While news about the imports of melamine-contaminated milk powder produced by the Sanlu Group and 21 other Chinese companies and tainted powdered non-dairy creamer manufactured in Shandong Province caused a panic in Taiwan, the Council of Agriculture said last Monday that 18 brands of locally produced fresh milk and raw milk were all safe and melamine-free. The announcement came as an unexpected ray of light amid public fears over dairy products. It revived consumer confidence in food safety and showed that safe products are made in Taiwan by Taiwanese companies.
The logo “Made in Taiwan (MIT)” has never drawn as much attention as it does now. Twenty years ago, this brand was seen as a name for cheap products, but it has since experienced splendid times thanks to Taiwan’s leading role in the electronic original equipment manufacturing industry. However, as we all have become dependent on guarantees of food safety, it would be well worth our while to initiate a meaningful civil campaign — “I love MIT.”
The scandal over tainted Chinese milk powder is not only a problem of managing the cross-strait trade in food products but an international problem because of the globalization of food production.
Not only did the US and Canada immediately ban all dairy product imports from China, but the WHO publicly denounced China for failing to alert the international community sooner and admit that the situation could be more serious than originally thought.
Almost all Chinese dairy products containing animal or plant protein have been affected. Concerns have been aroused that Chinese processed food products that have been sold to every part of the world such as cookies, cakes, pudding, candies and instant coffee may also have been tainted. This is why all countries are on the alert.
Taiwan’s government, which has placed high priority on the improvement of its political and economic relations with China, was panned for its slow handling of the crisis.
It is now taking belated precautions by replacing the head of the Department of Health, examining gaps in food management regulations and investigating the failure to fully implement source of origin labeling.
But the government should consider the issue from a wider perspective, thinking about how to take advantage of the current situation to revive the local traditional food sector.
The public should learn from the toxic milk powder incident that it is a glaring mistake to decide whether an industry is of significance simply by looking at output value. Pinning all our hopes on the electronics sector and high-tech industries is not enough to bring peace and prosperity to the public. The government should immediately consider how to extend capital, human resources and technological support.
Concrete actions could include the Ministry of Economic Affairs allocating more resources toward technological development and research projects for the food and textile industries in order to advance their technologies and encourage them to build their own brands and enhancing their marketing skills. The Industrial Technology Research Institute should also lead experts in giving more assistance to traditional industries.
In terms of improving the managerial environment of the traditional sector, the government should, if necessary, not be afraid of leveling anti-dumping charges under international law against a large number of cheap Chinese and Vietnamese products imported under the WTO framework.
It should not hesitate to take action because it fears compromising trade relations with China.
A good example of the need for such action was the importing of Chinese cheap towels that disrupted local markets and caused substantive damage to Yunlin County towel makers in 2006.
Finally, regulations about source of origin labeling and declarations of ingredients on Chinese food products are not strict enough. The main reason for this problem is that many major Taiwanese companies have established factories in China to reduce costs and then sell their products back to Taiwan. These vested interest groups are an impediment to legislation and law enforcement.
To protect public safety and health, the government must eliminate undue intervention and lay down clear regulations requiring that the origin of ingredients be shown on the labels of processed products. To make possible strict controls, it should also charge importers with the responsibility to control product flows and levy appropriate fines for failing to do so.
Most importantly, low prices are the only incentive to buy Chinese. With the gloomy economy and rising commodity prices, company management and consumer behavior have been changing. The public should urge the government to adopt effective measures to boost the economy and control consumer prices.
However, the public should also support locally produced products to help domestic companies and promote “Made in Taiwan” products.
As Taiwan developed from a poor nation to a wealthy one, from a coarse one to an advanced one, it has built its own brand. Following the Chinese toxic milk powder scare, it is clear that Taiwan-made products were successful because they had no Chinese ingredients; they are “China-free.”
The lesson to be drawn is simple in its profundity: MIT is the best guarantee for TaiwaAn remaining at ease and secure.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS