Pragmatism, Responsibility, and Balance Will Resolve US Beef Controversy

Pragmatism, Responsibility, and Balance Will Resolve US Beef Controversy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 12 2012

Summary: When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?

Full Text below:

This week the Legislative Yuan will deal with the Food Sanitation Management Act, which will lift the ban on U.S. beef imports. Yesterday DPP legislators occupied the podium and threatened violent confrontation. The KMT issued a Grade A mobilization order. A scorched-earth war is now about to unfold before our very eyes. It it does, it will contribute nothing to sound policies or the national interest. It will contribute nothing to communication between rival parties or social harmony.

U.S. beef imports are actually an economic issue. But it is an economic issue that involves a number of national interests. DPP legislators should deal with them responsibly and pragmatically. If they stage yet another brawl in the legislature for the international media, they will undermine Taiwan's international image. They will also prevent reasoned discussion and rational decision-making.

Ractopamine has the lowest toxicity of the many substances used to ensure lean meat. The medical community has yet to reach a conclusion regarding its impact on human health. But so far there have been no cases of proven harm. Therefore it is the only substance approved internationally. The U.S. government sets an upper limit of 30 ppb, Under duress, the Japanese and South Korean governments allowed in U.S. beef imports. As a result, the Lee Myung-bak administration had to weather ta political storm. The EU has imposed a total ban. The United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission will discuss the matter in July.

If one wishes to be absolutely, 100% safe. then of course one should not add any pharmaceuticals to livestock feed. But this is difficult to achieve in practice. Under the circumstances, one must consider the health effects, operating profits, and other factors. If the pharmaceutical inflicts serious harm to human health, then of course it should be banned. But if the health impact is minor, or if small amounts cause no harm, and is beneficial to industry revenue, one can set upper limits. Examples include pesticides, which can cause human death. The ROC government and other governments allow pesticide use but impose upper limits on pesticide residues. Another example is cigarettes and betel nuts, both of which are highly carcinogenic. The government allows their sale and cultivation.

All factors should be considered. The key is to find the proper balance between various concerns. The national interest includes a variety of interests. There is no conclusive evidence that Ractopamine is harmful to human health. Pesticides and cigarettes by contrast, are known to be harmful to human health. Therefore U.S. beef imports ought to be negotiable. Other national interests should be considered. The policy debate should not be monopolized by a single voice.

It is not easy for the ROC to survive amidst fierce international competition. The moment we falter, other nations will pass us. One must adopt a global perspective. The global economy is in turmoil. Seventy percent of our GDP growth depends on exports. As a result, it is in crisis. South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, the other Asian Tigers, are clearly ahead of us. Recently ECFA has given our economy a shot in the arm. Nevertheless we must diversify, We must avoid over-reliance on the Mainland. We must sign free trade agreements with other economies. This is something the DPP itself has long advocated.

The U.S. government has made its position crystal clear. Allowing U.S. beef imports is a prerequisite for TIFA (Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement), It is a prerequisite for FTAs (free trade agreements) and the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement). The public wants the government to sign FTAs with other countries. But free trade agreements are never one way streets. One must give a little to get a little. There is always a quid pro quo between governments. If both parties do the math and come out ahead, the deal is done. The ROC wants other governments to sign FTAs. We must be psychologically prepared to give something in return. The United States is no exception.

The ROC's international status is unique. Other governments often have reservations about talking to us. This is one reason the ROC lags so far behind South Korea on FTA negotiations. The United States is an important export market. It is one of the ROC's long-term allies. It is the nation with which the ROC is most likely to sign an FTA. Signing an FTA with the US could have a bandwagon effect on other governments.

The effects of Ractopamine on the human body are still unclear. The government wants to control its use. Therefore it can impose safe limits. it can distinguish between beef and pork. It can impose mandatory labeling. It can exclude organ meats. It can allow consumers to decide. Just like smokers can decide whether to live with the risks of cigarettes. There is no need to treat U.S. beef imports as more terrifying than pesticides. Besides, many consumers think U.S. beef is better in quality, The U.S. government has limited Ractopamine residues. Therefore the DPP should agree to their importation.

When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. U.S. beef imports have become a Blue vs. Green battlefield. Rational discussion is no longer possible. It has become difficult to distinguish between important and unimportant considerations. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?

務實 負責 平衡 化解美牛爭議
2012-06-12
中國時報

立院本周將處理攸關美牛瘦肉精解禁的《食品衛生管理法》議案，民進黨立委昨天已經占據主席台揚言浴血奮戰，國民黨團則祭出甲級動員令，一場焦土大戰，眼看即將慘烈開打，這樣的發展，既無助尋求最能維護國家利益的決策，也無益於政治溝通與社會和諧。

美牛案其實是一項涉及多項國家利益的民生議題，應該以負責務實的態度處理，如果再度演出一場貽笑國際的國會打架秀，不但有傷台灣形象，也將讓政治惡鬥繼續綑綁理性討論與平衡決策的空間。

在多種瘦肉精中，萊克多巴胺的毒性最低，對人體有無影響醫界尚無定論，但至今未有案例證明對人體有害，因此也是國際間唯一容許使用的。美國自訂上限是三十ppb，日、韓都在美國壓力下開放美牛，李明博政府因此承受了政治風暴。歐盟全面禁止，聯合國食品法典委員會則預定七月進行討論。

如果要絕對百分之百安全，當然是不該在飼養過程中添加任何藥劑。但這在實務界很難做到，在這種狀況下，對於添加藥劑的管理，就必須針對健康影響、營運獲利及其他影響作整體考量。嚴重有害健康的當然禁用，但如果對健康影響輕微或少量無礙，卻對業者營收大有助益，則可以訂定殘留上限。例如毒得死人的農藥，台灣和其他各國都准用但定有容許殘留量；再例如已確認有高致癌性的香菸與檳榔，政府一樣容許販賣種植。

這種通盤的平衡考量，重點在於拿捏各種利益之間的平衡。國家利益包括了許多面向，如果瘦肉精對人體的影響尚無確鑿證據，那麼，和農藥或香菸的管理相比，美牛問題是否可以留下多一些理性討論的空間，平衡考量其他的國家利益，而不是只有一種聲音占據了政策論辯空間？

台灣要在激烈的國際競爭中生存並不容易，只要步伐略有遲緩，馬上便被其他國家超越。放眼世界，國際經濟風暴山雨欲來，ＧＤＰ七成仰賴出口的台灣已陷入莫大危機，同為亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，如今發展都明顯領先台灣。雖然近年來台灣經濟獲ＥＣＦＡ挹注，但就平衡多元的角度，仍然必須避免過度依賴中國大陸，應該加緊與其他國家簽署自由貿易協定，而這也是民進黨所一向主張的。

美國方面已經把話講得很明白，開放美牛，才有ＴＩＦＡ（台美貿易暨投資架構協定），也才能談到ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定）與ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋夥伴協議）。民眾都支持台灣多和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，問題是，自由貿易協定從來不會一面倒地只有獲得而不必付出，國與國的磋商都是在利益交換，有取也有給，兩造算盤打打都覺得划算就皆大歡喜。台灣想爭取和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，一定也要有付出若干代價的心理準備，對美國亦然。

尤其，台灣的國際處境特殊，其他國家和台灣談時往往有政治顧慮，這也是台灣洽談ＦＴＡ的成績遠遠落後於南韓的原因之一。美國是台灣的重要出口市場，又是長期支持台灣的盟友，算來是最有可能在ＦＴＡ取得成果的大國了，更別提可能對其他國家產生的示範效應。

如果瘦肉精對人體的風險不是那麼明確，加上政府針對瘦肉精管理提出「安全容許、牛豬分離、強制標示、排除內臟」四項原則，讓消費者自行選擇，就像吸菸者自己決定是否承擔風險一樣，那麼也不需要把美牛當成比農藥還可怕的洪水猛獸。何況有不少消費者還認為美牛肉質比較好，而且美國政府對瘦肉精殘留量也有管理，因此贊成開放進口。

瘦肉精對健康的影響，應該尊重專家的意見。至於多少風險交換多少利益是划算的，則可以務實理性地深入討論。健康是全民利益，爭取自由貿易商機也是全民利益，如果美牛成為藍綠烽火拚鬥的戰場，便失去了理性討論的空間，各種考量因素的輕重也難以釐清。民進黨雖然在野，但對於促進國家發展競爭力一樣負有責任，一味反對激烈杯葛，真是為國家利益著想？