In recent years, there have been quite a number of incidents concerning environmental pollution and food contamination. There have been many shocking incidents which have served as lessons to us all, but in the face of these incidents, most of us cannot help but feel helpless and confused.
The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) recently published the results of a national survey, which the media also covered, saying that the average mercury concentration in the hair of Taiwanese people is higher than that in US citizens. This can be attributed to the fact that Taiwanese people consume more mercury-contaminated fish than their US counterparts. We applaud the media's move to cover the survey's results and publicize the fact that Taiwanese people are particularly fond of large deep-sea fish (such as tuna, sailfish, shark, salmon and others), all of which are known for containing high-levels of methyl mercury, but this information should have been presented in a more logical and easy-to-understand manner.
The general public still hold the belief that eating fish, especially deep-sea fish, is good for your health and good for pregnant women and children. Many people are also aware that fish contain substances that help prevent cardiovascular diseases. However, the media should follow a strict set of guidelines when publishing and reporting on health-related news, for currently society is in the process of carrying out a series of risk assessment analyses as to the health risks of the toxins found within our environment.
What is risk? Risk is a kind of probability and its evaluation has to be calculated by considering several uncertain factors. It is also a statistical result, and it is used for measuring the probability of adverse or negative situations. In short, it is a sort of chance rather than anything absolute. There are three components of health risk analysis with regard to environmental toxicology, risk assessment, exposure assessment and risk management.
These three components are worth learning and should be put into practice by the government, the public and the media. Otherwise, by taking things out of context and presenting the facts in an unbalanced manner, the media are likely to report things in a manner that will increase popular fears. Take mercury poisoning as an example, if the three components can be publicized effectively, we will certainly see an improvement in risk perception and preventive actions by the public.
Risk assessment emphasizes three things, namely differentiation of toxic substances, source identification and dose-response assessment. For differentiation of toxic substances, we need to ask: What is mercury? And, since it is not classified as a carcinogen, what are its side effects? According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), carcinogens are classified into three groups and two classes. In other words, the four categories of carcinogen are different in the level of cancer causing potential in humans. For source identification, we need to ask: What are the factors that cause mercury concentration in fish and in human hair? If we know the answer, we will have a better understanding of it and then be able to control it. For dose-response assessment, questions to be asked include: What levels of mercury concentration or dosage in the human body are considered harmful, what is the likelihood of the risk of mercury poisoning, and what is the estimated threshold of safe mercury concentration and dosage in humans from animal studies? For an average 60kg adult, he or she is considered safe with an intake of no more than 24 micrograms of mercury per day.
For exposure assessment, we are concerned about those who are likely to consume more mercury because of either easy accessibility or exposure vulnerability. We need to ask: What is the mode of mercury contamination or poisoning; and what is the triangular relationship among mercury, fish and human? Frequency, quantity and duration of fish consumption are different in every individual, resulting in different levels of mercury accumulation in each human. Also, differences in gender, age, eating habits, living environment and other factors make a difference to mercury concentration. Further more, eating different types of fish can also result in a great difference in mercury intake. If we can gather the correct data, we can calculate and estimate the extent of the risk of mercury poisoning in a person or a group of people from eating fish. The calculated result is a probability figure.
The third component of health risk analysis is risk management. It includes risk classification, risk-benefit analysis, risk reduction and surveillance. In risk classification, we classify a risk in terms of its extent, level and acceptability. In risk-benefit analysis, we gauge the risk against the benefits of eating fish. In risk reduction, we take action to reduce the risk according to the different levels of risk. For example, what type of fish should we eat and what type should we refrain from eating? How much should we consume? Also, a changing environment can mean a different standard for what is an acceptable intake of fish.
Performing the aforementioned tasks and items require professionals. They are the basic measures which a government uses to protect its people. Therefore, the government must have a thorough understanding and a tight grip on these principles in order to successfully carry out risk assessment, surveillance and management. In this way, the government will have the ability to more accurately inform the media and the public concerning risk response. In Western nations, they make good use of different media sources to give warning about food risks to the public, such as distributing flyers with information about how, what, where, when and why to take necessary precautions.
In short, the three principles of risk communication are needed to make the public understand, accept, and know what to do in response to food risks. It's that simple.
Han Bo-cheng is the director of the School of Public Health at Taipei Medical University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS