Since the presidential election, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has made an about-face on the issue of US beef imports, re-addressing its policy on the topic. It says it has invited a number of experts to discuss the matter, but has excluded Lin Ja-liang (林杰樑), a clinical toxicology specialist known for speaking his mind. Useful comparisons can be made with this and how the British government mishandled the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), more commonly known as mad cow disease, years ago.
Mad cow disease was first discovered in cattle in the UK in 1984 and the following year veterinary pathologists identified it as BSE. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (as it was then known) chose to place commercial interests before human lives, and covered up the news. It was only in 1988 that a committee, headed by Oxford University professor Richard Southwood, was set up to investigate and report on the matter.
Warnings from pathologists and a number of other experts who said it was dangerous to eat the meat of infected animals were deliberately left out of the Southwood report, which concluded that “the risk of transmission of BSE to humans appears remote.”
The government was content with the “scientific” findings of the report and continued to allow cattle farmers to use bone meal — coarsely crushed animal bones — in animal feed, a decision that led to 180,000 cattle becoming infected and the culling of 4.4 million cows. In 1996, the British health minister finally admitted to parliament that mad cow disease could be transmitted to humans, but that was too late for the 166 British people who are known to have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease after having eaten beef or offal from infected cows.
What the UK’s experience shows us is that officially appointed experts, under the banner of “science,” often tell the public that there “is no evidence” to suggest that eating a given food will have adverse consequences. What consumers need is for the government to actually provide “evidence” that eating a given food will not have those consequences. The EU subsequently adopted an early warning system, but this was a lesson learned too late, and at the cost of more than 100 people’s lives.
This lesson does not offer any assurance to consumers in the US. A company working with genetically modified foods has developed recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH), which, when injected into cattle, increases milk yields by 10 percent. However, the milk produced contains insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), or somatomedin C, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer in humans, and this is why dairy farmers in Taiwan, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the EU and Canada are prohibited from using it.
Moreover, not only does the US government allow its use, but well-meaning cattle farmers who refuse to use it and who have indicated as much on their packaging have been sued for this, meaning consumers have been left in the dark over which products contain it.
This is all owing to the US government’s closeness to corporate interests and its tolerance of revolving-door regulations, allowing experts responsible for food safety to go back and forth between government policies and positions favored by large corporations, unregulated. Many of the mechanisms in place to protect the US public are consequently surprisingly lax.
Warren Kuo is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Agronomy.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS