On March 6, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced its requirements for exports to the EU. Those requirements included demands that prior to the export of beef, samples must be taken by inspectors in charge at slaughter facilities specified by the EU and sent for analysis. In other words, prior to their export to the EU, liver, kidney, muscle tissue, fat and urine samples must first be analyzed to show that they do not contain residues of the leanness-enhancing additives ractopamine and zilpaterol, the heavy metals lead and cadmium, or other toxins. Only beef with zero amounts of such additives and toxins can be exported to the EU.
Annually, the EU imports about 30,000 tonnes of US beef — called organic beef — a similar volume to the level imported by Taiwan. This year, the EU is increasing imports to 45,000 tonnes.
The EU uses a model that has been adopted by many advanced countries that require inspections overseas. Taiwan, on the other hand, enforces the so-called “three controls and five checkpoints,” in which the product first enters the country before huge sums are spent on sample inspection. This is a waste of national capital and social resources and serves only to stoke public concerns.
Consumers’ Foundation studies show that up to 70 percent of the public oppose meat products containing leanness--enhancing additives. The best policy when attempting to resolve the US beef controversy, which has now dragged on for four or five years, would be to learn from the EU, focus on overseas inspections and adopt zero--tolerance policies.
US data indicates that young cattle are fed milk and grass; it is only when they are older that about three-quarters are moved into cowsheds where they receive corn and other feed or are fed leanness-enhancing additives, antibiotics, hormones and other drugs.
According to Chou Chin-cheng (周晉澄), dean of National Taiwan University’s School of Veterinary Medicine, only about 35 percent of cattle in cowsheds, which do not eat grass, are given leanness-enhancing additives.
I have confirmed with USDA officials at the American Institute in Taiwan that the US produces about 360,000 tonnes of organic beef — from cattle that have not been given leanness-enhancing additives — annually, about one-tenth of which is purchased by the EU.
If Taiwan switched to organic beef, consumer prices would increase by 15 to 20 percent. Many people say that the price of high-quality beef free of leanness-enhancing additives and antibiotics should be decided by the market.
Although Taiwan is a member of the WTO, the ongoing US beef controversy has developed into a situation where the buyer is being forced to do what the seller wants.
Bizarrely, the president has gone on TV to say that he wants everyone living in Taiwan to ingest leanness-enhancing additives — which are still suspected of being toxic — and that they should do so “for the sake of the country.”
However, Taiwan is not North Korea. A solution to this issue should reflect public health concerns and nothing else.
With a government that has shown itself to be incapable of managing, but adept at playing tricks with food safety issues while putting on a show worthy of an election, the public is all but certain to refuse to consume meat products containing leanness-enhancing additives.
Taiwan needs to consider the EU model so that Taiwanese can consume meat without any nagging health concerns.
Winston Dang is a former head of the Environmental Protection Administration and foreign relations adviser to the Democratic Progressive Party.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS