Sunday marked the first day of new regulations introduced by the government to halt the slaughter of poultry in wet markets around the nation designed to help prevent an outbreak of avian flu. Vendors who flout the new rules could be liable for a NT$500,000 fine.
But a walk around a local market within the last two days would have revealed that chicken vendors were taking little notice, busily slaughtering birds as if nothing had changed. Whether this was the result of some sort of grace period between market store owners and the authorities is unknown, but it could indicate that enforcement of the new regulations will be as haphazard as for numerous other laws in Taiwan.
The government's theory is that a new business model, where birds are slaughtered, processed and packed in state-of-the-art slaughterhouses, as opposed to Taiwan's notoriously dirty and crowded wet markets, will reduce the chances of any outbreaks of the deadly disease, which has killed dozens of people in several Asian countries.
But will the location where birds are slaughtered really have any effect? After all, most cases of bird flu in humans have occurred in people who handle, come in close contact with, or kill live animals, and not people who cook and eat the meat. Therefore taking the birds away from the market will have a negligible effect, as it will only shift any risk from vendors to slaughterhouse workers. It does little to tackle the root causes of the disease, whatever they may be.
The new rules will no doubt also force the slaughter of poultry into the hands of big business, as it is unlikely many small-time chicken vendors can afford to set up their own high-tech slaughterhouses. Whether the business lobby had anything to do with the government's decision is unclear, but it is they who will directly benefit from the new regulations when in actual fact it is their behavior and the inhumane way they treat animals that in all likelihood led to the current threat that bird flu poses.
While wild birds seem to have been given most of the blame for the spread of avian flu, many credible scientific and environmental organizations have begun to question the role agribusiness and its intensive farming methods have played.
In May, an editorial in The Lancet observed that avian flu had coexisted with wild birds, traditional methods of farming and slaughter for many generations without the threat of a global pandemic. It suggested that small, low-density backyard flocks provide birds with a good range of genetic diversity to help fight infection, in stark contrast to the highly mechanized factory farms where thousands of birds are cooped up in small cages, stand in their own feces and are fed on a combination of growth hormones, antibiotics and food coloring, the perfect environment for the mutation of a killer virus such as H5N1.
Give the consumer a choice between a free-range chicken and a featherless, deformed factory-farmed "broiler" and it is pretty obvious which bird most people would choose.
Yet, by following "expert" international opinion on this issue and mimicking the ways of agribusiness in other countries, the government is making it more difficult for chicken vendors to make a living and people to have a say in the kind of food they want to eat.
The new rules, if they are followed, will not help prevent bird flu, but they will succeed in divorcing the nation's shoppers still further from the reality of where their food comes from and killing off yet another traditional way of life.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS