Referendum on US Beef: Neither Necessary Nor Urgent

Referendum on US Beef: Neither Necessary Nor Urgent
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2010

The Legislative Yuan amended the Act Governing Food Sanitation on its third reading, banning the importation of most US beef products apart from bone-in beef. Yesterday the Executive Yuan Referendum Committee gave its preliminary approval to a US Beef Referendum proposed by the Consumers' Foundation. The Consumers' Foundation then launched its second phase signature drive. This is the first time a referendum has been initiated by private individuals since the referendum process was instituted. It deserves attention. But it may also lead to all sorts of after-effects.
From a practical perspective, it was not easy for the Consumers' Foundation to collect 129,000 signatures and cross the first stage threshold in such a short time. Past referendum drives were initiated by political parties with considerable organizational strength. The "defensive referendum" or "referendum on United Nations membership" were all politically-oriented, Partisan political considerations far outweighed public welfare considerations. The Consumers' Foundation held an internal debate. Did it want political parties to participate? To ensure that the US Beef Referendum remained purely a public welfare issue, and did not degenerate into a partisan political issue, the Consumers' Foundation rejected political party involvement. It collected 129,000 signatures, proving that people power had arrived, and that the Republic of China was a mature democratic society.

But it is difficult to imagine crossing the second phase threshold of 860,000 signatures without organized assistance. Even if the Consumers' Foundation refuses to change its mind and declines political party intervention, political parties or political groups are likely to play an important role in the second stage signature drive, if only out of political necessity. The signature drive will probably take six months. If the review passes without any hiccups, the referendum will be held around the same time as the municipal elections for five major metropolises. The Consumers' Foundation may reject intervention by political parties and political groups. But political parties or political groups will use the U.S. Beef Referendum as a political tool in the general election. The public referendum is a public welfare issue. It is a symbol of the maturity of the Republic of China's democratic society. But it would inevitably fall victim to electioneering. The result would be less room for the rational discussion of U.S. beef imports.

The Consumers' Foundation US Beef Referendum reads: "We demand that the Department of Health reinitiate talks with the United States on its November 2009 relaxing of restrictions on the importation of bone-in beef, ground beef, beef organ meats, beef bone marrow less than 30 months old." If we examine the text of the referendum, we find that its demands are already covered in the provisions of the Legislative Yuan's amended Act Governing Food Sanitation. The act stipulates that any questionable beef parts are prohibited and may not be imported. The only beef part it allowed in was bone-in beef. There is no controversy over imports. Even assuming one has objections, the legislature has all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles it can invoke to prevent the meat industry from importing unsafe products. No company has yet to apply for an import permit. Even if some may wish to do so in the future, the number is apparently quite limited.

Furthermore, the content of the amended domestic law is already in conflict with the treaty signed by Taipei and Washington. The United States has issued a strongly-worded statement. Government agencies must immediately engage in diplomatic fence-mending. More importantly, relevant consultations must be restarted. Agencies concerned with economics, trade, and national security must immediately resume negotiations. The United States may be angry and unwilling to re-open negotiations at the moment. But the agreement stipulates that negotiations must be restarted every three months. In other words, soon after the Consumers' Foundation begins its second phase signature drive, government agencies will have restarted negotiations. Since the value of the United States beef products banned accounts for an insignificant proportion of the United States' interests, there is no reason to delay renegotiations. Taipei and Washington are likely to reach a new agreement even before the second phase signature drive is complete. Why then is it necessary to hold a referendum?

In more concrete terms, suppose the second stage signature drive succeeds. A referendum is held. According to the referendum law, it must be approved by over half the citizens of the nation. Achieving such a goal is "Mission Impossible." It is far more likely that the referendum will be rejected. In the event it is rejected, does that mean we must open the doors wide to US beef imports?

The US Beef Imports Referendum is a public welfare issue. But this particular public welfare issue is highly complex, because it involves negotiations between two governments. The United States vehemently objects to the Act Governing Food Sanitation. It has openly accused Taipei of bad faith. Once this becomes a precedent, coupled with a referendum, it will be seriously undermine Taipei's foreign negotiation and consultation position. It will seriously undermine Taipei's international image. Consumer awareness on Taiwan is increasing. Market mechanisms are highly evolved. As early as November last year, when Taipei and Washington signed the agreement, the public raised a hue and cry. Meat industry leaders even launched their own initiatives to reject US beef imports. Stores even designed labels clearly specifying that they did not stock US beef. Or else they notified consumers that they stocked only Australian beef or New Zealand beef. When consumers use their own judgment, and make their own decisions, the market will naturally force industry to play catch up. After all, who wants to lose money?

This is a vital public health and public welfare issue. The government can issue decrees. Government agencies can track consumer behavior. Solutions are available. They can be found even before the referendum is held. The US Beef Referendum is neither necessary nor urgent. Members of the public indignant over the U.S. beef issue should reflect upon the issue with cool heads.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.01.08
社論－美牛公投沒必要性 更無急迫性
本報訊

就在立法院三讀通過《食品衛生管理法修正條文》，阻絕了帶骨牛肉之外的大部分美牛進口範圍之後，行政院公投審議委員會昨日初審通過消基會提出的美牛公投，緊接著，消基會將展開第二階段連署。這是台灣開放公投以來，第一件由民間發動的公投，非常值得關注，但是，可能引起的後續效應，也不能輕忽。

從實務面看，消基會能在短短時間，連署達十二萬九千人，跨過第一階段門檻，實屬不易。過去的公投皆由政黨組織性的力量發動，不論是防禦性公投或入聯公投，都是政治議題，政治操作意味遠大過公益考量；為了讓連署順利跨過門檻，消基會內部也曾有不同爭論，到底要不要讓政黨力量介入，最後為了讓美牛公投這項單純的民生議題不要變質，消基會否決了，十二萬九千人連署，證明民間力量抬頭，更證明台灣是一個民主成熟的社會。

但是，要跨過第二階段八十六萬人的連署門檻，若無組織性的力量協助，很難想像如何成功。即使消基會婉拒政黨力量介入的初衷不改，但政黨或政治團體仍有很大可能，甚至勢必在第二階段連署扮演重要角色。以時程推算，半年為期的連署、審查，若同樣順利通過，屆時，正是五都選舉之際，即使消基會堅定地拒絕政黨和政治團體，都很難避免政黨或政治團體，刻意地結合美牛公投，做為綁大選以致勝的工具，那麼這樁展現台灣成熟公民社會的民生議題公投，幾乎將無可避免的淪為選戰砲火，也將使美牛進口的討論空間更壓縮。

消基會提出的美牛公投案內容為：「要求否決衛生署在九十八年十一月開放美國三十月齡以下帶骨牛肉、絞肉、牛內臟、牛脊髓之政策，重啟美國牛肉輸台議定書談判。」從提案文來看，公投案的訴求，在立院三讀通過《食品衛生管理法》修正條文後，幾乎可謂已不存在。因為，立院在法條明定，所有風險部位都禁止進口，唯一在開放之列的帶骨牛肉，並無進口爭議，即使有異議，因為立法院設下的三管五卡，讓業者卻步，迄無業者申請進口，即使未來要進口，為數顯然也很有限。

此外，由於國內法的修正，已經與已簽定的台美議定書內容牴觸，美方發表措詞強硬的聲明，政府部門一方面立即展開外交彌補工作，更重要的，相關的磋商勢必重新展開，經貿國安單位的目標就是立即重啟協商，即使美方在氣頭上，一時半刻不肯打開談判大門，根據議定書，三個月後也得強制重啟談判。換言之，在消基會第二階段連署才開始不多久，政府部門的談判即已開始，而且由於有風險禁止進口的美牛部位在產值上只佔極微小的比例，就美國單方面利益而言，也沒有延宕重議的理由，第二階段公投未完成前，台美就有可能達成新的議定書，那還有必要公投嗎？

更具體的說，即使跨過了第二階段門檻，舉辦了公投，根據公投法，要跨過二分之一以上的公民數認可，其難度直如登天，被否決的機率遠大於通過，萬一被否決，難不成就認可美牛大幅開放進口嗎？

美牛公投是一個民生議題，但卻是極為複雜的民生議題，因為涉及國家間的談判，美方此次對立法院修正《食品衛生管理法》極不以為然，直指台灣缺乏誠信，此例一開，再加上公投，對台灣對外談判磋商任何協定，都極為不利，也嚴重影響台灣的國際形象。另一方面，台灣社會消費者意識高漲，市場機制圓熟，早在去年十一月台美議定書簽定伊始，民情嘩然之際，即已有業者主動發起不進口美牛運動，店家甚至設計明確的標章，聲明說該店不用美國牛，或者清清楚楚昭告消費者，該店使用的是澳洲或紐西蘭牛肉，當消費者做出判斷與選擇的時候，市場機制自然會讓業者相應配合，誰要做賠錢的生意呢？

這個攸關民眾健康的民生議題，不論從政府的法令制度、行政查核手段或民眾的消費行為，都有解決之道，甚至在公投前就可以解決，美牛公投既無必要性，更無急迫性，對美牛議題激憤的民眾，應該更冷靜一點思考。