Economic Ministry Claims Taisugar's Failure to Report Toxic Oil Was Justified; High Prosecutors Office Counters: Reporting Is a Legal Obligation

A new development has emerged in the carcinogenic oil scandal. Recently disclosed court documents from Taichung District Court reveal that Taisugar detected benzopyrene超标 in crude oil supplied by Zhonglian Oils as early as May but only notified Zhonglian to replace the shipment—failing to report the issue to regulatory authorities—drawing widespread criticism. In response, the Ministry of Economic Affairs posted on Facebook, arguing that Taisugar had purchased 'manufacturing raw materials,' not finished food products, and therefore was not subject to reporting requirements under the Food Safety and Sanitation Act, stating that reporting obligations 'should not be infinitely escalated.'

In rebuttal, Chen Hongda, Director Prosecutor at Taiwan's High Prosecutors Office, issued a statement on the 3rd, emphasizing that reporting is not a discretionary favor granted by administrative agencies but a legally mandated obligation. He stated that food businesses must immediately halt sales, recall products, and report to authorities whenever a product is found to pose a risk to public health and safety.

According to the Taichung District Court ruling, Taisugar detected benzopyrene超标 in Zhonglian Oils' crude oil in May but only requested a replacement without notifying regulatory authorities, sparking public backlash. The photo shows Taisugar Company. (Archival photo, taken by Lu Yi-feng)

Chen Hongda: Does the Economic Ministry Understand Food Safety Law?

Chen Hongda addressed the criticism toward Taisugar for failing to timely report a suspected food safety incident, responding to the Economic Ministry's claim that 'reporting obligations should not be infinitely escalated.' He remarked, 'Seeing this statement, one cannot help but wonder: Does the Economic Ministry truly understand Taiwan's food safety legal framework?'

Chen pointed out that Article 8 of the Tainan City Food Safety Management Autonomous Ordinance explicitly states: 'When a food business discovers upstream-supplied food that may endanger consumers' lives, bodies, or health, it must proactively report to the city's Health Bureau within 48 hours of discovery.' The central government's Food Safety and Sanitation Act similarly requires food businesses to immediately cease sales, recall products, and report to competent authorities when a product is found to pose a risk to health and safety.

Chen emphasized that this clearly shows reporting is not an administrative favor but a legally defined obligation. More importantly, the law refers to 'a risk of harm,' not 'confirmed harm.' This reflects the precautionary principle—the most critical concept in food safety management. Unlike general administrative oversight, in food safety, by the time harm is fully confirmed, consumers may already have been affected, and holding parties accountable afterward is often too late.

Chen stated that the real legal question is only one: At what point did Taisugar become aware of information sufficient to constitute 'a risk of harm'? If the information they possessed at the time met the legal threshold of 'a risk of harm,' a reporting obligation may have arisen. If not, they should provide specific, objective facts to justify their decision.

Chen Hongda: The Public Expects Rule-of-Law Governance

Chen explained that a rule-of-law society prioritizes legal criteria over policy slogans. The phrase 'reporting obligations should not be infinitely escalated' cannot substitute for proper legal analysis of statutory requirements, nor can it serve as justification for downplaying legal responsibility. The very purpose of food safety systems is to encourage businesses to report early rather than delay reporting. The responsibility of regulatory authorities is to swiftly verify reports and provide timely explanations—not to allow businesses to unilaterally decide which incidents warrant reporting and which do not.

Chen warned that the greatest danger in a rule-of-law society is not the absence of laws, but the failure to abide by existing laws or the use of administrative interpretations to nullify them. He stressed that government agencies must be especially cautious in public statements, as the public expects not policy-driven convenience but a genuine commitment to rule-of-law governance. No agency can redefine the law; only the proper application of law constitutes true rule of law.