US pork exports grew by 45 percent between 2010 and last year, while those of US beef doubled. Average annual growth of US pork and beef exports during this period has been 4 percent and 8 percent respectively.
US pork has been available in Taiwan for more than 20 years, but because Taiwanese prefer domestically produced pork — freshly slaughtered without being refrigerated or frozen — home-grown pork has a 90.6 percent share of the market.
Out of 2.67 million tonnes of pork exported by the US last year, only a little more than 11,000 tonnes were shipped to Taiwan — a mere 1.2 percent of its pork market.
The Central News Agency reported that Taiwan Swine Association secretary-general Chang Sheng-chin (張生金) said: “US pork free of leanness-enhancing feed additives, which is allowed to be imported, only costs NT$35 to NT$40 per kilogram, which is close to half the NT$60 to NT$62 production cost of domestic pork.”
Evidently, the low cost of US pork does not give it an overwhelming advantage on the Taiwanese market, because it has only gained a small foothold after all these years.
From a marketing point of view, product differentiation — the preference for the flavor of Taiwanese pork and for fresh pork over frozen pork — has prevented US pork’s cost advantage from having an effect.
As a result, when Chang added that “if we were to import pork that contains leanness-enhancing agents, the price would be even lower, so it might have a greater impact,” what he said does not comply with marketing logic.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) rationale for opposing pork, but not beef, with traces of ractopamine, is that few Taiwanese eat beef, while most eat pork.
This rationale is even less capable of standing up to scrutiny.
Beef produced in Taiwan only accounts for 5.3 percent of the local beef market, while US beef has the lion’s share at 46.6 percent.
Last year, Taiwan imported more than 64,000 tonnes of US beef — almost three times as much as in 2012, which shows that Taiwanese favor US beef.
A calculation based on a local population of 23 million people shows that each person consumed an average of 3kg of US beef last year, compared with 500g of US pork — six times as much.
Considering that many people do not eat beef, but do eat pork, the real number is probably several times higher.
In other words, if one assumes that eating too much beef with traces of ractopamine has an adverse health effect, the main point of concern should be how much ractopamine these beef-lovers have accumulated in their bodies.
No wonder that people posted comments on the Professional Technology Temple bulletin board such as: “They found nothing worrying about ractopamine after eating tens of thousands of tonnes of US beef, but eight years later, when they suddenly want to oppose the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP], they tell me to worry.”
Another user asked: “What sense does it make to say that you cannot eat pork with leanness enhancers, but when it is in beef, that is OK?”
With respect to trade, the main thing that the US cares about is keeping trade fair — fair for the US, that is.
At a time when Taiwan-US relations are warmer than ever and Taiwan is eager to sign a trade agreement, US pork has a tiny share of the local market and, by implication, a tiny impact on local pig farmers.
The ruling DPP has a high rate of support, while the opposition KMT opened the door to the importation of US beef with traces of ractopamine when it was in power.
Given these factors, the DPP and the KMT should not object to letting pork follow where beef went before, although they seem to have run into a brick wall this time.
It must be difficult for the US to understand why Taiwanese legislators are so eager to crush US pork imports. Surely they find Taiwanese logic very strange.
Wu Hai-ruei is a manager of a listed company.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS