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
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS