Controversy over the government’s decision to relax restrictions on US beef imports is heating up. The government shirked its responsibility to control the safety of imports and instead transferred that responsibility and risk directly to consumers. At the same time, the entire nation seems to have bought into the idea that local governments and the public themselves should manage the risk through self-discipline, a view that, strangely enough, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) is encouraging.
Since the late 1990s, major countries have viewed issues involving potential risks to public health and the environment as affairs of national security in addition to military and economic issues. These countries stress the adoption of precautionary measures and place even greater importance on engaging the public in decision-making to ensure the legitimacy of their policies.
While the government claims to have worked very hard at the negotiations on US beef imports, it has fallen into the trap of developing countries that treat economic factors as their overriding concern, and is consequently ignoring safety factors such as national health. This makes it clear that high-ranking officials do not have a vision of risk management in the globalization era.
Counter to the international democratic trend, the government also avoided public consultation during its decision-making process despite the fact that the Green Party and the Homemakers Union and Foundation (主婦聯盟環境保護基金會) several months ago called on the Department of Health (DOH) to hold public hearings on the proposed relaxation of restrictions on US beef imports. This is the first lesson we have learned from the affair.
Amid nationwide criticism of the government’s decision-making process, decision makers have scrambled to make amends by “strengthening communication and explanations” to an angry public and lobbied legislators in an attempt to prevent an amendment to the Food Sanitation Control Law (食品衛生管理法). In the current atmosphere of distrust, these efforts to conduct risk management have proven futile. This is the second lesson we have learned.
It seems the Cabinet has decided to go ahead and allow the expanded imports of US beef. However, mad cow disease and its human variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob (vCJD) disease have long incubation periods, increasing the risk of infection going unnoticed. Not only did the decision brush aside the rights of consumers, it could also affect future generations. Do not forget that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights just a few months ago. The government’s move to lift the ban on US beef has violated intergenerational justice. This is the third lesson we have learned.
In 2006, the government of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) opened up the nation to US beef imports. The DOH commissioned the National Health Research Institute to conduct a health risk assessment, which fallaciously calculated the risk of consuming US beef in the same way as dioxin pollution is calculated. In addition, the DOH distorted a “consensus” reached by a committee of experts, prompting several authoritative experts to resign. This year the government has commissioned the College of Public Health at National Taiwan University to conduct a health assessment on US beef, but the DOH has reportedly forcibly intervened in the assessment. This kind of situation where political concerns override the opinions of experts seems to be present in various environmental assessments throughout Taiwan, and this leads to a deterioration in the quality of decision-making and high levels of public distrust in the government. This is the fourth lesson we have learned.
Just like its predecessor, the government cites various health assessments and claims that the risk of contracting vCJD by eating US beef is one in several hundred million. But don’t forget that, three years ago, the government refused to allow imports of US bone-in beef because it said bone-in beef carried a higher risk of mad cow disease. This is contradictory to the reasons currently given for relaxing restrictions on US beef imports. Also do not forget that the US sells around 36 million head of cattle every year, only 1 percent of which is checked for mad cow disease. This means that more than 35 million unchecked cows are exported. We can imagine how high the potential risk of contracting vCJD by eating US beef would be. Both Japan and the EU check each animal they import. Government officials continue to play a numbers game with the public and continue to fail to understand why people are so panicked about US beef. This is the fifth lesson we have learned.
Officials all the way up to the president claim that strict standards will be used for US beef imports, but would the public believe such claims in the current climate?
The central government has not only failed to guard national health, it has also shifted risk liability to individuals. On the one hand, the Cabinet “gently expects” self-discipline of businesspeople, while on the other the government claims negotiations with Washington were difficult. The logic behind Taiwan’s national security concerns remains at the level of developing countries, prioritizing economic development (well, some may prioritize the military) at the expense of Taiwan’s already bruised environment and national health. The government should face up to the globalization era’s non-conventional safety issues involving ecology, health and food. This is the lesson we must urgently learn.
Chou Kuei-tien is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development at Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS