Food laws seen as too lax in light of acquittal

By Yaung Chih-liang 楊志良

A public campaign to boycott Ting Hsin International Group (頂新集團) has intensified after people charged in a case of adulterated cooking oil were found not guilty. Some say the decision reeks of populism: The judges who arrived at the decision to acquit ruled according to the law, how could they be at fault? There are some who say that the judges are out of touch and that their conclusions were unconscionable. Since law is at the center of the debate, this matter should be examined from the perspective of food safety management and the law that governs it.

Article 3 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (食品安全衛生管理法) states: “The term ‘foods’ means goods provided to people for eating, drinking, or chewing and the raw ingredients of such goods.” That is to say, food safety must comply with stringent standards; any material that is unsuitable for human consumption, such as material for industrial use and animal feed, must not be used to make food for human consumption regardless of how it is refined.

The same regulations apply to the manufacturing process. For example, a waste bucket, no matter how it is washed and sterilized, can never be used as a food container. This is the rule and there is no room for interpretation; the law cannot be circumvented by having “food” products pass tests.

The Changhua District Court was at fault when it said that although the oil delivered from Vietnam to Ting Hsin was unrefined and was found to contain heavy metals, the oil can be refined and the final products might not contain heavy metals and, therefore, Ting Hsin was not guilty.

By the same logic, dog feces, once sterilized under high temperatures, should also be edible.

There are two other cases that show that many judges, for all their specialized knowledge of the law, are just well-trained professionals.

The first case involved a group of consumers in a class-action suit against companies accused of using DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate) as a food additive. The court was lenient on the grounds that consumers could not prove harm to people’s health was the direct result of illegal food additives.

Taiwan Sugar Corp took legal action against cooking oil producer Chang Chi Foodstuff Factory Co (大統長基) for allegedly using copper chlorophyllin in its olive oil, resulting in considerable financial harm to Taiwan Sugar, and damage to its reputation. Taiwan Sugar was denied compensation by Changhua District Court on the grounds that the company could not prove that olive oil containing copper chlorophyllin could harm human health.

Some toxic substances take time to affect health. Obvious symptoms only appear after long-term exposure. That does not mean toxins are not harmful and those who use them are not guilty unless people are harmed.

Arsenic trioxide is fatal in 0.01g to 0.05g doses, but if only 0.1mg is consumed, there are no immediate ill effects. A small amount of arsenic trioxide was found in the hair of Qing emperor Guangxu (光緒) and French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte after their deaths. It is suspected that they were both poisoned. If food manufacturers use enough of a toxic substance to be lethal, it will serve little purpose to find them guilty after the fact.

As long as scrupulous international scientific research proves that a certain substance can be harmful to humans and it is also recognized by the WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority, this is the best evidence for the court and there should be no onus on the plaintiff to prove harm.

 

<刊於2015.12.25 Taipei Times 言論廣場>

<翻譯自蘋果日報-請問法官 可願吃稀釋砒霜>

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2015/12/25/2003635589/1