Speaking Freely About US Beef Imports

Speaking Freely About US Beef Imports
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2012

Summary: One can stop smoking. But one cannot prevent the sale of cigarettes. We cannot stop the sale of U.S. beef imports containing Clenbuterol and Ractopamine. But we can decide whether we eat them. This is how matters stand in over 160 countries around the world. The public on Taiwan must understand how to respond to both scientific evidence and diplomatic pressure. We need only shine some light on the issue.

Full Text below:

On March 3, Premier Sean Chen announced a "three noes" policy on U.S. beef imports: no commitments, no timetables, no preconceptions. On the evening of March 5, the Executive Yuan announced that US beef could be imported to Taiwan, on four conditions: safety permits, separation of beef and pork, mandatory labeling, and no organ meats.

The U.S. beef imports controversy involves two major issues. First, scientific evidence. Second, diplomatic pressure. Rational policy debate on Taiwan is often difficult. Neither side is willing to consider the pros and cons of the issue. The U.S. beef imports controversy is a Gordian Knot. Those stubbornly opposed to U.S. beef imports are unwilling to consider the scientific evidence. Meanwhile the Ma administration denies feeling any diplomatic pressure.

In fact, the Ma administration has long been aware of both the scientific evidence and the diplomatic pressure. But it feigned ignorance and proclaimed its "three noes" posture. The Ma administration hoped that open and democratic debate would provide it with the public support it sought. As expected, open debate merely enabled those opposed to US beef imports to swiftly gain the upper hand and monopolize media coverage. It even had a chilling effect on public expression. Intense debate failed to produce greater clarity. On the contrary, it precipitated greater confrontation. The Ma administration has lost its chance to enjoy fair winds and following seas. It now finds itself sailing against the wind and swimming against the tide.

First take the scientific arguments. The issue has already been intensely debated. On March 4th, President Ma cited conclusions reached by experts on US beef imports after they met for the third time: "There is no scientific evidence that the consumption of meat containing the feed additive ractopamine is harmful to human beings." Sticklers for precision may want to add the condition, "so far." That would be more accurate. Nevertheless, this is the currently available scientific evidence. Dissenters may harbor doubts. But they cannot cite any scientific evidence to the contrary. As Yang Chi-liang opined, "If President Ma rams his policy through, he will have to bear the political consequences." But Yang also opined that hundreds of millions of Americans have been eating US beef products for the past decade. That amounts to the most comprehensive experiment using human subjects one could ever imagine. Among the nations of the world, only the 27 nations of the EU, and the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have banned ractopamine treated beef. Others, including Japan and South Korea, allow importation, either conditionally or unconditionally. This shows scientific support for ractopamine treated beef. Those dead set against the use of ractopamine in beef can stress their concerns. But they must still cite scientific arguments in response to scientific arguments.

Take diplomatic pressure. The Ma administration initially denied that Washington had linked U.S. beef imports to diplomatic relations between Taipei and Washington. It denied any link to TIFA and TPP. It denied any link to US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez's cancellation of his visit to Taiwan. It said it had made "no commitment" to Washington. It was wary of charges of "trading sovereignty for US beef." But none of these charges were true. The Ma administration did attempt a cover-up. The public did feel the Ma administration was putting on an act, was being opaque, and had lost important leverage. Sure enough, at the last minute President Ma admitted that "On condition that our national health remains unharmed, domestic industry, trade, diplomacy and other factors must be considered." He also admitted through various channels that "diplomatic pressure" had increased.

If our government permits the importation of US containing safe amounts of ractopamine, the European Union and Mainland China will be the only governments in the world still prohibiting them. The U.S. is unable to exert pressure on the EU unrelated to the scientific evidence. Beijing is also able to resist any pressures Washington might bring to bear. Tokyo and Seoul have already made concessions. Taipei wants TIFA, TPP, visa-free treatment, and extradition agreements. These cards are all in Washington's hands. Taipei is in no position to resist.

The real key to U.S. beef imports is social psychology, industry interests, and Taiwan's economic liberalization. Take social psychology, Politically speaking it is difficult to say what is "humiliating." After all, the Chen Shui-bian government also promised to permit U.S. beef imports. Tokyo and Seoul have done likewise. Take food safety. Mandatory labeling showing the country of origin is non-negotiable, This will allow anyone who with doubts about the safety of US beef to boycott it. Another possiblity is to label U.S. beef as "containing Ractopamine" and "not containing Ractopamine," and allow consumers to choose.

Take industry interests. The government should keep beef and pork separate. This will protect pig farmers. Cattle ranchers are no longer protected. The beef industry is defunct, and the pork industry is on life support. The government hopes to hold the line in areas where scienfific evidence is not an issue. The United States does not want to overplay its hand. It wants to avoid provoking even greater public anger.

Take Taiwan's economic liberalization, If our refusal to allow U.S. beef imports delays visa-free access, extradition, TIFA, and TPP, then we are being penny wise and pound foolish. For Washington to delay closer Taipei/Washington relations over US beef imports would be disproportionate. We hope that once the dust settles, Taipei and Washington can accelerate the implementation of bilateral projects, This will help integrate Taiwan into the international community, This would be in Taipei and Washington's interest alike.

One can stop smoking. But one cannot prevent the sale of cigarettes. We cannot stop the sale of U.S. beef imports containing Clenbuterol and Ractopamine. But we can decide whether we eat them. This is how matters stand in over 160 countries around the world. The public on Taiwan must understand how to respond to both scientific evidence and diplomatic pressure. We need only shine some light on the issue.

打開天窗說美牛
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.08 01:48 am

三月三日，行政院長陳?宣示美牛政策的「三沒有」，「沒有任何承諾，沒有時間表，沒有預設立場」；三月五日晚間，行政院宣布，在「安全容許，牛豬分離，強制標示，排除內臟」的「四條件」下，可望有條件開放美牛。

美牛議題有兩大焦點，一是科學論據，二是外交壓力。在台灣，公共政策辯論的困難往往在於，正反雙方都不願打開天窗說亮話。美牛事件的癥結正在於：絕對反對美牛開放者不願理性面對「科學論據」，而馬政府方面則諱言「外交壓力」。

其實，馬政府對美牛問題的「科學論據」及「外交壓力」早已心知肚明，只是故作「三沒有」狀，希望能經由開放的民主辯論，取得「順水推舟」的勢位；詎料，開放辯論後，反對聲浪挾民調優勢迅速取得上風，充斥媒體篇幅，甚至使相對意見出現寒蟬效應，事理並未愈辯愈明，反而使撕裂對立更趨嚴重。至此，馬政府非但失去「順水推舟」的勢位，反而處於「逆水行舟」的惡境。

先說「科學論據」。在經歷各方辯論後，馬總統在四日舉出第三次美牛專家會議的結論稱，「沒有科學證據證明食用飼料添加萊克多巴胺的肉品對人體有害」；若要較講究一些，此說可訂正為「（迄今）沒有科學證據」，即更精準。不過，無論如何，這應是目前可供參照的科學論據；持異議者或可提出種種「疑慮」，但皆無「科學證據」提出反證。另如楊志良雖認為，「馬總統若硬幹，須承擔政治後果」；但他也認為，數億美國人吃了十幾年，這就是最好的「人體實驗」。何況，全世界只有歐盟二十七國及台海兩岸禁止「萊劑牛肉」，其他包括日韓在內，皆不禁或有條件開放，此亦可證明萊劑牛肉在科學論據上有其支撐。絕對反對萊劑牛肉者，可以強調其疑慮，但也須以科學論據回應科學論據。

再談「外交壓力」。馬政府起初矢口否認美牛議題與台美外交掛鉤，謂與TIFA、TPP沒有連結，美商務次長取消訪台亦無關聯，對美亦「沒有任何承諾」；這是唯恐陷於「主權換美牛」的罵名，但這些皆非真相。馬政府的遮掩，使人覺得做作，不面對，不透明，且是自己丟掉了一隻有用的槓桿。果然，到了最後關頭，馬總統也承認，要「在國民健康無害的前提下，就國內產業、經貿、外交等層面兼籌並顧」，並從各個管道增加放出「外交壓力」的訊息。

如果台灣也有條件開放安全容量下的萊劑牛肉，全世界就只剩歐盟及中國大陸禁止；唯因美國對歐盟沒有「非科學的壓力」，中國大陸也比較挺得住，則日韓既已讓步，台灣又有TIFA、TPP、免簽、引渡協定握在老美手裡，已無抵拒的可能性。

美牛問題的核心問題，其實是在社會心理問題、產業利益問題及台灣開放問題。關於社會心理問題，一方面是在政治上，不宜說什麼「喪權辱國」的話；其實扁政府也承諾過開放美牛，畢竟日韓也挺不住。另一方面是在食品安全上，必須明確標示是不可退讓的底線，或者強制標示產地，可使對美牛有疑慮者不吃所有美牛，或區隔標示「含萊」及「不含萊」的美牛，讓消費者自主選擇。

產業利益問題，則是應盡量力守「牛豬分離」的政策，以保護本土養豬戶。如今牛肉棄守，牛亡豬寒，政府要力挺這個「非科學理由」的防線，美方亦莫為已甚，庶免激起更大的民憤。

至於台灣開放問題，台灣若因美牛而延誤免簽證、引渡、TIFA、TPP等作為，誠是因小失大；而美國若因美牛而延阻台美關係在那些方面的進展，尤其是不符比例。希望在美牛事件塵埃落定後，台美能加速這些延誤的雙邊工程，促使台灣成為更開放的國際角色，畢竟這最能符合台美的共同利益。

可以不吸菸，但做不到不賣菸；擋不住萊劑美牛進口，但吃不吃卻有自主權。這是全世界一百六十餘國家的現況，台灣人民也必會懂得在「科學論據」與「外交壓力」下如何因應，只要大家都能打開天窗說亮話。