Moral Posturing Frustrates Real World Implementation

Moral Posturing Frustrates Real World Implementation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2012

Summary: When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?

Full Text below:

The war over beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine has escalated beyond control. It has shaped the perception of the livestock and meat industry on Taiwan. The public initially assumed that beta-adrenergic agonist residues were a problem confined to U.S. beef imports. Who knew that Australian and New Zealand beef imports contained the even more toxic qipateluo? The public initially assumed that domestic livestock growers refused to use beta-adrenergic agonists. Who knew pig farmers on Taiwan have been using the illegal zilpaterol? The situation is out of control. Many well-known restaurants and food manufacturers have been caught in the net. The public is the ultimate victim.

The reality is so far removed from the rhetoric. This is what happens when opportunistic political posturing takes precedence over rational decision-making. By now people realize the magnitude of the challenge. This is more than a diplomatic and trade tussle over U.S. beef imports. This is a domestic disconnect between administrative efficiency and political commitment.

In 2006 the Chen administration trumpeted its total ban on beta-adrenergic agonists. People mistakenly assumed they were safe and secure. But the Chen administration's moral posturing was deflated by harsh reality. In 2009 the Ma administration responded to mad cow disease in the US. It established "three controls and five gateways." But who knew that beta-adrenergic agonists would slip through the net? Who knew that controls imposed at the source, at the border, and in the marketplace would all fail? The administration stopped mad cow disease, but allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to slip through the net. Preoccupied with U.S. beef, it let down its guard against beta-adrenergic agonists from New Zealand, Australian, and from here at home. What is the crux of the problem? Did political posturing or failed implementation lead to the policy debacle? Maybe both?

Take the "three controls, five gateways." The three contols, five gateways were established in response to mad cow disease in the US. Oversights during implementation were inevitable. The five gateways tested for "38 veterinary drugs, heavy metals and E. coli." But it allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to make their way onto market shelves, Its controls failed. On this point, the Ma administration cannot avoid blame. The government boasted that it would track down violations, one by one. But it failed to provide customs and inspection agencies with the necessary manpower and materiel. This led to less than 10% of the samples being tested. Can the central government really can blame lower echelon officials for inadequate implementation?

Now take industry responsibility for the irregularities. Since last year, the Department of Health and Customs tested over 200 batches of imported beef. About 20% failed to pass muster. The product was returned, removed from market shelves, or destroyed. But no fines were imposed on any industry. The government's net had a gaping hole: The importer or dealer was not considered the "perpetrator." He was not the one who added the beta-adrenergic agonists. Therefore according to the Food Sanitation Management Act, he cannot be punished. Ruling and opposition legislators have harshly condemned such violations. But they failed to pass the appropriate legislation. They failed to provide enforcement officials with the necessary authority. Opportunistic businessmen often take advantage of the situation. They have no fear of the government's "three controls, five gateways." On this point, the legislative branch can hardly shirk responsibilit y. It too was negligent.

A policy must be developed, then promoted. Verification, tracking, interpretation, and implementation is a long process. It is easy to lose one's way. It is easy to deviate from one's original goal. Take the penalties for non-compliance. The Department of Health does not consider the importers "perpetrators." Therefore it does not punish them. But Pingtung pig farms were caught using salbutamol. They used highly toxic, illegal beta-adrenergic agonists. Worse still, they were repeat offenders. Yet neither the central or local governments imposed any fines whatsoever. This was not merely hypocritical, it amounted to aiding and abetting. The government openly boasts that is the "champion of public health." But whenever industry ignores the law. it immediately becomes a "champion of industry." Is aiding and abetting law-breaking really compatible with ensuring food safety?

Former Department of Agriculture Epidemic Prevention Bureau Chief Hsu Tian was forced to step down for covering up the avian flu epidemic. He said he hid the truth for fear "the bottom would drop out of the chicken market." This was his excuse. Alas, it was probably what he was actually thinking. Lest we forget, Hsu Tian was the same person who formulated and implemented the "three controls, five gateways" policy, He occupied this important post -- guardian of public health. Yet in his heart he always put "management" and "chicken prices" above public health. How can the public expect individuals like this to implement public health policy?

When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?

別讓道德高調掉進執行鴻溝
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.15 03:09 am

美牛瘦肉精之爭像一把野火，燒出了台灣畜牧及肉品業的原形。人們原以為瘦肉精問題是美國牛肉所獨有，豈料在澳洲、紐西蘭進口牛肉驗出了毒性更強的齊帕特羅；原以為國內畜牧業者早就不使用瘦肉精，卻查出有養豬場一直在違規使用禁藥沙丁胺醇。環環失控下，許多知名餐廳及食品業者同遭此劫，廣大民眾更同蒙其殃。

這種現實與目標悖離的現象，反映了決策的政治高調在行政執行中被架空的窘境。至此，民眾應該了解，我們當下面對的挑戰，其實已不只是一場美牛的外交貿易戰，而是更嚴酷的內部行政效能與政治承諾的脫節問題。

扁政府自二○○六年高調宣布全面管制瘦肉精，讓民眾誤以為自己身處安全無虞的環境；最後這項道德神話卻是被「未檢驗」的冷酷事實所戳破。而馬政府二○○九年針對美國狂牛設下了「三管五卡」的重重防線，不料卻讓瘦肉精成了漏網之魚，源頭、邊境、市場三道關卡均告失守。守狂牛，就漏了瘦肉精；專攻美牛，就讓紐、澳及國內防線唱空城。其中癥結，是行政失效或政治膨脹導致決策失靈，或兩者兼而有之？

先談「三管五卡」的問題。三管五卡是針對美國狂牛而設，在執行上不免有偏廢之失；然而，「五卡」中既訂出了針對「卅八項動物用藥、重金屬及大腸桿菌」的檢驗項目，讓含瘦肉精的美牛流入市面，就是行政把關不力。這點，馬政府難辭其咎。問題是，政府在誇下「逐批檢驗」的海口時，若未考量海關及檢驗機構的人力與設備能量，導致「逐批檢驗」最後被稀釋成不到一成的「抽樣檢驗」，中央能將責任都推給基層人員執行不力嗎？

再談違規業者的責任問題。去年至今，衛生署在海關及賣場抽驗了兩百多批進口牛肉，不合格率約達兩成，但最後都僅以退運、下架、銷毀等方式處理，未曾對任何業者處以罰金。其中關鍵缺口，就在這些進口商或販賣商並非添加瘦肉精的「行為人」，無法依照「食品衛生管理法」給予懲處。也就是說，儘管朝野立委都嚴詞譴責違規事件，他們卻未能訂出適當的法令，授予行政人員足夠的執法寶劍。如果心存僥倖的業者，投機倒耙往往能夠得逞，他們對政府的三令五申會有何忌憚？這點，難道不是立法部門的疏怠？

一項政策從制定到推動，在漫長的查核、追蹤、釋法及執行的過程中，往往會不斷流失、耗損，乃至遠離了根本的目標。以違規的懲處為例，衛生署認為進口業者不是「行為人」，所以無法處分；但是，被查獲使用沙丁胺醇的屏東養豬場，不僅是違規添加了強毒性的瘦肉精，而且是累犯，但地方和中央至今均未對其開罰。這樣的行政處理，已不只是鄉愿，而根本是放縱。政府口口聲聲以「國民健康」為念，但遇到不法業者，馬上變成以「業者的生計」為念；請問，在縱容非法與執行食品安全之間，豈有兩全之計？

因隱匿禽流感疫情而去職的前農委會防疫局長許天來說，他之所以隱瞞真相，是因為怕「雞價崩盤」；這雖是他的託詞，或恐也有部份真實。別忘了，許天來也正是美牛「三管五卡」政策的主要擬訂者與執行者，但如果坐在這麼重要職位上的把關者，心中卻總是把「老闆」、「雞價」放在上位，人們如何指望那些看似天衣無縫的決策在執行時能獲得貫徹？

浮誇的決策，往往導致執行的虛應故事；六年來，從藍綠政府禁止瘦肉精的起伏虛實，已說明了一切。也因此，在民進黨執政六縣市聲言組成「反美牛」的聯合陣線之際，他們如果看看自己失火的後院，看著縣內養豬場連續使用禁藥卻毫無作為，看著市場攤架上各國牛肉陸續淪陷，他們不覺得自己還在搖著「反美牛」的旗幟，真的太低估了問題嗎？