A May poll by the Taiwan Health Alliance on food safety policies and reduced sugar intake showed 43.4 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the government’s food safety oversight. While disappointing, it was hardly surprising given Taiwan’s long history of food safety scandals. These most recent results were likely influenced by discoveries of Sudan red dye in imported chili powder and a food poisoning case at Taipei’s Polam Kopitiam (寶林茶室), which left six people dead and 33 ill.
The Executive Yuan pledged to “re-examine and swiftly improve” the nation’s food safety management system, but new cases have again exposed systemic lapses in quality control, fragmented implementation and a lack of transparency by authorities.
On July 29, the Hsinchu Bureau of Health announced that three batches of Hsinchu Fu Yuan chunky peanut butter (新竹福源顆粒花生醬) sold at Carrefour and Taoyuan’s Wang Lii Co were being recalled after random tests conducted by the Taipei and Taoyuan public health departments in April and May found they contained excessive amounts of aflatoxins. Less than one week later, the Ministry of Environment’s Environmental Management Administration said it would destroy about 8 tonnes of mercury-contaminated rice produced in Hsinchu County. The contamination was discovered after Hsinchu City Councilor Tseng Tzu-cheng (曾資程) received a complaint. Tseng rightly pointed out that public disclosure by authorities was significantly delayed in both cases. Months passed between the discovery of aflatoxins in Fu Yuan peanut butter and the health bureau’s announcement, while nearly two weeks elapsed before the ministry publicly addressed the mercury-contaminated farmland.
Transparency is fundamental to food safety. Delayed or withheld information not only endangers consumers, but also erodes public trust in the very institutions tasked with their protection — an issue likely exacerbated by the government’s fragmented and excessively bureaucratic oversight mechanisms.
Take the Fu Yuan peanut butter case: While the Taipei Department of Health initially discovered the contamination, the delayed announcement came from the Hsinchu Bureau of Health. Fu Yuan is set to be fined for contravening the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (食品安全衛生管理法) — a law enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although the exact cause remains unknown, Fu Yuan suspects the contamination originated from its domestic supplier. If confirmed, this would suggest improper handling and storage of raw ingredients, which would constitute a contravention of the same law on the part of the supplier.
By contrast, the mercury-contaminated rice incident was managed by the Environmental Management Administration due to its connection with polluted farmland. However, if this contamination had gone undetected and the rice had entered the market, it would have triggered a complex series of legal violations to be handled across multiple regulatory bodies.
The FDA and the Executive Yuan have promised to improve Taiwan’s food safety mechanisms, but their primary focus so far has centered on preventing substandard imports. Tightened border inspections do not address the issue of substandard domestic products arising from contaminated farmland or improper handling and storage. When contamination arises from within Taiwan, it exposes critical gaps in the monitoring of local ingredients — gaps that are further compounded by slow public disclosures. Oversight of local ingredients must be bolstered with greater investment in inspections throughout all stages of production, stricter supplier quality controls and improved interagency coordination.
Restoring public confidence in food safety demands greater transparency and faster notification protocols. Consumers have a right to be informed. If the government is serious about improving food quality and safeguarding public health, it must treat domestic food production risks with the same urgency and scrutiny as imports. Public trust, once broken, is difficult to restore.
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial