A referendum proposal on US beef launched by civic groups including the Consumers’ Foundation, the Homemakers’ Union and Foundation, the John Tung Foundation and the National Health Insurance Surveillance Alliance has passed the first application threshold and is proceeding to the second stage.
The proposed referendum suggests rejecting the Department of Health’s decision to allow imports of US bone-in beef, ground beef, bovine internal organs, spinal cord, etc, starting today. It further seeks to reopen negotiations with the US over beef imports.
For the referendum application to proceed, its proponents must collect the signatures of 5 percent of the total number of people who were eligible to vote in the most recent presidential election.
Gathering the signatures of hundreds of thousands of people across the country is no simple feat. As a lawyer, I have experience handling consumer complaints, for example against the Taipei City Government’s bus office and Eastern Multimedia Group.
I helped distribute official signature forms for the present proposal for a referendum on US beef. But based on my past experience, I am concerned that the signature drive will fail.
The proposed referendum says that the protocol on US beef imports signed by Taiwan and the US in Washington on Oct. 22 allows imports of bone-in beef, ground beef, processed beef products not contaminated with specific risk materials, central nervous system parts and meat scraps stripped by machine from cows less than 30 months old.
This deal sparked fear among consumers, while pan-blue and pan-green politicians have opposed the protocol, as have several county and city governments.
The government’s decision to relax restrictions on the import of bone-in beef, internal organs and other beef products from the US despite documented cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, also called mad cow disease) there — and political meddling by the government and the National Security Council in the decisions of experts at the health department are not appropriate in a democracy.
Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) say that treatment for variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), which is caused by abnormal prions from infected meat, cannot be cured. There is no treatment to slow or halt the course of the disease. Anyone infected with vCJD is on the road to inevitable death.
The only way to be sure of not getting the illness is to avoid eating beef products from BSE-affected countries.
To this day there have been no cases of the abnormal prion in Taiwan. Once in Taiwan, however, how would Taiwan get rid of it?
The government insists that US bone-in beef is safe, yet when the Ministry of Audit delivered a report on Oct. 27 to the legislature on the central government’s final account for last year, Auditor-General Lin Ching-long (林慶隆) said that, as of last year, the health department did not have enough personnel, funding or equipment to inspect and test US beef imports.
Furthermore, the prion can escape detection by specialized tests. This is because concentrations of the prion in certain body parts are so low that no technology exists that can guarantee that meat is free of it.
The prion’s presence can only be detected within six months of the onset of BSE. Cows less than 30 months old may be in the incubation stage of the illness, making the prion undetectable.
Health authorities have no way of guaranteeing that US beef is free of the disease, so assurances that consumers will be protected are nothing but empty talk.
Since the government is not capable of effectively testing imported beef, it should not have relaxed restrictions. Doing so puts consumers at risk.
This is a matter of consumer rights and a question of life or death for us and for future generations.
If not enough people sign the petition for this referendum proposal, Taiwan will be an object of disdain for the South Koreans. At least the South Koreans took to the streets in the hundreds of thousands to fight imports of US beef.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
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 last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS