I have long feared the day would come when US pork injected with leanness-inducing additives would be allowed into Taiwan.
In 2012, the Codex Alimentarius Commission — established in 1963 to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the global food trade and promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations — set the permitted limits for residue amounts of ractopamine, a leanness inducing chemical. For pork and beef products, this limit was set at 10 parts per billion (ppb) for meat and fat, 40ppb in liver and 90ppb in kidneys.
These standards were a long time in coming: The commission spent many years debating the correct levels, and it took several votes before they were successfully passed with 69 votes for and 67 against. According to a European Food Safety Authority report issued then, leanness-inducing chemicals can affect people with cardiovascular disease, and given the lack of current studies on ethnic groups, or on sufficiently large sample sizes, there is inadequate scientific evidence that these additives have no adverse health effects.
Three years have passed, and still many countries — including major livestock producing countries such as China, Russia and all the EU member states — are reluctant to accept the adoption of these international standards. That is, the use of this additive is actually banned in about 70 percent of the swine raised for global consumption. Its use is permitted in the US, but is it used in all beef and pork livestock in the US? Of course not.
It is not used in US beef and pork products bound for the EU, and neither is it allowed to be present as residue in pork products exported to Taiwan. Are there leanness-inducing chemical residues in the pork and beef products Americans eat? Again, of course not. US consumers can select additive-free pork products in their supermarkets.
About 20 years ago, these additives were used in pig rearing in Taiwan. While the pigs were much leaner, they did exhibit some adverse effects in the rearing process, manifested in some unusual sitting postures. Something was evidently wrong with the animals, and they would occasionally keel over when at auction. This was extremely embarrassing in Taiwan, a country that prides itself on its animal husbandry. So does this mean that now we will be using leanness-inducing additives, even though they were banned some time ago? Heaven only knows whether the authorities have laid out any requirements, because the public certainly has not been privy to any.
More adventurous countries might want to permit the use of additives such as ractopamine in the spirit of democratic freedom, but what are the repercussions for smaller economies that, under the political realities of international trade, are reliant on other countries? Does it mean that they have to allow certain products to clear customs, only to subject them to strict controls once in the country? Which way will Taiwan go? Will it just do what it did with the import of US beef, and announce that there are no health concerns?
There are those who say that allowing the import of US pork with leanness-inducing additives is simply a necessary evil to facilitate international alignment. Is Taiwan required to swallow a necessary evil for the sake of international alignment? Or should it choose a necessary good for the sake of caution when it comes to health? Or is there another option? One that will be able to simultaneously address the economic aspect, as well as the health of Taiwanese?
Chou Chin-cheng is the dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS