Buyer beware
Sudan III is an industrial red dye used to add color to plastics, fats and oils, oil-based paints and other goods. It cannot be used as a food ingredient or food item, and is not consumable. It is also carcinogenic and harmful to human health.
There are hundreds of products on the market made from red chili powder, with colors that are robust and whose color saturation is even.
Normal red chili powders (and sauces) present a natural vermilion color. After the product has been opened and used for a while, this color gradually oxidizes and fades. Hot chili sauces are not naturally a robust shade of red.
Red chili pepper powders (or sauces) added to food, such as those used in stirred noodle dishes, can add fragrance and or flavor, but they do not sting one’s nostrils or dye one’s hands. They do not mask the other flavors in foods.
Why do businesses add Sudan III to give their products a bright crimson color? That is because they want to make their products look more appealing and appetizing, or to fake product freshness to entice buyers and boost sales.
For example, if you visit a seafood market, you can see that there is Sudan III painted onto fish gills to trick buyers into thinking that they are purchasing fresh catch.
In chili sauces, ketchup, salted duck eggs, cooked shrimp, kimchi and other foods, Sudan III is added to make it appear as if the food is fresh or that it is spicy and piquant enough. It is easy for buyers to be tricked if they are unaware.
Although there is the 2016 “Five Links of Food Safety” policy in place concerning food safety — sourcing controls, reinforced production management, increased inspections, heavy penalties for businesses that act with malicious intent and public monitoring — if the first four links are broken, consumers would have to rely on themselves to carry out inspections.
Consumers would need to possess adequate common sense about food safety and refuse to purchase such products. Only then would consumers not be cheated.
Chang Keng-wei
Taipei
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS