Commentary

A more rational approach to US beef

(CNA photos)

• Publication Date：06/24/2012
• Source： China Times

The ROC Legislature was scheduled last week to discuss the Food Sanitation Act, a bill that directly relates to whether the current ban on U.S. beef fed with leanness enhancers will be lifted.

But before debate could get under way, legislators with the opposition Democratic Progressive Party seized the speaker’s podium, vowing not to relinquish it “even if we are bathed in blood.” The ruling Kuomintang responded by issuing mobilization orders to its lawmakers.

A battle to the death between the ROC’s two major political parties seems on the verge of breaking out. But such a development will not help formulate a policy to protect national interests, nor will it contribute to political discourse or to social harmony.

The U.S. beef issue is closely related to the daily lives of the people; it also concerns Taiwan’s national interest at many levels. It should thus be handled in a responsible and practical way. If the Legislature puts on another martial arts show, it will cause Taiwan’s international reputation to be harmed, as scenes of the fight are broadcast throughout the world; and what is more, the political scuffles will make it that much more difficult for any rational discussion over a balanced policy to take place.

Of the various leanness enhancers available, ractopamine has the lowest toxicity level. Whether it poses a threat to human health has not been established either way by medical science. But at least up until now not a single case has been found showing that ractopamine is harmful to consume, which is why it is the only leanness enhancer still allowed in international markets.

In the U.S., acceptable ractopamine levels have been set at 30 parts per billion. Under pressure from Washington, both Japan and South Korea now allow imports of American beef. Indeed, President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea has had to endure a political firestorm for opening up his nation to the product. As to the European Union, it has banned imports of U.S. beef outright. The U.N. Codex Alimentarius Commission is scheduled to hold a conference to discuss the issue in July.

If absolute safety is the goal, no additives whatsoever should be used in the process of raising cattle. But practically speaking this is very hard to do, and so the management of additives must be considered from a comprehensive point of view, taking into consideration factors such as health effects and operational profits.

If a product has serious health consequences, then of course it should be banned; but if its effects on health are negligible, or if small residue levels can be tolerated by the human body, and if at the same time enormous profits are involved for the sellers, then acceptable residual levels should be set.

Consider pesticides, for example. At certain levels they are toxic enough to kill; and yet Taiwan and countless other nations allow them to be used, as long as the residue amount does not exceed permissible levels. The same applies to tobacco and betel nuts: Both are confirmed carcinogens, yet the government still allows them to be cultivated and sold.

When carrying out a comprehensive evaluation, the important thing is to find the right balance between all the various competing interests. If there is no scientific proof to show that leanness enhancers are harmful to humans, then, considering how pesticides and cigarettes are regulated, is it not possible for there to be a little more room for rational discussion, for considering Taiwan’s other national interests? Is this not preferable to just one voice seizing control of the entire debate?

In today’s extremely competitive international environment, it is not easy at all for Taiwan to survive. With just one misstep Taiwan could easily find that it has been surpassed by other nations.

And the current global situation is such that another financial crisis could occur at any moment. Such a crisis would put Taiwan, which relies on exports for 70 percent of its gross domestic product growth, in grave danger. South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore—which along with Taiwan have been called the “Four Asian Dragons”—are now clearly far ahead of Taiwan in terms of their development.

Although Taiwan’s economy has benefited from the Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that it signed with mainland China a few years ago, nevertheless Taiwan must not become too reliant on the mainland, and so it must speed up its efforts to sign additional free trade agreements with other nations, a position that that has been consistently supported by the DPP as well.

The U.S. has already made it very clear that Taiwan must allow U.S. beef imports before Trade and Investment Framework Agreement talks can resume. The TIFA talks, in turn, are prerequisites to an FTA with the U.S., or to membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The people of Taiwan are in support of signing more FTAs with other nations. The problem is that FTAs are never a one-sided affair, where one party takes everything but refuses to give anything back in return. All state-to-state negotiations involve give and take, and only when both are present will a satisfactory outcome be possible for all the parties involved. If Taiwan wants to sign FTAs with other nations, it must be psychologically prepared to sacrifice some of its own wants. The same of course applies to the U.S. as well.

Taiwan is in a peculiar international situation, so that when other nations enter trade negotiations with it they also have to take political considerations into account. This is one of the main reasons why Taiwan lags so far behind South Korea when it comes to FTAs.

The U.S. is a major export market for Taiwan goods, and also an ally that has long supported the ROC. It is one of the most likely nations to sign an FTA with Taiwan, and an FTA with the U.S. is very likely to spur other nations to sign similar trade deals with Taiwan as well.

It is not clear that leanness enhancers pose a risk to human health. The government has also already proposed four ways to control U.S. beef imports—namely, that it will only allow beef imports with safe and acceptable ractopamine levels; that beef imports from the U.S. will be allowed, but not pork imports; that there will be clear labels stating the originating nation of beef imports; and that beef innards will not be allowed in.

These four control mechanisms mean that consumers can decide for themselves whether to buy U.S. beef, in the same way that smokers can decide for themselves if they want to undertake the risks of inhaling.

This being the case, U.S. beef should not be seen as a monster even worse than pesticides. Besides, quite a few consumers feel that U.S. beef does taste better, and with the government measures in place they are even in support of opening up the local market to U.S. beef.

The view of experts should be given a certain amount of respect when evaluating the health risks of ractopamine. As to risks and trade-offs involved in allowing U.S. beef into Taiwan, this too can be discussed in depth and in a practical way.

National health is something that involves the interests of all citizens; but fighting for free trade is another issue involving the entire nation. If the question of U.S. beef becomes a battleground between the DPP and the KMT, there will no longer be any room for rational discussion, and it will become all the more difficult to separate all the various issues to be considered.

The DPP is not in power at the moment, but it should feel just as responsible as the ruling party for increasing Taiwan’s national competitiveness levels. When it takes to extreme measures to boycott U.S. beef, does it really have the nation’s interests at heart? (HZW)

(This commentary originally appeared in the China Times June 12, 2012.)

Write to Taiwan Today at ttonline@mofa.gov.tw