Dr. Liu is director of the Bureau of Food Hygiene, Department of Health, and concurrently a professor in the Graduate Institute of Food Science & Technology at National Taiwan University.
FCR: The Bureau of Food Hygiene was established in 1981, yet Taiwan is certainly not known for its high standards of food hygiene. What are the bureau's highest priorities to help correct this situation?
Liu: While it is true that the pace of improving food hygiene during the past decade has not been as rapid as people expected, I can't agree that nothing has been accomplished. For example, statistical evidence shows that the number of people in the 13 to 14 year age group who suffer from hepatitis A, which spreads through contaminated food, has dropped from 86 percent in 1976 to 12 percent in 1986. Our goal is to reduce it further to five percent.
The bureau's top priority is to establish the administrative mechanisms necessary for guaranteeing the highest possible standards of food hygiene. Although we were established in 1981, the deployment of both manpower and facilities at the local level unfortunately took place at a leisurely pace. Before the bureau was set up, some cities and counties had no administrator responsible for food hygiene and others assigned only a part-time or one full-time person to this job. In 1981, we proposed employing 152 more people to strengthen local food hygiene, but our recommendation wasn't approved until 1986. By the end of 1990, there should be six food hygiene administrators in each city and county. Our bureau is responsible for their training program, which lasts at least one month.
The total government budget spent on food hygiene has grown from NT$5.89 (US$0.22) per person in 1986 to NT$9.16 (US$0.35) this year, which indicates that some progress is being made.
Although all the government mechanisms for guaranteeing food hygiene are not yet in place, people have already benefited from what we have established so far. For instance, in the purple clam poisoning case in 1986, which caused several deaths, we discovered what the pollutant was and who the cultivators were within two days. And we finished investigating all the island's clam cultivators within 10 days to prevent more deaths.
FCR: Why can't the bureau carry out inspections to prevent such problems from emerging?
Liu: This is a common criticism of our work, and is the source of our greatest pressure. In fact, it oftentimes drives officials without a strong motivation to cover up problems in order to escape responsibilities.
But there is an element of unfairness in this criticism. Take the police as an example. They are rewarded for solving criminal cases, but they did not prevent the crimes in the first place. Where should the police start their detection activities when there are no reported cases? If the police had to worry about being blamed for not stopping all crimes before they happened, I think their morale would suffer and they wouldn't be as eager to solve actual cases.
Unless people stop eating, there will be always food poisoning cases here and in the rest of the world. In Taiwan, the bureau has to bear all the blame whenever food poisoning cases are reported. But it's unfair to say that we didn't prevent them. Actually, it's impossible to estimate how many cases we've prevented since the cases didn't have the chance to occur.
FCR: Some critics claim that the penalties for breaking the Food Hygiene Law promulgated in 1975 are too light. What is your opinion?
Liu: Generally speaking, the law is appropriate. The heaviest penalty is a sentence of three years or a fine of US$3,600. But some people think the penalty is too light because they mistake offenses that violate other laws for violations of the Food Hygiene Law. For instance, 2,000 people were poisoned in the 1979-1980 case involving tainted cooking oil. Because 16 people died and others suffered permanent disability, this broke the criminal law and was handled in criminal court. [The owner of the factory died while the trial was still in process (the case lasted 10 years). The factory manager was sentenced to two years and three months and the retailers were found not guilty.]
Botulism roulette—Taiwan's ubiquitous snack stalls are extremely popular, but dangerous to the health.
We are also heavily criticized for not penalizing people who publish exaggerated food advertisements. According to the Food Hygiene Law, violations of this sort can draw a maximum fine of US$3,600. But accumulating money illegally like this is fraud, and it should be adjudicated according to the criminal law. It's not the Food Hygiene Law but the criminal law that should be expected to cover such offenses.
The government can of course revoke the business licenses of people who break the law, but at least in most of the cases I've dealt with so far, few food manufacturers have reacted unfavorably to our fines or notification that they must improve their food hygiene. Some people suggest punishing manufacturers who violate the Food Hygiene Law by in forming the public of their names. This would be a death sentence for the manufacturers, and I don't encourage doing this unless it has been well considered beforehand.
FCR: Reports of food poisoning cases are very common in the press, and this problem is alleged to give rise to the largest number of consumer complaints. Is there any government channel that consumers can appeal to, and is there any way to receive compensation from businesses that are responsible for food poisoning cases?
Liu: The bureau is not legally authorized to demand compensation for the victims of food poisoning cases. Most of the time we can only suggest that the businesses compensate people. There are relevant stipulations concerning compensation in the civil law, but it takes much time and costs a lot of money to file such a lawsuit. That's why the proposed Fair Trade Act and the Consumer Protection Act are particularly important, because they indicate which government department is responsible for enforcement. But these two bills are unfortunately still pending in the Legislative Yuan for approval.
Administrative nightmare—there is no way to check imported foods until they have been put on the market.
FCR: Are the current hygienic standards for packaged foods, including type and percentage of additives, too strict or too lax? What are the most important problems in this area?
Liu: Adjusting standards because they might be too strict or too lax isn't exceptionally difficult because the investigation committee of the Department of Health can itself approve applications from the business sector for amending the standards without submit ting them to the Executive Yuan.
But there are relatively few applications for permission to use additives in food, because people here have a negative attitude toward food additives. The real problem is that the current standards don't cover enough types of additives. As more and more local and imported products are put on the market, we are studying the possibility of adopting some of the food hygiene standards already used by other countries that allow food additives.
FCR: What measures have the authorities taken to check on imported products? What if there is a different standard of food hygiene between the ROC and another country?
Liu: I have to admit that there is little we can do about this. For the moment, only the quarantine officers, not food hygiene administrators from the Department of Health, are in the Customs House. There is no way for us to spot-check imported goods unless they have been put on the market. We can only commission the Bureau of Commodity Inspection & Quarantine under the Ministry of Economic Affairs to check foods imported in large quantities.
Some people suggest that all foreign foods be registered with the food hygiene authorities before they can be imported. But this is as impossible as demanding an inspection of each dish before it can be served in a meal.
Concerning the different standards observed by other countries, many people were particularly upset late last year because they thought that apples imported from the U.S. were unsafe because of alar. Unfortunately, some people in Taiwan perhaps still have -the psychology of the xenophobic Boxer Movement and think that foreigners intend to bully us. At least since I assumed this office eight years ago, government trade and economics officials have never pressured us to accept lower hygienic standards for foods from any foreign country.
FCR: It has been estimated that many of the restaurants in Taiwan fail to meet basic hygienic standards. How many personnel are involved with checking restaurant and marketplace hygiene, and how frequently is this done?
Liu: After deducting personnel costs, local governments earmark almost no funds for investigating food hygiene. Therefore, we subsidized the local governments by giving each of them a food hygiene patrol van equipped with basic equipment so they could conduct on-the-spot inspections of restaurants and marketplaces. They are required to make inspection tours at least 12 days a month, aiming primarily at unpacked products and restaurant hygiene. On the average, each marketplace is inspected once every two months, and the names of the markets that fail the hygienic standards are made known to the public.
Dr. Liu Tin-yin—"People in general pay little attention to how much money their local governments spend on food hygiene."
Our bureau always becomes the target of criticism whenever there are food poisoning cases, but few people understand that it's not the central government but the local governments that are authorized to check on food hygiene and to fine businesses that fail to meet hygienic standards.
Moreover, people in general pay little attention to how much money their local governments spend on food hygiene. Because investments in this area do not generate instant results, local magistrates would rather work on something more easily recognized by their constituents, such as traffic problems. These officials seldom initiate long-term projects concerning food hygiene, and the public rarely pushes local councilmen to act in this area. That's one of our major difficulties, and at this time I have no idea how it can be improved.
FCR: What role can private sector organizations such as the Consumers' Foundation play in assisting the government to raise the standards of food hygiene?
Liu: The foundation has awakened consumer awareness and has brought positive pressure to bear on both the business sector and the government. It has been doing well in both "scaring" the businesses and blaming the government, but this isn't as good in educating the consumers in purchasing the right products. The "Consumers' Report" put out by the foundation functions somewhat in that way when they make known the results of their own tests.
But sometimes it can be risky to make the names of businesses known to the public as the foundation is doing. Unless the market sampling is wide enough for reliable analysis, they should hesitate to speak too hastily. I think it's a pragmatic goal for the government and the foundation to work together in consumer education.
The National Laboratories of Foods and Drugs under the Department of Health are staffed with more than 200 inspectors. They have inspected foods far more regularly than has the foundation, but their work is generally taken for granted and ignored by the public. People have the impression that the private sector is outperforming the government in food inspection, but just because the government's work is not reported in the press doesn't make it any less important.
FCR: How can the business sector and the general public contribute to upgrading Taiwan's standards of food hygiene?
Liu: There is no need to think that all businesses are evil. Businesses should be encouraged to have their products labeled honestly and informatively by including their ingredients and manufacture date. And consumers themselves should also not ignore their responsibilities for upgrading food hygiene.
What can be achieved in overall hygienic standards depends upon what kind of people we are. The government cannot succeed in implementing any policy without public support. The food industry isn't monopolistic, so there are plenty of foods that people can substitute for products that don't adhere to high standards of hygiene. And if people are willing to eat in unsanitary restaurants and street stands, or if they purchase products that are clearly unsanitary, who else can they put the blame on besides themselves?
FCR: What are some of the major achievements made in local food hygiene?
Liu: In the area of food inspection, we have contracts with six organizations to help speed the process, including the Industrial Technology Research institute, the National Pingtung Junior College of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Commodity Inspection & Quarantine of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
We have taken quick action in response to poisoning cases. For example, in the response to a case involving pickled peanuts, all the factories producing low-acid canned foods were required to register with our bureau about processing the cans.
We have also promoted the use of disposable tableware, such as bamboo chopsticks and paper plates and cups, in order to cut down on the cases of hepatitis, and we have worked with the Council of Agriculture and the Taiwan Meat Development Foundation to encourage people to purchase frozen meat identified with the "Best Meat" mark. All of these measures have been very much appreciated by Taiwan's consumers.