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
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