|
INTERVIEW: US beef
issue is political problem that the government should solve
Saying the US beef issue is actually a political problem that the government
should not try to solve by way of blurring the professionalism of academia on
the subject, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital department of toxicology
director Lin Chieh-liang told ¡§Liberty Times¡¨ (the sister paper of the ¡§Taipei
Times¡¨) staff reporter Jennifer Huang in an interview that although it was said
in some media that he was blacklisted by the authorities as an unwelcome
academic, he would not have a clear conscience if he did not tell the truth.
This is the second part of the interview; the first part was published yesterday
Liberty Times: Some people have said that local livestock farmers have
also used lean-meat additives on the sly and therefore we should allow the
import of US beef. What are your views on this?
Lin Chieh-liang (ªLªN¼Ù): I cannot agree with this type of viewpoint. More
than 90 percent of the nation¡¦s pig and cow farmers abide by the laws and we
should not open our borders to drugs with a high risk of damaging the health of
our people. What the government should do is to enforce the law on those few who
do use lean-meat additives, instead of opening up the market to a banned drug.
Others [have raised the example of] the [known] danger posed by cigarettes, but
[despite that knowledge] we still import them.
However, it is a fact that cigarettes were imported before we found out that
tobacco was cancer-inducing.
US beef raised without lean-meat inducing additives hasn¡¦t been imported yet and
is a risk that can be prevented or controlled beforehand. Does the government
really want to allow these imports and have our people and their progeny become
human test subjects?
Also, there is an estimated 60 percent of US beef that was not raised on
additives. Why can the US sell additive-free beef to the EU and to China, but
mandate that Taiwan have to allow the import of additive-laced beef? It is very
unfair.
LT: Although the government says it has ¡§no predetermined stance¡¨ on the
issue of increased US beef imports, government officials¡¦ efforts at clearing
Paylean¡¦s name suggest that allowing further imports of US beef is a foregone
conclusion. What would be your suggestions [to the public]?
Lin: The issue of ractopamine¡¦s effects on health has been debated for
many years and is a matter still being debated internationally. However, our
government officials seem to have ¡§suddenly¡¨ made guarantees that ractopamine-containing
Paylean is not toxic and is safe, barely a month after the elections.
Actually, the US beef issue is a political problem and the government should not
try to use academic methods that blur the professionalism of academia [on the
subject]. It¡¦s all too weird. The matter also pertains to the issue of attitude:
Are we to simply refuse the importation of certified high-danger foodstuffs, but
allow low-toxicity additives and meats of questionable safety to enter the
country?
If the government is forced, on the basis of national security or political
reasons, or because it is unable to withstand the diplomatic and economic
pressures of the US government, to allow the import of ractopamine-laced beef,
then it should be honest with the Taiwanese people and apologize.
Then Taiwanese society can work together and find ways to minimize the risks of
importing US beef, especially to people with cardiovascular diseases, such as
clearly labeling if a package of meat is laced with ractopamine and how much
ractopamine is in the meat, to protect the basic rights of people to preserve
their health.
Other countries have used the reasons of eating habits or food security to deny
ractopamine-laced US beef entering their markets. Taiwan must make an attempt to
stand up for its own rights.
Translated by Jake Chung, Staff Writer
|
