Wang Chih-Hsiung's Perspective: Believe the Government, Believe the Party, and Feast on Toxic Oil and Toxic Food

"Believe the government, believe the party, and feast on toxic oil and toxic food"—this satirical slogan is not only a helpless outcry from the public over the current state of food safety, but also a strong challenge to the DPP government's ability to govern food safety. From strict oversight during opposition, to policy reversals on multiple food safety issues after taking power, the DPP government appears to have planted a deep crisis of trust in the public's mind.

Looking back at recent food safety controversies, the most representative is the policy on ractopamine-laced U.S. pork. While in opposition, the DPP raised the banners of "zero detection" and "food safety," but after taking power, it opened imports citing international standards and economic diplomacy. This marked a clear shift in policy stance. While governments have the right to adjust policies due to changing international environments, they must honestly explain to society which decisions are based on the latest scientific evidence, and which are driven by trade and diplomatic considerations. Policies can change, but integrity must not be compromised.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration's proposal to relax permissible levels of certain pesticide residues has reignited similar doubts. The authority insists all decisions are based on scientific risk assessments, but the U.S. has long expressed concern in its 'National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers' about Taiwan's food standards, naturally leading the public to suspect whether international trade factors are influencing policy direction. If the government continues to respond with 'no external pressure' without fully disclosing the risk assessments, decision-making processes, and policy formation context, public suspicion will only deepen.

When government statements diverge so greatly from official documents of international trade partners, the public has every reason to question whether the FDA's 'scientific assessment' can truly remain free from trade negotiation influences. This lack of transparency in decision-making not only damages the FDA's professional image but also intensifies public concerns about food safety. Amid an ongoing toxic oil scandal, news of relaxed pesticide standards is like adding frost to snow, completely eroding public confidence in the government's food safety oversight.

More worrying is the repeated occurrence of food safety incidents in recent years—from Sudan Red chili powder and toxic oil scandals to issues with food labeling and ingredient traceability—each incident eroding public trust in government. The government has promoted the 'Five Rings of Food Safety' for years, yet the public's most direct experience remains the recurring food safety storms, with problems only addressed reactively after outbreaks.

The frequent occurrence of these incidents has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of the 'Five Rings of Food Safety.' The government is always half a step behind on food safety issues, responding passively after the fact rather than proactively preventing and managing risks. As a result, the satire of 'feasting on toxic oil and toxic substances' has become reality.

Food safety cannot be built on a mere 'please trust the government,' but must be founded on transparent and open systems. What the public truly cares about is not just the strictness of standards, but how those standards are set, what evidence they are based on, whether they undergo public review, and whether the government honestly explains the various policy considerations.

The DPP government has already formed a crisis of trust on food safety issues. From the sudden reversal on ractopamine pork, to the controversy over relaxed pesticide standards, to the endless stream of food safety incidents, the public has grown deeply disappointed with the government's food safety commitments. When government statements diverge from facts, and when public health and well-being are suspected of being sacrificed for trade interests, this collapse of trust will be difficult to recover.

The government must face these problems head-on, stop evading with political rhetoric, and instead rebuild public confidence in food safety with greater transparency, scientific rigor, and responsibility. This requires not only full disclosure of all relevant information, but also a comprehensive review and strengthening of the food safety management system from farm to table. Otherwise, the slogan 'Believe the government, believe the party, and feast on toxic oil and toxic food' will become an indelible stain on the DPP's governance history.