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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
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
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS