Beta-Adrenergic Agonist Controversy Undercuts Government Credibility

Beta-Adrenergic Agonist Controversy Undercuts Government Credibility
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2012

Summary: The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.

Full Text below:

The U.S. beef controvery has raged for an entire month. This is no small feat, and is bringing with it new problems, It has led to a controversy over whether Taiwan pork contains beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine. Suddenly no one knows what meat is safe to eat, Government agricultural authorities were supposed to be the gatekeepers. What have they been doing? Is there really a conspiracy to attack Taiwan pork to divert attention from US beef? Another controversy is now sweeping the island, It is the topic on everyone's lips.

Is Taiwan pork safe or unsafe? Is there a conspiracy or not? Consider a story that has been circulating on the Internet.

A young man applies for a job, The interviewer is duly impressed. The young man and his parents assume the job is his. The family is overjoyed. But suddenly they receive a letter saying he has been rejected. The family is desolate. Despondent, the young man threatens suicide. Soon afterwards, the employer arrives to apologize. The notice was mailed to the wrong address. The young man has been hired.

The story does not end there. It goes on to show how the scenario unfolds in different countries and regions, with people of a different national character. In Japan the company says, if the young man cannot even endure such a minor setback, and threatens to commit suicide, how can he possibly cope with future work pressure? In Germany, the parents forbid the young man to report to work, If blunders as serious as this can happen, then company efficiency is clearly poor. The job is clearly one with no future. In America, the young man becomes a folk hero. He reports to work amidst cheering throngs. Lawyers to swarm about him and threaten to sue the company for causing him mental anguish.

On Taiwan scholars and experts of all political stripes. talking heads, civic organizations, emerge from the woodwork. They demand to know why he was first rejected then hired. Did someone with connections lobby on his behalf? Did the interviewer accept a bribe? Who was the young woman who accompaned the young man during his interview? Questions like these multiply. But does the young man ever get the job? No one knows, and no one cares.

The story is an allegory. Questions about food safety have arisen over U.S. beef, Taiwan pork, chicken, and goose containing beta-adrenergic agonists. The real issue is what toxins are involved, and in what amounts? The former concerns the nature of the toxin. The latter concerns the amount. The nature and amount of the toxin must be made clear. Only then can we conduct a risk assessment. Only then can we decide whether to allow their sale. How should the government determine the permissible limits? Not by attacking pork to divert attention from beef. That hardly addresses the problem. We must retrace our steps. So what if the conspiracy theories are true? The uncovering of domestic inspection loopholes or unscrupulous breeders using illegal drugs is forcing the government to remedy the situation. That is hardly a bad thing.

That said, the authorities should be ashamed. The AIT's Taipei Office Chief issued a list of Taiwan agricultural products containing hundreds of illegal additives. It presented scientific evidence. Leave aside the issue of whether the government made concessions and allowed US beef imports, at least for the moment. How can our own agricultural authorities face the public? Have consumers been ingesting toxins on a daily basis? Why was everyone unaware of this?

The agricultural authorities explained that they uncovered these violations long ago. They merely failed to publicize them, Either that, or they publicized them but the media failed to report them. Blaming the media in this manner is extremely unfair. The Government Information Office (GIO) recently issued a press release on domestic pork with salbutamol, It contained only one word: salbutamol. But is salbutamol more toxic than ractopamine? The report said nothing. Do government agencies expect citizens to be experts in toxicology? Do they expect citizens to understand the significance of these reports at a glance? The government did its job, but failed to communicate with the public. As the expression goes, it "performed twice the work, and received half the credit." It performed a truly thankless task.

The public is bickering over U.S. beef imports. It ought to be more concerned about food safety inspections. Legislators are applying pressure, Health Director Wen-Ta Chiu has made a commitment. Beginning next week the government will conduct lot by lot inspections of U.S. beef imports. Is such a promise realistic? The Food and Drug Administration has a staff of only 45, spread out over four control centers on the island: north, south, east, and west. Currently customs has the ability to sample 5% of the U.S. beef entering the country. Beef imports from past offenders are sampled at a 20% rate, or more. The Department of Health has committed to test every batch of beef from every country. Privately, officials confide that this is unreasonable and unscientific. Other countries could protest the erection of non-tariff barriers. It could lead to international trade disputes.

The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.03.16
社論－這場肉的風暴 瘦了政府的公信力
本報訊

美牛風暴果然兇猛，連吹一個月不但欲小不易，還吹出新問題，又產生台灣豬肉究竟有無使用更毒的瘦肉精的爭議！一時間，到底什麼肉能吃、該把關的政府農政單位到底在幹什麼、到底有沒有圍魏（豬）救趙（牛）的陰謀等問題，又舖天蓋地的橫掃全台，成了熱門話題！

在討論台灣豬肉安不安全、到底有沒有陰謀論之前，先說一個在網路流傳已久的故事。

有個年輕人去應徵工作，主考官對他頗表肯定，年輕人與父母都以為錄取已是囊中物，舉家欣喜。哪知，對方寄來的通知單竟然是「未錄取」，舉家皆悲，年輕人難過到鬧自殺。不久，對方登門道歉，原來之前的通知寄錯了，年輕人名列錄取。

故事還沒完。如果這個情境發生在不同的國家、不同民族性的人身上，會有什麼結果？若是日本人，公司方面會說，年輕人這一點挫折都受不了就自殺，將來還能應付工作壓力嗎？不錄取。如果在德國，父母一定不讓年輕人去公司報到，這種事都弄錯，可見公司效率之差，是一個沒有前途的單位。如果在美國，年輕人必定如英雄般、在眾人掌聲和歡迎酒會中報到，並且全美律師蜂擁而至，爭取代表他控告公司造成精神損失。

如果是在台灣呢？非常可能的場景是，各方學者專家、媒體名嘴、民間團體齊出，追究為何先不錄取、後來又錄取？有沒有人事關說？主考官是否受賄？當初陪年輕人去應徵的女朋友是誰？…等等。至於年輕人最後有沒有去上班，沒有人知道、也沒有人關心。

說這個故事的意思是，這從美牛、台豬到雞、鵝含瘦肉精一波波的食品安全問題，真正的核心是：到底含的是何種毒物？劑量多寡？前者是對毒物「定性」，後者是對毒物「定量」，當徹底釐清這兩大有關毒物的真相事實後，才能做風險評估、決定是否開放、政府又該擬定何種強度的管制方式。是不是圍豬救牛，根本不是重點。退一萬步說，即使陰謀論成立，但因此發現國內檢驗漏洞或不肖畜牧業者違法用藥，使政府開始亡羊補牢，也是好事一件。

但國內主管機關應汗顏的是，當ＡＩＴ台北辦事處長司徒文出示一份台灣各種農產品使用禁藥的清單時，羅列了上百項法所禁止的毒物，面對科學的舉證，先不論政府是否因此讓步，開放美牛進口，我們的農政單位就難以面對民眾的質疑：難道消費者天天都在「服毒」？為什麼大家不知道這些訊息？

農政單位的辯解是，以前也有查到，只是沒有公布，或公布了媒體也不報導。這種把責任推給媒體的說法，非常不公平。以新聞局日前發出國內豬肉查到沙丁胺醇的新聞稿來說，白紙黑字只寫了「沙丁胺醇」四個字，至於其毒性是否比萊克多巴胺高，隻字未提。難道，政府單位把國民都當成毒物學專家，一看就懂？政府做了事，卻沒有將資訊清楚傳達給民眾，這是事倍功半，非常吃力不討好。

其實，國內與其為美牛爭吵不休，更應該關切的是食品安全檢驗能量的問題。在立委壓力下，衛生署長邱文達承諾，最快下周一開始，逐批檢驗進口美牛。這個承諾的可行性，大有問題。食品藥物管理局北中南東四大區管中心的總人力只有四十五人，目前對美牛的邊境抽驗比率一般只有五％，對有前科的業者才會上升到廿％或更多。但衛生署承諾對來自各國的牛肉逐批檢驗，食管局官員私下認為這是不合理、不科學的做法，甚至可能導致他國以非關稅障礙的名義抗議，產生國際貿易糾紛的風險。

美牛與台豬瘦肉精風波教我們的是，面對層出不窮的食品安全問題，先要從科學與理性的觀點弄清事實真相與問題輕重，再檢討政策走向與管理方式。否則，只會讓民眾困擾、業者受害，政府則困在新舊夾纏的問題中，瘦了公信力而於事無補。