The government on Tuesday announced the lifting of a ban on most food imports from Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture and surrounding areas, initially implemented over concerns of contamination following the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster.
The announcement had been expected since a failed referendum on the reinstatement of an import ban on pork containing traces of ractopamine in December last year.
The government has since then been expected to focus on negotiating international trade agreements, especially joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which the ban on Japanese food imports might have jeopardized.
No government engaged in trade negotiations would be criticized for taking a science-based, rational stand against imports that place its constituents at risk, while a government that impedes fair trade practices for purely populist or irrational reasons would rightfully face criticism.
Food safety is far more important than trade considerations. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) late last year said that her administration would decide whether to lift the ban based on rational, objective, science-based data and international food safety standards.
For the past seven years, the Japanese government has tested large quantities of produce from the areas near the Fukushima plant for radioactivity, with 99.8 to 99.9 percent of those tested passing.
Radioactivity tests conducted in other parts of Japan have the same pass rate, showing that the risk posed by the currently banned imports would be negligible.
In Taiwan, agricultural imports from other parts of Japan have been tested and found to fulfill food safety standards. To treat the produce from Fukushima and surrounding areas differently and maintaining the ban would have no scientific justification.
Announcing the policy change at a news conference, the government said that standards applied to imports from those areas would be stricter than those agreed upon internationally, and that instead of the current blanket ban, some products, such as mushrooms, would need further certificates and be tested at the border.
Food safety is fundamentally the job of government: It is not ideological, and it should not be political.
Taiwanese should be able to rely on their politicians, whether in government or in opposition, to ensure food safety.
Political parties should be interested in providing the public with the unadulterated, science-based truth about food imports, not hysterical, politically driven appeals to people’s natural — and certainly, given Taiwan’s record on food safety issues, justifiable — concerns.
Branding produce from Fukushima and nearby areas as “nuclear food” a decade after the disaster is damaging, disingenuous, dishonest, counterproductive and childish.
This is especially true when the vast majority of governments around the world have long been satisfied with safety checks implemented in Japan showing that initial concerns were unfounded, and the risk posed by produce from the areas is negligible or nonexistent.
Now that the Tsai administration has announced that it would lift the ban, it is the responsibility of opposition parties to ensure that the government keeps its promises, implements rigorous testing standards and does not prioritize economic or political factors over strict adherence to them, rather than stirring up public concerns for unfounded reasons that they do not believe themselves.
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