|
Lifting beef ban
ignores big picture
By Chan Shun-kuei ¸â¶¶¶Q
It could hardly be more obvious that the government decided some time ago it was
going to allow US beef imports, and that its assertion that it had ¡§no preset
stance, no timetable and no commitment¡¨ was just for show.
A few days ago, it held two national security meetings in as many days,
concluding that its stance had changed to ¡§giving consideration to both public
health and economic / foreign relations interests.¡¨ Clearly, the government was
even then preparing to push things through. Sure enough, last Monday night, came
the announcement that it was to conditionally lift a ban on US beef containing
ractopamine residue, sending jaws striking the floor across the nation. Our last
recourse now is to take to the streets to add pressure and force another U-turn.
After that, it will all be in the hands of the legislature.
One of the reasons the government has given for forcing through the lifting of
the ban is that there is currently no research indicating that the additive is
harmful to the human body. That is as may be, but there are two ways to
interpret the assertion that there is ¡§currently no research.¡¨ The first is that
there is a lot of research out there that corroborates the assertion that the
substance is safe.
The second is that very little research, indeed perhaps scarcely any, has been
done on its effects on the human body, in which case there would not be any
results to be had. For ractopamine, the second possibility is much nearer the
mark. The government then is being disingenuous in asserting there is no
evidence to indicate it is harmful to humans.
Opening up the domestic market to US beef imports involves systemic structural
problems. All the fuss so far has centered on the public health risk, but while
this is certainly important, it is not the most involved or complex issue. In
2010, Taiwan imported 32,032 tonnes of beef from the US, 28,382 tonnes from
Australia and 18,128 tonnes from New Zealand. Imported beef constituted more
than 95 percent of the beef consumed in Taiwan that year.
If the government now simply opens up the market to US beef, Taiwan will have to
reduce the amount imported from Australia and New Zealand, unless perhaps one
thinks the public are suddenly going to eat a whole lot more beef. Furthermore,
under WTO regulations, as soon as we allow the import of beef containing
residues of this additive, we will also be relinquishing the right to implement
safeguards in the interest of public health, per the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) of the WTO¡¦s
Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods. If that happens, the ban would also
be lifted on imports of chicken and pork with residues.
It is absolutely not true, as the government would have us believe, that
different meats can be dealt with separately. This is the real reason that
lifting the ban is going to devastate the domestic animal husbandry industry. It
will also pose a significant public health risk, since Taiwanese consume up to 1
million tonnes of chicken and pork every year.
Many believe that the government¡¦s recent revelation of the outbreak of highly
pathogenic avian influenza was done in preparation for the next phase of their
plan, paving the way for allowing imports of pork and chicken with residues.
This is a secondary problem.
On a deeper level still is a problem that farmers in Taiwan will really find
difficult to recover from. That is, the government¡¦s intention to exchange the
lifting of the ban for signing a trade and investment framework agreement or
free-trade agreement with the US, joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPP) and the next round of talks on the Economic Cooperation
Framework Agreement (ECFA).
In return for the economic benefit ¡X which will be limited to trade in
industrial products ¡X that the government hopes will come as a result of this
exchange, following the signing of all these trade agreements and under the
banner of trade liberalization, cheap agricultural products will come pouring
into Taiwan and cut directly into our domestic economic output. It looks like
the government is willing to sacrifice Taiwan¡¦s agricultural industry.
According to the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, if Taiwan were to
join the TPP, agriculture would bleed to the tune of between NT$23 billion
(US$782 million) and NT$30 billion a year in revenue, most heavily in terms of
rice, fruit and vegetables, and livestock.
The most worrying aspect concerns the early harvest list the government
negotiated as part of the ECFA as an economic sweetener, but which has not
proven to be everything the government said it would be. When we come to the
next round of talks on the ECFA, what is to be done about the 830 farming
products originally prohibited from being imported into Taiwan as part of the
early harvest list? When all of these fruit and vegetable products grown on
polluted land in China start flooding in to Taiwan, domestic agriculture is not
going to be the only thing that suffers. The public are going to have to contend
with suspect farm produce that presents a threat to their health greater than
meat products with ractopamine residues.
Who knows how many of the less robust farmers are going to lose their
livelihoods as a result? And who knows the cost of all this to the already
debt-laden national health insurance system? Has the government done its math
properly?
If the government has already made up its mind, why carry on this farce of
pretending otherwise?
Far better than trying to keep the public in ignorance would be to come up with
a solution that can win over public opinion and take care of the more vulnerable
farmers set to lose out from the deal. This could involve risk control measures,
such as strictly enforcing clear labeling showing country of origin and
ingredients, and compensation for the farmers who lose out, perhaps by targeted
subsidies and WTO-stipulated farmers¡¦ living expenses payments.
The government has to show a bit of good faith here, be honest with the public,
and try to hammer out a consensus on the issue. What it is doing at the moment
is simply asking for trouble.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
