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
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS