Dangers of sulfur dioxide
The Taipei Times has run articles on a “proposal to legalize sulfur dioxide as a food additive” (“Sulfur dioxide additive plan by FDA criticized,” March 26, page 1 and “Sulfur dioxide plan should consider local habits: KMT,” March 28, page 3).
Such a proposal should indeed be of concern, especially if it is not accompanied by a strict labelling law with stiff penalties if the use of sulfur dioxide or sulfites is not listed as an ingredient.
I had a friend who was allergic to many things, including bee stings and sulfur. She invariably carried epinephrine injectors to prevent serious damage in case of a sting.
About 20 years ago, she was stung by a bee and immediately used an injector. The result was anaphylactic shock, which required emergency attention to save her life, as she basically stopped breathing.
She was a biochemist and upon recovery devoted a fair amount of time to finding out what might have caused the problem. She found out that the company that produced the injectors had changed the formulation to include a sulfite as a preservative to increase the life span of the product.
Anaphylactic shock is a rare reaction to exposure to sulfites, but if a pharmaceutical company can make the mistake of adding a potentially fatal ingredient, is it so important to allow the use of such compounds just so food producers can use sulfur dioxide for whatever purposes they wish and not be held liable for the consequences if the way in which it is used results in the presence of sulfites in food?
It may also be worth asking the question: “Would a rule that permits the use of sulfur dioxide or sulfites help the producers that choose to use it?”
It certainly might, provided the producers that do not use it fail to take the opportunity to label their goods as “free of sulfur dioxide and sulfites.”
Emilio Venezian
New Taipei City
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
Taiwan ranks second globally in terms of share of population with a higher-education degree, with about 60 percent of Taiwanese holding a post-secondary or graduate degree, a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed. The findings are consistent with Ministry of the Interior data, which showed that as of the end of last year, 10.602 million Taiwanese had completed post-secondary education or higher. Among them, the number of women with graduate degrees was 786,000, an increase of 48.1 percent over the past decade and a faster rate of growth than among men. A highly educated population brings clear advantages.
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS