the average annual number of deaths from paraquat poisoning was 221, while in 2018 it dropped to 185.
Sales of paraquat further decreased last year, and mortality rates are expected to fall as well. After the ban, people attempting suicide by ingesting other pesticides would have a higher chance of survival compared with using paraquat.
This means that survivors would have a chance to receive the treatment and support they need, and the risk of death from a repeat suicide attempt is relatively low, research shows.
The following counties would benefit the most from the ban: Taitung, Hualien, Yilan, Changhua, Yunlin and Chiayi. Paraquat accounted for more than one-eighth of all suicides in those counties.
One critical step to obtaining the greatest benefit from banning it is to remove paraquat stored in households as soon as possible.
One survey showed that 60 percent of people who attempted suicide by ingesting paraquat already had it in their home and few purchased it solely for suicide. Health and agricultural departments at local governments should work together to educate farmers about the ban and encourage them to turn over their remaining supply of the herbicide to vendors or authorities.
Local governments should also survey farmers and vendors for any remaining paraquat and encourage them to use alternative herbicides or other weed-control measures that would not involve the use of pesticides.
The council should also request manufacturers and vendors to recall and destroy paraquat in line with Article 19 of the Agro-pesticides Management Act (農藥管理法).
The sooner we reduce the stock of paraquat, the more lives we save and the more we avoid losses to families and communities.
Chang Shu-sen is an associate professor at the National Taiwan University College of Public Health. Chen Ying-yeh is director of psychiatry at Taipei City Hospital’s Songde Branch and an adjunct professor at National Yang-Ming University.
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.
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