Harsh Penalties Will Not Ensure Food Safety

Harsh Penalties Will Not Ensure Food Safety
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2014

Summary: Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.


Full Text below: 

The rancid oil scandal has undermined Taiwan's reputation as a gourmet's paradise. The Executive Yuan has investigated and dealt with the scandal for nearly one month. The only action it has taken is to propose that night market stalls sign contracts with the "little bees" that recycle waste oil, and express hope that the Legislative Yuan will amend the Food Safety and Health Management Act and impose harsher criminal penalties, Apparently it is attempting to mollify populist sentiment by increasing criminal penalties. Apparently it hopes to divert attention from the government's responsibility. But if society considers the matter rationally, it will mot accept this approach.

This is not the first time a rancid oil scandal has erupted on Taiwan. On the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival in 1985, the De Tai Oil Company acquired rancid oil at low cost from pig farmers, which they then turned into low grade vegetable oil. They mixed it with salad oil, and presto, lawful oil. This was sold to restaurants in the greater Taipei area. Thirty years later, food safety regulations have been totally revamped. Administrative and criminal penalties have been substantially increased. Yet a rancid oil scandal has erupted, yet again. The government should hang its head in ashamed.

A fair and impartial investigation of responsibility in the current food safety scandal is essential. The first line of defense was the Pingtung County Government. Yet it cavalierly igored the public welfare. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is responsible for food safety. The EPA is responsible for waste recycling. The COA is responsible for the management of feed oil. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for the inspection of registered companies and factories. All of them were indolent and derelict in their duty.

The root of the problem is slack management. Nobody wants to be responsible. After the recent outbreak, the Ministry of Health and Welfare attempted to set the tone by issuing a green light for food safety. It even dug up an expert willing to endorse its findings. "Ingesting one or two drops will do no immediate harm to the human body." Taiwan is no longer a society that seeks only a full belly and warm clothing. Food safety and health are a basic right. They can even be considered a national security issue.

Slack management can be divided into two categories. One. Recycling and environmental protection. Every rancid oil scandal over the past 30 years has been rooted in blind greed. Earlier this year, many pigs came down with diarrhea. The number of pigs plummeted. The price of lard rose. Illegal underground oil refiner Kuo Lien-cheng obtained large quantities of waste cooking oil from "little bees," then turned it into low grade lard which he sold for a huge profit.

The government has the necessary mechanisms to prevent such crimes. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is vigorously recycling waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But when oil prices stabilized, biodiesel policy became stalled. Large quantites of recycled waste cooking oil had nowhere to go. With profits to be made, they returned to the dining table, and into consumers' bellies.

The US, Japan, the European countries, and other advanced countries, have also endured waste cooking oil scandals. Painful lessons led to effective management models. Waste cooking oil recycling, processing, production, and marketing all have clear legal norms. Contrast this with Taiwan, where every night "little bees" collect waste cooking oil from night market stalls.

The EPA adopted Europe and US specifications in toto. It required snack bars and night market stalls to sign contracts with "little bees," entrusting them to recycle waste oil. The assumption was that county and municipal environmental protection bureaus would rigorously and control the process. Recycling by anyone other than a lawfully appointed vendor, cleaning company, or moving company, meant penalties. These were truly pie in the sky policies dreamed up by bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices.

The so-called "little bees" are self-employed individuals dedicated to the illegal acquisition of waste cooking oil from night market stalls, vendors, and snack bars. They are like honey bees gathering pollen. An 18 liter bucket of waste oil can be legitimately recycled to make biodiesel. It can sell for 200 to 300 NT. The little bees purchase price is usually 100 to 200 NT per barrel.

Fleece can come only from sheep. The little bees' waste oil recycled at higher cost, is naturally sold to underground oil refiners and turned into higher-priced lard. Little bees operate on the fringes of the law. They are in business to make money, not lose it. If little bees could be persuaded to remain within the law, they would already be legitimate waste disposal companies, Why would they remain little bees? Can the government really control little bees, who flit from here to there?

In Japan all oil recovery is done by professional companies, then sold to the government at higher prices. The government commissions refiners to turn it into fuel for garbage trucks. Buying at higher prices makes it impossible for little bees to survive In Japan. Karl Marx said it best. "If capital can get a 100 percent profit, it will trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run." The EPA should reflect on the system for the disposal of batteries and the recycling of light bulbs, which have been around for years. On what basis can it gradually establish a sound system? The key is people are even willing to commit capital crimes for a profit. But no one is willing to engage in a money losing business.

The Ministry of Health and Welfare has been indolent and derelict in its duty. This has led to resource management blind spots. Its sole response to the scandal has been to urge the amending of the law and an increase in penalties. The underground rancid oil refining business is surely hateful. But food safety violations cannot be compared to the brutal murders on the Taipei MRT. To do so would violate the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would merely underscore the incompetence of civil servants.

Consider the actions taken by government agencies during the recent food safety scandal. The COA finally imposed strict oversight of foreign oil imports and the registration of domestic manufacturing, The Ministry of Economic Affairs intends to assist cities and counties inspect all 202 companies with temporary factory registration for feed oil and edible oil processing. These moves were long overdue. They must continue to perform these duties. After the scandal erupted, the Ministry of Health and Welfare required county and city health bureaus to inspect products and remove them from store shelves. It passed the buck onto the manufacturer. It never implemented any preventive mechanisms. When condemnation from all walks of life reached new highs, it pandered to populist sentiment by calling for increased penalties. It never considered the pursuit of the public welfare. Compared to the judicial and legislative branches, it is clear that it must become more proactive and involved with the community, the economy, and other aspects of people's lives.

Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.

社論－嚴刑峻法不能解決食安問題
2014年09月24日 04:10
本報訊

餿水油風暴重創台灣美食王國聲譽，行政院檢討究辦將近一個月，只提出夜市攤商應與回收廢油的「小蜜蜂」簽契約管控，並寄望立院修《食品安全衛生管理法》提高刑責兩項對策，似有藉提高刑責滿足民粹心理，以轉移政府管理責任的意圖，社會理性思辨後恐難接受。

餿水油風暴並不是第一次發生，民國74年同樣中秋節前夕，調查局查獲台北市德泰油行低價向養豬戶收購餿水浮油，再交由化工廠提煉劣質沙拉油、混充沙拉油，搖身一變合法油品，賣給大台北地區餐飲業。時隔30年，食品安全相關法規都已修訂完備，行政及刑責相關罰則大幅提高，再次爆發餿水油風暴，政府真該汗顏！

持平究責，這次食安風暴，第一線屏東縣政府怠忽輕漫最愧對國人，主管食安的衛福部、負責廢棄物回收的環保署、管理飼料用油的農委會、查察公司與工廠登記的經濟部，同樣怠惰失職。

問題在源頭管理鬆散，沒人願意負責，衛福部在事件爆發後，還想定調食安為「綠燈」、甚至找來專家背書，「吃一、兩滴對人體無立即傷害」，台灣已非只求溫飽的社會，確保食物安全健康是基本權利、也是國安議題。

源頭管理可從兩個層面檢視。首先，回收再利用環保層面，30年來所有餿水油風暴，都起因利字當頭。今年初受仔豬下痢影響，豬隻銳減、豬油水漲船高，不法地下油行業者郭烈成乃大量向「小蜜蜂」 收購廢棄食用油，提煉劣質豬油高價轉售牟暴利。

政府不是沒有相關機制可以防堵。經濟部原本大力回收廢食用油生產生質柴油，但在油價回穩、生質柴油政策卡關後，大量回收的廢食用油沒去處，有利可圖下，又回到餐桌上，吃進消費者肚內。

美國、日本及歐洲等先進國家，也曾爆發過廢棄食用油回收風暴，經歷慘痛教訓後，早已規畫一套有效管理模式，廢食用油從回收、加工、產銷各流程，都有明確法律規範，不像台灣回收主力是流竄各夜市攤商的「小蜜蜂」。

環保署直接把歐美這套規範搬進來，要求小吃店、夜市攤商委託「小蜜蜂」回收廢油須簽訂契約，由各縣市環保局嚴格稽核管控，沒合法委任回收就對攤商、清運公司開罰，這真是官員們辦公室吹冷氣想出來的天兵政策。

所謂「小蜜蜂」就是專門向夜市、攤販、小吃店收購廢食用油的違法個體戶，他們像蜜蜂般四處採蜜，一桶18公升廢油合法回收做生質柴油，可賣200至300元，小蜜蜂收購價則每桶多出行情100至200元。

羊毛出在羊身上，小蜜蜂加價回收廢油，當然轉賣給地下油行提煉成高價豬油。小蜜蜂做的就是遊走法律邊緣、穩賺不賠的生意，如果小蜜蜂可以輔導合法化管理，早就成立合法廢棄物清理公司營業，還要當小蜜蜂嗎？小蜜蜂四處亂飛政府有能力管嗎？

日本所有回收油都由專業公司回收，再以較高價賣給政府，政府委託提煉製成垃圾車的燃料。高價收購政策下，小蜜蜂在日本毫無生存空間。馬克思說得好，「如果有100%的利潤，資本家會鋌而走險，如果有200%的利潤，就會藐視法律。」環保署應反思廢棄電池、燈泡回收制度實施多年，憑什麼逐漸建立完善制度？關鍵就在殺頭生意有人幹，賠本生意沒人做！

衛福部行政怠惰無作為，形成就源管理的盲點，風暴已起又只寄望修法提高刑罰。提煉餿水浮油的地下油行業者固然可惡，把違反食安罪責與北捷殺人殘暴罪刑，放在同一天秤上衡量，不只違反民主法治原則，更凸顯了公務員的顢頇無能。

檢視這波食安風暴行政機關作為，農委會終於要嚴格管理飼料用油國外輸入及國內製造登記，經濟部也要協助各縣市，查察全台202家領有臨時工廠登記飼料用油與食用油的食品公司。這些都是早就該做，也應不斷執行的行政作為。而衛福部總在風暴發生之後，才要求各縣市衛生局稽查、要求下架，把責任推給廠商，從沒落實稽核預防機制。各界譴責聲浪一高漲，就迎合民意高喊修法提高刑罰，卻不思行政追求公益目的，相較司法與立法，必須更主動積極介入社會、經濟等關係人民生活領域。

兩次餿水油風暴，消費者已受夠了！就源管理是杜絕餿水油不二法門，環保回收機制必須建立在民間利潤基礎上；衛福部更應扛起統籌行政稽核職權，只要落實開單、廢照等積極行政處分，自然可以切斷不法源頭！