Taiwan Sugar's Carcinogenic Oil Scandal Escalates! Hsu Chiao-hsin Exposes Chairman Wu Ming-chang's Ties to Lai Qing-te: 'Staunch Lai Supporter'

The Zhonglian carcinogenic oil case has entered the judicial review phase. Recently, a ruling document from Taichung District Court revealed that Taiwan Sugar had detected超标 levels of benzo(a)pyrene in crude oil raw materials from Zhonglian Oils as early as May, but failed to report the findings to regulatory authorities. KMT legislator Hsu Chiao-hsin posted on Facebook, revealing that Taiwan Sugar Chairman Wu Ming-chang once served as Executive Director of the Pingtung County 'Trusted Taiwan Friends Association' and as General Convener of the 'Overseas Academic Power Trusted Taiwan Support Association,' branding him a staunch 'Lai supporter.'

Hsu stated that Taiwan Sugar detected benzo(a)pyrene levels 7 times超标 in Tank No. 311 on May 15, reaching 14.7 ppb. Yet, Taiwan Sugar only privately notified Zhonglian Oils and Fumao to replace the batch, completely failing to report to government regulatory agencies. Two ministries now claim they only learned of the issue on June 30 when Zhonglian reported it. Taiwan Sugar is a state-owned enterprise under the Ministry of Economic Affairs. In the case of a major food safety recall, internal documents cannot simply vanish.

Hsu pointed out that after the scandal broke, the Ministry of Health and Welfare claimed it had sealed the contaminated oil. However, this toxic oil amounted to 1,300 metric tons and had already been shipped in April. The MOHW did not begin large-scale sealing operations until July 3. During the two-month gap, how much oil was distributed? How much was eventually sealed? How much carcinogenic oil may have already been used by unknowing mothers in cooking and consumed by the public?

Hsu noted that on July 21, when the MOHW announced inspection results and affected batches, it made no mention of Taiwan Sugar's earlier detection. According to the disclosed timeline, Taiwan Sugar detected the超标 on May 15 and notified Zhonglian, while the MOHW was only informed on June 30 and began sealing in early July. Was any oil shipped to other companies during this gap? Why was the full information not disclosed?

Hsu stated that when Premier Cho Jung-tai delivered a special food safety report to the Legislative Yuan, the report made no mention of Taiwan Sugar's May detection. Was Cho truly unaware, or did the Executive Yuan deliberately mislead the legislature?

Hsu emphasized that Article 7 of the Food Safety Act clearly states that businesses have a duty to inspect raw materials and must proactively recall and report hazardous products. Yet, MOHW Minister Shih Chung-liang, Deputy Minister Lin Ching-i, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs brazenly defended Taiwan Sugar, claiming that since it purchased 'semi-finished crude oil,' not final products, it had no reporting obligation.

Hsu questioned: 'Is crude oil not a food ingredient?' Isn't Taiwan Sugar purchasing crude oil precisely to further process and refine it into edible oil for household use? In the past, the private company 'Nan Chiao' was fined NT$3 million for failing to report超标 benzo(a)pyrene in raw materials during self-inspection. State-owned enterprises should face even harsher penalties.

Hsu criticized Lin Ching-i and the MOEA for repeatedly defending Taiwan Sugar, questioning how powerful its political backing is. Current Chairman Wu Ming-chang was previously criticized for being overage and politically appointed. After taking office, he was exposed for delaying debt recovery from Wu Nai-jen, a senior DPP figure who was ordered to pay compensation. Now, Taiwan Sugar is embroiled in a scandal involving the concealment of carcinogenic oil. Wu Ming-chang served as Executive Director of the Pingtung County 'Trusted Taiwan Friends Association' and General Convener of the 'Overseas Academic Power Trusted Taiwan Support Association'—a true 'staunch Lai supporter.'

Hsu pointed out that current regulations are full of loopholes—bulk oils are not required to be tested batch by batch. The DPP government is turning a blind eye and covering up. The intent is obvious to all. Over a month has passed, yet the truth is only being revealed in a 'toothpaste-squeezing' manner by the judiciary and media. The government only reluctantly admits fragments of the truth. With such systemic black holes, how can the people of Taiwan eat with peace of mind?

Hsu asked: 'Where exactly did the carcinogen come from?' Yet, when the FDA and Executive Yuan official Chen Shih-chung held a press conference, they couldn't even identify the root cause. Officials only offered bureaucratic excuses: 'multiple factors including specific Brazilian soybean raw material risks, process parameter deviations, and quality control boundary violations interacted.' With the source of carcinogens still unclear, Chen Shih-chung still sought to protect manufacturers and opposed a full recall.

Hsu stated that Article 7 of the Food Safety Act requires reporting 'upon discovering products posing a risk to health and safety.' The law does not require confirmation that products have already entered the market before reporting. Once there is a risk of consumer exposure, regulatory agencies should intervene to trace distribution and assess recall needs. If businesses delay reporting because 'they don't know if it's been distributed,' they may miss the critical window for timely tracking and recall—contradicting the very purpose of Article 7's self-reporting system. This oil safety crisis has been handled with incompetence that is undeniable, and likely with moral failure as well.