Public Health and US Beef

Public Health and US Beef
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 26, 2009

The government has lifted its ban on U.S. beef, provoking a public outcry. Amidst accusations that he was "outside the loop," Director of Health Yang Chih-liang even expressed a willingness to step down. But if all the policy decisions were made by the National Security Council, why must Yang Chih-liang bear responsibility? In this tug of war between public health and diplomatic advantage, what exactly was our moral and political calculus?
Most regrettable of all is that during recent negotiations our side failed to stick to its guns. As Yang Chih-liang blurted out, "What can we do? That's the way things are for us." His lament induced a "national malaise." It is true that in negotiations with the United States, we are usually at a disadvantage. That is why Chen administration National Security Council Secretary General Chiou I-jen asked rhetorically, "Whose apron strings are we going to cling to, if not Uncle Sam's?" But the question is: Were the recent negotiations one-sided? Was the United States really too rough with us? Or were we simply too soft? Ma Ying-jeou and Su Chi are on good terms with the United States. But if their administration leaves the impression that Washington is bullying Taipei, isn't it squandering its friendship with the United States? The U.S. executive branch has maintained a consistent negotiating posture. But when Obama replaced Bush, Taipei lost some of its bargaining chips. Has Washington decided it can get away with bullying Taipei? Or have we merely failed to assert ourselves?

Department of Health officials said that some provisions which appear overly generous, are merely instances in which we "allowed the United States to save face." That is ridiculous. What about saving our own face? Washington's representative to Taipei has never denied that his responsibility is to safeguard U.S. interests. Even after leaving office, Stephen M. Young is still attempting to sell the idea of "Let in the beef in the Year of the Ox." If we don't look after Taipei's rights and dignity, who will?

The current tempest over US beef involves three bones of contention. First, too many items been allowed in. In addition to bone-in steaks, many organ meats have been allowed in. These pose a risk to our health. Secondly, the decision-making process is too opaque. In particular, the views of health authorities have not been sufficiently heeded. Decision-making has been dominated by the National Security Council, which is not required to answer to public opinion. Thirdly, the government hasn't made a sincere effort to communicate with the public. It has repeatedly said that "in principle, no imports are allowed," but that "both sides have a private understanding," and used other vague terms to mislead the public.

After a full day of public backlash, Premier Wu Den-yih amended his US beef import policy. He stressed that beef brains, marrow, eyes, skulls, and other high-risk parts would not be allowed in. He revised the Department of Health's previous statement that "in principle, no imports are allowed." He said "If Americans won't eat it, neither will we." This bottom line is probably more acceptable to the public.

The Executive Yuan is locking the barn door after the horse was been stolen. Its current priority is to act as gatekeeper, to prevent unscrupulous businesses from taking advantage of the situation, or using the black hole of customs to smuggle in high-risk foodstuffs. It must establish a more effective management mechanism. It must provide the public with more detailed explanations. For example, it should ensure that all U.S. beef and organ meat imports are consistently labeled. It should ensure that downstream retail and restaurant industry are in compliance, enabling consumers to see clearly what they are buying. It must enable the public to decide for itself whether it wishes to consume U.S. beef and organ meats. It must control the damage caused by its foreign policy blunders, and safeguard against future policy errors.

Government agencies can also set up dedicated web pages. They can track Taiwan import data, including what was imported, how much was imported, and when it was imported. They can track mid-stream and down-stream sales volume and sales destinations. Organ meats used in processed foods are often hard to identify. This way they can be subjected to periodic checks by Consumer Protection Officers, or consumers actively participating in the supervision process. This will reduce the possibility of administrative black holes. Premier Wu wants the Department of Health to establish a "compulsory insurance" system for importers. Actually making the process more transparent, and the information more readily available to the public, will be more helpful than some makeshift insurance policy.

To be fair, much of the public wants U.S. beef imports. Many think the probability of a renewed outbreak of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease infections is minuscule. After long deprivation, many gourmets are hungry for US T-bone steaks. This does not mean they are indifferent to their own health. This does not mean the government can disregard public health, or lower its guard. It is rumored we made significant concessions for the sake of the "Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement," and to enable ministerial-level officials from the US to visit Taiwan. But using public health as a bargaining chip is unthinkable. The administration has failed to stand behind its policies. If it continues to default on its responsibility, the government's image may take a big hit.

The Ma administration has linked beef imports to foreign policy. But in the end it must respond to the economic concerns of the man in the street. It need not advance any elaborate theories. It merely needs to assure the public that the beef it is eating is safe.

美國的牛肉與台灣的民生
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.26 03:32 am

政府宣布美國牛肉大舉解禁，輿論大譁，被轟「狀況外」的衛生署長楊志良甚至表示願意下台負責。但如果整起決策是由國安會主導，楊志良能負什麼責任？在民生安全與外交利益之間，這個算盤究竟是怎麼打的？

最令人不愉快的是，這次談判，我方該堅持的未堅持，連楊志良都脫口說出「沒辦法，國家的狀況就是這樣」，使整個社會籠罩在一種深沈的「無力感」之中。的確，對美談判，優勢通常不操之在我，所以扁政府時代的國安會祕書長邱義仁才會說：「不抱美國大腿，抱誰？」問題是，這次談判的一面倒，真是「美國太鴨霸」嗎？還是我們自己的腿太軟？馬英九和蘇起都有不錯的美國關係，他們當政，如果反而升高這種美國「欺壓」的印象，豈非枉費了他們與美國的交誼？美國行政部門固有一貫的談判原則，但在歐巴馬政府取代了布希政府後，台灣在談判線上反而倒退，真的是美國吃定台灣，還是我們未能據理力爭？

衛生署官員又說，談判條文看來很寬，是我們「給美國面子」，這真是荒唐的想法；請問，我們自己的面子又在哪裡？美國駐台代表從來不諱言自己的職責在維護美國利益，楊甦棣離職前都還在推銷「牛年開放牛肉」的想法；台灣的權益和尊嚴若不靠我們自己維護，要指望誰？

這起「美牛風波」最受爭議之處有三：其一，開放幅度超過合理範圍，除了帶骨牛排外，大量內臟的進口，為國民健康帶來風險。其二，決策太不透明，尤其衛生主管機關的意見未獲充分尊重，主導決策的國安會卻不必面對民意。其三，政府向社會溝通的誠意不足，一再使用「原則上不進口」、「雙方私下諒解」等含糊字眼誤導民眾，留下許多曖昧空間。

經過一天民意反彈，閣揆吳敦義立即對開放範圍作了修正，強調牛腦、脊髓、牛眼、頭骨等高風險部位都在禁止之列，更正了衛生署先前所謂的「原則上不進口」。他說，「美國人不吃的，我們也不吃」；這點，應是一般民眾較能接受的底線。

亡羊補牢，行政院現今的要務是必須在執行上把關，防止不肖商人趁隙上下其手，或利用海關黑洞偷偷夾帶高風險食材進口，應當設計出更有效的管理機制，並向民眾作更明確的說明。比如說，應將所有進口美國牛肉及內臟產品，一律加貼統一的識別標誌，並規定下游零售及餐飲業遵行，使消費者能夠一望即知，至少要讓民眾有吃不吃美國牛肉與牛雜的自主選擇權。總之，必須做到「外交失利／內政善後」及「政策失守／行政把關」。

政府部門亦可設置專門網頁，將台灣進口商的資訊公開處理，包括其進口項目、時間、數量及中下游銷售去向等。如此，對於內臟或因輾轉加工而不易辨識來源的產品，也可由各地消保官定時稽查，或透過消費大眾主動參與監督，以降低行政管理的黑洞風險。吳揆要求衛生署建立進口商「強制保險」制度，事實上，如果各項資訊能夠充分透明，要比聊備一格的保險對民眾更有實益。

平情而論，這次開放美國牛肉進口，或亦有不少民眾支持；有人認為感染新型庫賈氏症的機率極低，有些老饕對久違的美國丁骨牛排更是躍躍欲試。儘管如此，這並不表示他們不在乎健康，也不表示政府可以把民眾的安危置之度外，更不意味政府可以降低自己的把關標準。外傳，我方之所以大幅讓步，是為換取「台美貿易暨投資架構協定」的談判，以及美開放部長級官員來台訪問；無論如何，把國民健康拿到談判桌上去作政治交易，都是難以想像的事。政策失守，行政若再不把關，政府的形象聲望恐將受到重創。

無論馬政府把牛肉開放跟什麼外交政策綁在一起，終要從「庶民經濟」的觀點來答覆民眾的疑慮。在此，不必談太多大道理，必須告訴大家如何確保吃得安心才行。