After the plasticizer scare in 2011, problems have now been found with edible oils.
There have been reports in the media that peanut, olive, grapeseed and sesame oil from Chang Chi Foodstuff Factory Co have been adulterated and that there is no chili in the company’s chili oil, which instead uses salad oil with added essence and coloring. Data for the 11 kinds of oil produced by the company show that with the exception of salad oil, there are problems with all of its products. More than 90 percent of the company’s oil products have been adulterated.
According to Changhua County’s Public Health Bureau, the bureau has in the past fined the company NT$100,000 (US$3,407) for each of 34 cases of adding copper complex chlorophyllin to its products. Despite this, the bureau has been unable to stop the company from continuing to sell adulterated oil products.
The bureau said it was clear that the reason the company dared to continue selling these products was that it felt that it could get away with it, since government controls were not strict and because the government was incapable of pursuing and fining these illicit profits.
Simply put, while Chang Chi has made NT$700 million from adulterated products over the past seven years, the government has fined the company a mere NT$3.4 million in the 34 copper complex chlorophyllin cases. Considering the size of the illicit profits, it is clear that the company has absorbed the government fines as part of the cost, and completely ignored the health of consumers so it could continue making large profits.
Article 15 of the Food Sanitation Act (食品衛生管理法) forbids the addition of substances or foreign materials that are toxic or harmful to human health, and Article 44 of the same law proscribes a fine of between NT$60,000 and NT$15 million for such offenses. Even if the highest fine allowed were issued, the company would probably still think that it was worth paying NT$15 million to make an average of NT$100 million in profits each year.
The authorities charged with controlling food safety have not relied on the Administrative Penalty Act (行政罰法) when pursuing the illicit profits of companies that have manipulated their products. This is tantamount to encouraging companies to chase illicit profits.
According to Article 18 of the Penalty Act, “In the case of imposition of a fine, consideration shall be given to such factors as the culpability of the act in breach of duty under administrative law, the impact resulted there from and the benefits gained from such an act. Additionally, the financial ability of the person penalized may also be taken into account. If the gained benefit referred to in the preceding paragraph exceeds the maximum statutory amount of fine, the fine may be increased to the extent appropriate within the scope of the benefit gained, regardless of the statutory limitation of maximum fine.”
In other words, in addition to the maximum NT$15 million allowed in the Sanitation Act, the government could also issue a fine on illicit profits of NT$685 million as allowed by the Penalty Act.
No company wants to operate at a loss. A much greater fine would be necessary to eliminate the feeling among companies that “it’s still worth it despite the fines,” and increasing the penalty would effectively avoid a situation in which the nation’s health is jeopardized by adulterated food products.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and a board member of the Taipei Bar Association’s Committee for Human Rights.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS