Since the presidential election, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has made an about-face on the issue of US beef imports, re-addressing its policy on the topic. It says it has invited a number of experts to discuss the matter, but has excluded Lin Ja-liang (林杰樑), a clinical toxicology specialist known for speaking his mind. Useful comparisons can be made with this and how the British government mishandled the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), more commonly known as mad cow disease, years ago.
Mad cow disease was first discovered in cattle in the UK in 1984 and the following year veterinary pathologists identified it as BSE. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (as it was then known) chose to place commercial interests before human lives, and covered up the news. It was only in 1988 that a committee, headed by Oxford University professor Richard Southwood, was set up to investigate and report on the matter.
Warnings from pathologists and a number of other experts who said it was dangerous to eat the meat of infected animals were deliberately left out of the Southwood report, which concluded that “the risk of transmission of BSE to humans appears remote.”
The government was content with the “scientific” findings of the report and continued to allow cattle farmers to use bone meal — coarsely crushed animal bones — in animal feed, a decision that led to 180,000 cattle becoming infected and the culling of 4.4 million cows. In 1996, the British health minister finally admitted to parliament that mad cow disease could be transmitted to humans, but that was too late for the 166 British people who are known to have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease after having eaten beef or offal from infected cows.
What the UK’s experience shows us is that officially appointed experts, under the banner of “science,” often tell the public that there “is no evidence” to suggest that eating a given food will have adverse consequences. What consumers need is for the government to actually provide “evidence” that eating a given food will not have those consequences. The EU subsequently adopted an early warning system, but this was a lesson learned too late, and at the cost of more than 100 people’s lives.
This lesson does not offer any assurance to consumers in the US. A company working with genetically modified foods has developed recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH), which, when injected into cattle, increases milk yields by 10 percent. However, the milk produced contains insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), or somatomedin C, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer in humans, and this is why dairy farmers in Taiwan, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the EU and Canada are prohibited from using it.
Moreover, not only does the US government allow its use, but well-meaning cattle farmers who refuse to use it and who have indicated as much on their packaging have been sued for this, meaning consumers have been left in the dark over which products contain it.
This is all owing to the US government’s closeness to corporate interests and its tolerance of revolving-door regulations, allowing experts responsible for food safety to go back and forth between government policies and positions favored by large corporations, unregulated. Many of the mechanisms in place to protect the US public are consequently surprisingly lax.
Warren Kuo is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Agronomy.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Sometimes When there is a choice to be made, none of the options are good. The choice between hooking up with communism — in its Chinese iteration, the one that bugs Taiwan the most — and neofascism, of the back-to-the-roots Italian variety or any other kind, is such a choice. The good news is that Taiwan does not have to choose. It neither needs to cozy up to China — the successes of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, despite its shortcomings, are evidence of that — nor does it need to embrace Italy under its likely new leader, Italian lawmaker Giorgia
China has quietly unloaded 10 percent, or US$100 billion, of its US Treasury holdings in the first half of the year. During the past 40 years of rapid economic growth after recovering from a quasi-ruined state that officially ended in 1976, China has amassed a huge pile of foreign reserves partially through its trade surplus. The US Treasuries have always been the prime choice for China to park its foreign reserves. What made it run away from the traditional safe haven for its hard-earned foreign reserves? One explanation is that Beijing is leveraging its financial power as the second-largest US Treasury
For many years, the military’s defense of the Taiwan Strait has been centered around the doctrine of establishing “air and maritime supremacy and repulsing landing forces.” However, after the legislature passed the Sea-Air Combat Power Improvement Plan Purchase Special Regulation (海空戰力提升計畫採購特別條例) last year, the doctrine was altered to “air defense, counterattack, and establish air and maritime supremacy,” with repelling landing forces removed from the equation. Despite the changes to the defense doctrine, landing operations and anti-landing operations still feature at the core of the military’s plans for the defense of the nation. The primary reason that peace in the Taiwan Strait has prevailed
In a China-US war over Taiwan, paradoxically the greatest loss of life could be inflicted on the Muslim Uighurs. Uighurs constitute 45 percent of the Xinjiang population of 25 million people, with over 1 million incarcerated in internment camps in accordance with a policy initiated under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Another half-million children have been placed in state-run boarding schools. Forced sterilization has led to a 24 to 60 percent drop in the birthrate, leading officials from many countries to describe the mass detention as genocide. Estimated annual death rates in the camps of between 5 and 10 percent could