I have been following the recent political upheaval around US beef with slight bemusement. While there is certainly some risk attached to US beef, it appears rather small, as so far about 200 people have died globally of diseases associated with mad cow disease, most of them in Britain.
While I do not want to dispute the rights of Taiwanese to choose what kind of foods end up in their pots, what bemuses me is that in environmental issues, the actual associated risks often bear no relation to the political outrage created.
If thousands of demonstrators are willing to protest against US beef, should not hundreds of thousands show up to demonstrate against the thousands of toxins that are dumped into the Taiwanese environment and invariably end up contaminating plants, animals and eventually humans?
This stark reality was again made clear last week when thousands of poisoned ducks were slaughtered because industrial toxins had been indiscriminately dumped. Surely the health risk of eating chemically contaminated food is much higher than eating US beef. So how come the public and the media keep chasing the beef chimera when there is a much bigger monster out there?
Every year, the chemical industry invents thousands of new substances, all of which eventually end up in the environment, mostly with unknown consequences to environmental and human health. If I were to list all the diseases and causes of death associated with chemical pollution, I would run out of space here, but respiratory diseases caused by air pollution, cancers caused by toxic chemicals and brain diseases caused by heavy metals are just a few of the deadly consequences — throw in hyperactive kids, allergies or falling fertility for good measure.
As a concerned environmental scientist, I can only urge the public and media to inform themselves about actual risks from credible sources, such as the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US’ Environmental Protection Agency, and then act accordingly. However, it should be clear that the current policy of releasing chemicals into the environment and then waiting for the consequences is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. Rather, the government should put the burden of proof on the chemical industry to demonstrate conclusively that a chemical will not cause environmental and health damage.
Otherwise, a chemical should not be produced, or, if produced, 100 percent recycled.
In the long term, it seems rather futile to try to manage the risk of chemical pollutants by trying to determine maximum levels of pollutants and risks to human health. This is simply impractical, economically impossible and scientifically unsound given the thousands of chemicals and their possible interactions in the human body.
Rather, we should revert to chemicals that are found in nature and can therefore be assimilated by natural cycles instead of accumulating to evermore dangerous levels. Here, new production philosophies such as biomimicry and “cradle-to-cradle” could create new jobs and save the environment. Our legacy to future generations can be a poisoned or a healthy planet — the choice is ours.
Bruno Walther is visiting assistant professor for environmental science at Taipei Medical University.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS