Could the Chung Lien Carcinogenic Oil Scandal Have Been Avoided? Critics Accuse the Green Party's 8-Year 'Legislative Inaction' of Causing Disaster: Taiwan Consumed 26 Extra Days of Toxic Oil

The discovery of benzopyrene in soybean salad oil supplied by Chung Lien Edible Oil has triggered an ongoing scandal. Who bears greater responsibility—central or local government? Many DPP-affiliated figures have pointed fingers at Taichung, where Chung Lien is based, arguing that Taichung Mayor Lu Hsiu-yen should bear the greatest responsibility. Local governments have legal authority and duty regarding factory inspections, product traceability, recalls, and destruction.

In response, physician Su Wei-shuo and media commentator Huang Yang-ming have both published critiques stating that if legislation had been passed earlier to mandate third-party testing laboratories to report violations of food safety standards, this crisis could have been avoided. They accuse the DPP government of inaction, repeatedly using the phrase 'further discussion' to delay action, and now attempting to shift blame after the carcinogenic oil scandal erupted.

Su Wei-shuo pointed out that the proposal to mandate third-party labs to report food safety violations was discussed during the Executive Yuan's Food Safety Committee meeting in March 2024, where FDA official Wu Hsiu-mei stated it had 'been discussed before.' This shows that during the DPP's eight-year period of complete governance, an amendment to the Food Safety Act could have been passed to require third-party testing labs, upon discovering violations during commissioned testing, to proactively report to regulatory authorities for further investigation. However, the DPP failed to pass such an amendment during its eight years in power.

In March 2024, the FDA referred the legislative proposal to 'further discussion.' Health and Welfare Deputy Minister Lin Ching-i stated that three meetings were held during the discussion phase, after which the matter was dropped. Su Wei-shuo criticized that even after the Chung Lien carcinogenic oil incident broke, the Cho Cabinet, which promoted 'Food Safety Five Rings 2.0,' continued to shift responsibility outward. He also criticized Premier Chen Chien-jen—who chaired the Food Safety Committee in March 2024—for saying that 'drinking more water will flush it out of the body.' Regarding why such an important proposal was abandoned after only three meetings, Su suggested reviewing the timeline after May 20, 2024, and listening to Ko Chien-ming's remarks on the 'mass recall' movement.

Huang Yang-ming revealed that the central government attempted to shift blame, but in 2024, the Taichung City Government had already gathered consensus through the Central Taiwan Eight Counties and Cities Governance Platform and repeatedly urged the central government to amend the law. The proposal was to require testing institutions, upon detecting超标 results from commissioned tests, to have a legal obligation to report to the government. Expecting unscrupulous manufacturers to voluntarily report product issues, he argued, is like 'looking for fish in a tree.' However, the central Ministry of Health and Welfare delayed and stalled, continuously responding with 'further discussion.'

Huang Yang-ming outlined the timeline of the Chung Lien Edible Oil incident:

April 14: Nan Chiao conducted internal testing on its oil supply. May 13: Test results showed 4.6 μg/kg—exceeding safety limits—but no proactive reporting; samples were sent for external retesting. June 4: External testing confirmed 8.0 μg/kg. June 10: Nan Chiao notified Fushou of the abnormal results. June 11: Fushou notified Chung Lien. June 16 and 25: Chung Lien conducted its own testing. June 29: Reports confirmed abnormalities. June 30: Chung Lien reported to the FDA. July 2: Nan Chiao finally reported to local health authorities.

Huang emphasized that if the Ministry of Health and Welfare had accepted Taichung's proposal, this carcinogenic oil incident could have been reported directly by the external testing lab as early as June 4—26 days earlier than the actual June 30 report. Recalls and investigations could have begun much sooner. Yet the DPP continues to blame the Taichung government, a stance Huang called 'disgusting.'