Scientific and rational policy responses to pollution and other things that are harmful to human health, such as avian influenza, SARS, foot-and-mouth disease, leanness-enhancing feed additives and nuclear accidents, should all be based on what is called the precautionary principle. Taking precautions means putting safety first, because it is better to be safe than sorry. This notion underpins the Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle, which was jointly issued in 1998 by scientists, philosophers, jurists and environmentalists who took part in the Science and Environmental Health Network conference.
When faced with scientific uncertainties and risks, it is vitally important to minimize risk by adopting the precautionary principle. When scientific evidence indicates that a particular thing or action may cause pollution or pose a threat to public health, even if there is no absolute scientific proof of the risk, policy should assume that such a risk exists. That should be the case unless and until the thing in question is scientifically proven to be safe. To put it simply, the burden of proof is on those who are in favor of the thing or action in question, not on those who are worried about or opposed to it.
When it was suspected that some dried bean curd might be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum bacteria, health au-thorities took the precaution of ordering all dried bean curd that might be tainted taken off the shelves immediately. In incidents where a few pigs on some farms were infected by foot-and-mouth disease, they reacted promptly by slaughtering all the pigs on those farms, even though there was no proof that they had all been infected. When SARS broke out, some people were isolated because it was determined that they may have been infected, even though it could not be confirmed that they had been. These are all examples of precautionary measures taken to avoid the risk, however slight, of harm to public health.
There is already scientific evidence indicating that meat containing ractopamine may be harmful to human health, so the scientifically rational thing to do is to follow the precautionary principle. The overall message from research literature is that ractopamine has not been proven to be safe. That being the case, it should not be added to animal feed. It should be banned with zero tolerance, meaning that only meat containing no detectable ractopamine residue should be allowed. Besides, zero tolerance makes inspection and implementation relatively quick and precise, and it is relatively uncontroversial.
As for avian influenza, the standard operating procedure is to adopt the precautionary principle: If a dangerous virus is confirmed to be present on a farm, then all chickens on the farm must be slaughtered straight away. Although a nuclear accident like the one that happened at Fukushima in Japan a year ago may be improbable, it could still happen. So, unless science can prove that nuclear energy is completely safe, the public must be prepared for the possibility that such a deadly nuclear accident could happen here.
To change the standard for ractopamine from zero tolerance to a maximum residue level of 10 parts per billion and to delay responding to an outbreak of H5N2 avian influenza run counter to scientific and rational principles and exposes the public to considerable health threats. Who knows whether Taiwan would be able withstand a nuclear accident, should one ever happen? Surely, the government can’t be ignorant of the risk. Is it deliberately keeping the people in the dark, or is it under pressure? Or maybe it’s because some people stand to gain from the policies the government is pursuing.
Cheng Hsien-yu is a professor at the Department of Eco-science and Eco-technology, National University of Tainan.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS