20100121 Consumers’ Foundation leads referendum on US beef

Consumers’ Foundation leads referendum on US beef
　

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010, Page 3
　

Consumers’ Foundation chairman Hsieh Tien-jen gestures as he talks about US beef on Jan. 8.
PHOTO: LIU HSIN-DE, TAIPEI TIMES

Liberty Times: What do you think of the government’s US beef import policy?

Hsieh Tien-jen (謝天仁): The most criticism has been aimed at the rush with which the government came to its decision, the glaring lack of a legal procedure for soliciting public opinion and the absence of public hearings for doing so. The Department of Health (DOH) visited the Consumers’ Foundation once, but only to find out what we thought about US beef. Later, the government, without any consultations and in complete disregard of consumer rights, announced it had already signed the US-Taiwan protocol deregulating the imports of US beef.

LT: Before the Central Election Commission (CEC) passed a review of the referendum proposal, the legislature rushed through an amendment restricting the import of US ground beef and “risky” beef products. The DOH also stressed its “three controls and five check points” guarantee that any risk will be controlled. Despite all this, the Consumers’ Foundation has insisted in initiating a referendum. Why? [“Three controls” refer to controls on beef imports at the source, at borders and in markets, while the “five check points” refer to verifying certification documents, checking that shipments are marked with detailed product information, opening a high percentage of cartons of imported beef to check the product, conducting food safety tests and getting information on suspected problem products immediately].

Hsieh: The “three controls and five check points” have succeeded in neither controlling nor checking [US beef imports]. Taiwan does not have the ability to test for vCJD [variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease] prions, so how can we control the product at the source or the distribution flow? I’m afraid we’ll have to accept whatever test data the Americans give us. That’s why the Consumers’ Foundation advocates that: one, the risk be controlled outside of our borders, for example by amending the law to ban the importation of dangerous parts as the legislature just did; and two, pre-importation risk controls. The US only tests one of every 2,000 head of cattle for prions, while Japan tests every single animal. The US’ risk control is insufficient, and it should be raised to a higher level acceptable to Taiwan’s own experts. Only then should there be talk about deregulation of imports.

Apart from this, although it seems as if the import of offal and other risky parts of US cattle has been blocked by the legal amendment, we still have to deal with the conflict over legal precedence between Taiwan’s domestic legislation and the Taiwan-US protocol. We also have to deal with the difficult issue of US retribution. In fact, not only are dealers afraid of importing US bone-in beef, but imports of boneless US beef have also dropped by almost 40 percent. This is a clear display of civil society’s power to put checks and balances on the government.

Even more worthy of attention is the fact that although entrails and other risky parts have been legally blocked, that doesn’t mean bone-in beef is risk-free. The risk for entrails and other dangerous parts is one in 10 billion, while the risk for bone-in beef is 2.7 in 100 billion, so logically speaking, the two should be subjected to the same controls. The reason mad cow disease began to drop in the UK was mainly that the use of bone meal was banned, which shows that bone-in beef is still dangerous. There is no reason for Taiwan to import it. Even if it cannot be blocked through legal amendments, the issue must be renegotiated with the US so that controls can be improved.

LT: The Cabinet and the Ministry of Economic Affairs say renegotiations are an impossibility, and that any negotiations must be made within the framework of the current protocol, or else we must wait until we reach the 180-day limit for renewed talks.

Hsieh: The 180 day limit for renewed talks is another myth. According to the protocol, the discussions that will take place after 180 days will only deal with those parts that still haven’t been deregulated. NGOs worry that during the next round of talks in April, not only will the government be unable to block bone-in beef, but also that the import of bone-in beef from animals younger than 30 months will be allowed. That’s why need to continue to put pressure on the government by pushing for a referendum on the issue.

LT: If the government really does solve the issue of risk control, would you reevaluate or maybe even give up the demand for a referendum?

Hsieh: If the government can guarantee that [contaminated beef] is blocked outside Taiwan’s borders and it can manage risk control, the NGOs will reevaluate whether a referendum is still necessary, although that would require a consensus among the five NGOs that initiated the referendum proposal.

LT: The government has also sent out signals that even if the referendum succeeds, it will not necessarily be binding because renegotiations with the US would be impossible.

Hsieh: It is deplorable to hear officials say they won’t be able to renegotiate the deal even if the referendum passes. They must understand that government officials are public servants and that the public is their employer. I want to tell these officials that if they do not respect a referendum’s decision and show a lack of the most fundamental understanding of democracy, they will all have to face the Control Yuan because such officials harm national interests.

LT: Taiwan has never had a national referendum pertaining to the day-to-day lives of its citizens. What insights have you gained? Has the internal conflict about cutting political ties that has appeared in the process been resolved?

Hsieh: Maybe some people will feel that it is enough if we just refuse to buy and eat US beef, but without a referendum to function as a framework to support that position, I’m afraid it will not be possible to fully consolidate public opinion.

It is very difficult to avoid letting the referendum issue be hijacked for political purposes, but this is not a choice the Consumers’ Foundation can make. There is the time factor — the Taiwan-US protocol was signed late October last year, and then we had the local elections in early December — but we cannot stop pushing for a referendum because of that. That is why we have set up a few defense lines. For example, we do not cooperate with any political party and we do not let political forces intervene.

If a political party wants to participate in the signature campaign, they must respect that. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has sent us lists of signatures, and so has the Democratic Progressive Party. Statistics show that even without the lists sent by the political parties, more than 300,000 signatures have been collected and the required threshold has long been passed, which shows that the connection between the main issue and our daily lives has not been drowned out.

LT: There have been rumors lately that a referendum may be held concurrently with the year-end elections of the five special municipalities. Are you worried that the issue will be drowned out?

Hsieh: That will depend on what the CEC does. If it acts fast, we might be able to complete the second stage by July, and then we could avoid the mix up with the year-end municipality elections.

Legally and logically, national referendums can be held concurrently with other national elections, but the year-end municipality elections are local elections, and they should be held separately. We have already made our view clear to the CEC. We hope it will be possible to sideline ideology and create the space required for a civic campaign to develop independently.

LT: During the next stage, almost 900,000 signatures are needed, and then 9 million people have to vote with half of them agreeing. How will you manage that without the support of political parties?

Hsieh: I hope the public will be able to rely on their own initiative and awareness to initiate a signature campaign. We all agree that it is a good thing if we can successfully hold a referendum. Even if it does not pass, the process is Taiwan’s best ever example of consumer education.

Consumer civic awareness has weakened, maybe because of the recent economic slowdown. This referendum could restore, and maybe even strengthen, civic awareness. The democratic experience must grow through an accumulative process — it may be hard work, but it is worth it.