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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS