The ongoing food scare centered on the use of the banned chemical di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, in additives such as clouding agents, affecting products like sports drinks and fruit juices from many manufacturers, has apparently been going on for many years. The potential health risks are therefore as serious as those of the tainted milk incident that shook China in 2008.
We should be thankful that a Department of Health tester was vigilant enough to discover the illegal use of DEHP. However, we should also look into how the authorities responsible for such things, like the Environmental Protection Adminstration (EPA), failed to uncover this flouting of the law.
The Toxic Chemical Substances Control Act (毒性化學物質管理法) classifies harmful chemicals according to four categories, of which the first three are non-degradable substances and either chronic or acute toxins. The fourth category covers substances suspected of being harmful to the environment and to the health of humans.
There are currently about 100,000 types of chemicals on the market and many of them are harmful, although Taiwan has listed only 271 as toxins. Of these, 78 — more than a quarter — have been listed as category-four toxins. Substances in this fourth category are subject to much less stringent controls than those in the first three categories.
Why is this? Perhaps the EPA feels it is understaffed and that it lacks funding, or perhaps it is reluctant to take on the responsibility. In addition, the categorization of a given substance is not always that simple.
This is exacerbated when a substance is in widespread use: Businesses reliant on these chemicals often exert pressure for them not to be placed in the first three categories. This explains how DEHP got its current classification as a category-four substance.
DEHP was previously listed as being a class B, category-two carcinogen by International Agency for Research on Cancer, but in 2000 it was downgraded to a category-three carcinogen. Soon after this, in 2001, it was listed by the EU as a category-two chemical that could possibly affect fertility and the growth and development of children.
In 2008, the EU included DEHP in a list of substances that needed especially close attention in its then-new regulatory system for chemicals, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances). Then in 2009, the EU’s European Chemicals Agency recommended that permission be obtained before this substance could be used or sold on the EU market.
In 1999, Taiwan listed DEHP as a category-four toxin. After this, extensive research was conducted on the toxicology of DEHP and how it was being used in Taiwan. According to the findings of this research, and given the authority of the EPA and the principles it uses in determining which category a substance should be listed under, DEHP should have been listed as a category-one or -category-two toxin some time ago.
However, after numerous hearings and meetings at the the EPA, and after consulting experts on the subject, DEHP was reclassified as a category-four toxin.
Manufacturers who used DEHP in their products said that the use of things like plasticizers containing DEHP was widespread, the majority of companies using them being small and medium-sized enterprises, and argued that if DEHP were listed in the first three categories of harmful substances, companies would have to go through many procedures — certification, specially trained staff, declaration of records — which would increase costs and lower competitiveness.
These economic considerations should not be a factor in guiding the EPA’s hand on substance categorization, but companies and interest groups applied pressure and influenced the EPA. The ruling party here has an absolute majority, but there remains a reluctance to list DEHP as a category-two harmful substance.
We have to ask ourselves what is more important — the environment and the health of our people, or the economic growth that everyone seems so preoccupied with?
This seems to be a question our politicians have a hard time answering, as well as something that often makes the EPA forget the duties that it is supposed to perform.
Since the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ recent announcement that the construction of the proposed Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co naphtha cracker complex in central Taiwan would not be approved, slogans about improving Taiwan’s petrochemical industry are being thrown around left, right and center.
However, thus far, we have not seen any real action taken on this front. One of the primary ways to improve the quality of the local petrochemical industry would be assisting Taiwan’s numerous small and medium-sized enterprises to switch to safer materials or abide by the regulation of harmful chemical substances and not letting companies continue to get away with profiting at the expense of the environment and public health.
We have to push on with improving the regulation of harmful chemical substances in Taiwan. At the same time, the government should devote more training and resources to this regulation, and require the EPA to apply more stringent standards.
We cannot allow a situation in which these harmful substances continue to be used unchecked to the detriment of public health.
Herlin Hsieh is the secretary-general of the Taiwan Watch Institute.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS