The President and the Executive Yuan Must Solve the Rancid Oil Crisis

The President and the Executive Yuan Must Solve the Rancid Oil Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 16, 2014

Summary: The 2011 plasticizing agent crisis was followed by the 2013 contaminated oil crisis, which was in turn followed by the current rancid oil crisis. One food safety crisis has followed another. They have shaken public confidence. They have shaken the nation's foundations. President Ma Ying-jeou must consider whether to invoke the national security mechanism.

Full Text Below:

The 2011 plasticizing agent crisis was followed by the 2013 contaminated oil crisis, which was in turn followed by the current rancid oil crisis. One food safety crisis has followed another. They have shaken public confidence. They have shaken the nation's foundations. President Ma Ying-jeou must consider whether to invoke the national security mechanism.

In recent years, one food safety crisis has followed another. The government and the public must realize that this is not an isolated event, but involves deep-rooted structural problems. Unless the structure is changed, food safety crises will continue to erupt. These food safety crises are akin to malignant tumors. They did not form overnight. In 2011 the plasticizer crisis erupted. Cheap industrial plasticizers were added to foods as clouding agents. But this could be traced back to the 1980s. In 2013, the contaminated oil crisis erupted. But as far back as the 1970s businessmen were mixing low-priced cottonseed oil with higher quality oil to make a dishonest profit. The current rancid oil crisis is not the first of its kind. In 1985 the De Tai Oil Company skimmed the oil from the surface of rancid leftovers and resold it as cheap vegetable oil at huge profits for 10 years.

These food safety crises are akin to malignant tumors. They have a long history behind them. Governments have come and gone. Blue and green parties have followed, one after the another. To cure the problem at its root, requires a structural diagnosis, institutional change, and conceptual transformation. It requires the president as head of state to mobilization every government agency at his disposal.

The management and control of food safety crises requires the legislature to amend the laws. In this regard, the president has the constitutional authority to mediate between the different branches of government. He can raise the issue to a higher level. He can show that the government attaches great importance to food safety and reassuring the public.

Invoking the national security mechanism may provoke charges of grandstanding. The presidential office might hesitate. Even so, President Ma should at least consider 2011, when the plasticizing agent incident erupted, or 2013, when fishermen from Taiwan were shot and killed by the Philippines government. He should organize a presidential-level ad hoc group, or convene a meeting at the national security level to assist the various ministries and integrate their efforts.

Raising the issue to a higher level is the proper response. Next, he must review current practices and propose substantive changes. This requires new laws, government oversight, and public morality.

Take new laws. In response to the rancid oil crisis, Premier Jiang Yi-hua advocated tougher punishments, increased fines, and other measures. Health Minister Wen-Ta Chiu proposed increasing the sentence for criminal industry practices from 5 years in prison to 15 years.

Leave aside for the moment whether this Draconian rhetoric is consistent with contemporary concern for the rule of law. Leave aside for the moment criticisms that harsher penalties are a patchwork quilt approach to crime. The penalties for Crime A can be steadily increased until they exceed the penalties for Crime B. This undermines the principle of balance and proportionality in criminal liability.

Merely amending the law to impose harsher penalties will not eliminate such behavior by black-hearted businessmen. For example, last year's contaminated oil incident contributed to amendments in the food safety laws, including harsher penalties. Yet one year later, the rancid oil crisis erupted. Now take the plasticizer crisis. Lai Chun-chieh and his wife headed up the Yu Shen Spice Company. They were sentenced to 12 years in prison. That is hardly a slap on the wrist. Yet it failed to prevent the reccurence of food safety incidents.

As we can see, even capital crimes still have unscrupulous businessmen willing to commit them. Therefore amending the law must not be simplistically equated with harsher penalties. What is necessary is systemic oversight of the entire manufacturing process, from farm to table. This must include product history, quality control testing, safety warnings, and food certification. Every link in the chain must be scrutinized and subject to institutional review.

Take government oversight. Amending the law to provide harsh penalties may allow society to undergo an emotional catharsis. But government enforcement methods and attitudes are the real key. Heavy penalties may make unscrupulous individuals pay a higher price for their crimes. But they cannot change the evil in their hearts. We must crackdown. We must not let anyone to slip through the net. We must not allow them to escape detection. Only then can we prevent such crimes beforehand.

The attitude held by the government and law enforcement during the rancid oil crisis was unacceptable. Society has progressed. Public expectations about food quality are much higher than before. The Food and Drug Agency adopted a "you won't die from eating it" attitude and gave rancid oil a green light, leaving people flabbergasted. Meanwhile scientific and technological progress and advances inchemical technology, have enabled unscrupulous businessmen to adopt a "see the standard, cheat the standard" approach to government testing. This has become another form of technological opportunism. The government, meanwhile, clings to the original tests. It is either too naive or too lazy.

The Food and Drug Agency's "greenlight consciousness" provides us with an indirect answer. Faced with a food safety crisis, the government should have a watchman's "redlight consciousness." It should adopt the same point of view as the public. It should apply either the same standards or even stricter standards. Only then can it truly act as a watchdog for food safety. When faced with unscrupulous operators using advances in chemical technology to cheat the government's food safety net, the government must keep pace or even keep ahead of new testing methods, It must develop new testing standards to prevent people from getting around them.

The third requirement is the elevation of public morality. This includes corporate social responsibility and increased public food safety awareness. Regarding the former, businesses must engage in collective review. They have been given a lesson in the procurement of raw materials. The food manufacturing process requires more stringent standards. Regarding the latter, the public on Taiwan did well. They exposed Yang Chi-cheng, who was responsible for the plasticizer poisoning incident. Elderly farmers undaunted by callous authorities, persisted and exposed those responsible for the rancid oil crisis. They are the guardians of food safety in Taiwan society. They are also real heroes who protected our health. Their spirit is worth emulating.

Finally, the key to a multitude of problems, is invariably the government. Is must not adopt a foot-dragging attitude. It must not hope to ride out the media storm and wait for public passions to die down. People do not need a pacifier to distract them. They need a government that will offer real solutions, and enable the people to avoid food safety nightmares to begin with.

社論－啟動府院機制 解決餿油危機
2014年09月16日 04:10
本報訊

從2011年的塑化劑風暴、

2013年的混油風暴到目前還在延燒的餿油風暴。一波波食安海嘯，不只動搖人心，更動搖國本。馬英九總統應慎重思考是否啟動國安機制以為因應。

近幾年的食安連爆，政府與國人都必須深思，這已不是「單一事件」，而涉及深層的結構問題。結構之因不除，食安炸彈還會繼續爆炸。這些食安毒瘤都不是一時三刻成形的，例如2011年爆發的塑化劑風暴，在食品添加用的起雲劑中使用廉價的工業用塑化劑，可以上溯至1980年代；2013年的混油風暴，遠從1970年代就有商人以低價棉籽油混高級油牟利；此次的餿油風暴非首例，1985年就曾爆發德泰油行以餿水中浮油製成劣質沙拉油販售獲取暴利長達10年。

這些食安毒瘤，以「歷史共業」的形態長期存在，歷經不同政府、跨越藍綠執政，要將禍因拔根斷絕，涉及結構診斷、制度變革、觀念改造，需要總統以國家元首的高度，跨政府部門全體動員。

而食安危機的管控也涉及立法院的修法，對此，總統具有院際協調的憲政高度。拉高層級，也有顯示政府重視食安與安定民心的作用。

也許「啟動國安機制」會招來作秀之譏，府方會因此猶豫。即便如此，馬總統也至少應該比照2011年的塑化劑事件或2013年的我國漁民在遭菲方射殺的廣大興事件，成立府級的專案小組或召開擴大的國安高層會議，協助並統合各部會因應危機。

拉高層級是因應危機的形式。接下來，則要進行實質檢討並提出變革作法。這應從法制建構、政府管理與國人道德的三方面著手。

在法制建構方面。針對餿油風暴，行政院長江宜樺提出了提高刑度、增加罰金等方式。衛福部長邱文達也表示，要加重不法業者刑責，從5年提高到15年。

先不論嚴刑峻法的論調是否符合現代的法治國的趨勢，也不談「補丁式」的提高罰則，可能會變成甲罪不斷提高罰則，最後其課刑超越罪性更重的乙罪，破壞國家對不法賦課刑責的平衡性與比例性。

單單從結果論，也可發現，單靠「修法重罰」，並不能杜絕黑心歪風。例如，去年的混油事件，促成食衛法修法，加重罰則，但1年後還是發生了牽連更廣的餿油風暴。又如，在塑化劑風暴中，涉案的昱伸香料公司負責人賴俊傑夫婦分別被判15年、12年定讞，刑度也不輕，亦未能遏止其他危害食安事件繼續發生。

可見殺頭生意還是有不肖商人敢以身試法，因此，法制建構不能被簡化為修法重罰，而應建立流程管理制度，從農場到餐桌，包括產品履歷、品管檢測、安全預警、食品認證，全面檢視每一個環節，進行制度檢討。

在政府管理方面，修法重罰有宣洩社會情緒的作用，但政府有沒有與時俱進的執法方法與執法態度，才是箇中關鍵。重罰，拉高不法者付出的代價，但斷不了僥倖之心。努力做到不漏網的嚴打，讓不法無所遁形，才能阻絕不法。

此次餿油風暴中，政府的執法方法和執法態度都不及格。社會進步，國人對食品的要求已大幅提高，食藥署卻對擺出「吃不死人」的態度，做出「綠燈」結論，讓人傻眼。另一方面，科技進步，化工技術日新月異，不肖業者針對政府的檢驗標準採取「見標拆標」的破解式，已變成另一種科技投機。政府卻還死守原來的檢驗標準，不是太天真、就是太懶惰。

但食藥署的「綠燈心態」，正好提供了一個反面解答：面對食安風暴，政府該擁有的是守門人的「紅燈心態」。在觀念上，要和人民同標準甚至超標準，才能為人民食安把關；在方法上，面對不肖業者利用化工技術的進步去破解政府的食安防護網，政府也要同步甚至超前發展新的檢驗方法，製訂新的檢驗標準去「反破解」。

第三則是國人道德的提升，這包括企業社會責任感與台灣人民食安意識的提升。前者，是企業要集體檢討的，經此教訓，在採購原料、食品製程中要以更嚴格的標準自律。而後者，台灣民眾這方面的表現不錯，包括揪出塑化劑毒害的楊技正，以及餿油風暴中不畏惡勢力持續檢舉的老農民，他們都是台灣社會的食安哨兵，也是保護我們健康的真正英雄，這精神值得全民學習。

最後，萬結的核心，還是政府。不能只是以「熬的態度」，象徵性的宣洩社會情緒，拖過新聞熱度。民眾需要的不是分散注意力的「安撫奶嘴」，而是要政府實實在在的拿出辦法，讓人民從此遠離食安夢魘。