Confusion over egg story
I am puzzled.
The last paragraph of an article about egg sales leaves me uncertain about my sanity: “While the maximum allowable residue of fipronil in poultry products has been eased from 5 to 10 parts per billion in November, many poultry farmers have become wary of using insecticides in their farms, resulting in more poultry diseases and reduced production of eggs, he said” (“COA urges rules on sales of eggs with cracked shells,” Aug. 15, page 2).
I assume the pronoun “he” refers to Kao Chuan-mo (高傳謨), chairman of the Taipei Egg Retailers’ Union.
My first interpretation of that statement was that, in the opinion of egg retailers, allowing more residue in the eggs makes farmers think that fipronil is less safe than previously thought, so the current levels of use are killing more birds than is warranted by the effectiveness of fipronil in preventing the spread of insect-borne diseases.
That is very unlikely; if the Council of Agriculture or the Ministry of Health and Welfare thought farmers behave that way, then it would have been more sensible to reduce the allowable level of fipronil in the final product to motivate farmers to use less insecticide.
My second interpretation was that the retailers’ union believes that farmers think the government is incompetent and therefore the relaxation of the level must mean that the government thinks that a high acceptable level would kill more people, and if it is dangerous for people, it must also be dangerous for the birds, making the reduction in use appear like a sensible decision for the farmers who want to protect their flocks.
That seems unlikely.
The only other explanation I can see is that the retailers’ union believes that the relaxation of the level of fipronil in the final product will fipronil consumers to believe that they are being endangered and therefore will halve the number of eggs consumed per week.
If the farmers have the same belief and if they are insured for losses due to disease in the flock, it makes sense for them to cut down on insecticide consumption and allow half of the birds to die, filing claims with their insurance companies for the loss of production and reducing their costs.
Are there other interpretations that make more sense?
Emilio Venezian
Taichung
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS