When discussing the differences of Maximum Residue Limits (referred to “MRLs”) imposed on between imported and domestic agricultural products, it is vital to point out the main points we need take into account, before entering into the substantive discussions.
Firstly, The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (hereinafter referred to as “Taiwan”), as a Member of WTO, has to eliminate the non-tariff barriers, so long as these actions do not endanger the other important rights of our nationals.
However, our nationals also have the right to know what exactly they eat, especially some journals had pointed out the differences of Maximum Residue Limits imposed on agrcultural products between importers and domestic producers.
Furthermore, the right to know also closely relates to the protection of consumer’s health. Consumers have the right to decide the merits and demerits of products they purchase, and in this regard, they need information to determine, in order to materialize the right to decide.
Nevertheless, even consumers have the right to decide what product they want to purchase; our government also has the obligation to study the maximum residue limits, in order to protect public health. When a new imported product using a new pharmaceutical our domestic farmers have never utilized on our own products, the government need to add this new source of residue into the maximum and inevitably have to decrease the original quota of the same pharmaceutical our domestic producers can legally use. On the one hand, as a consumer, a new products appearing on the market can increase the list of choices, on the other hand, as a domestic farmer, the difficulty they face is further, since the maximum amount of pharmaceutical they can use become less. This will effectively undermine the competitiveness of our domestic agriculture industry.
The reasons of protecting our domestic agriculture industry cannot be simply evaluated, with an economic point of view. In contrary, the safety of food supply also need to concern. In the oncoming age of decreasing global trade, it is also necessary to maintain the specific proportion of domestic food supply, in order to avoid overly dependence on imports. Also, agriculture industry plays a role as a symbol of cultural inheritance. How can we forget where we are coming from? Agriculture, as a traditional way of life, also embeds the historical stories that had ever happened on our land in the past.
Hence, a balance has to seek between the freedom of trade, on the one hand, and the other rights of domestic nationals, on the other hand. Currently, we merely enact roughly 1000 MRLs, which are significantly less than the other developed countries. It has not only effectively formed non-tariff barrier for importers, since once there is no MRL for the permitting use on one specific imported product, the result is that this new product would be rejected in our customs, but it also deprive consumers of the rights to choose the new products on our market.
Well, an idea of seeking a balance sounds great, but how? One may suggest adopting the standards enacted by the Codex of the United Nation, because this standard is prevailing and so loose that no county’s importers would be easily blocked by this standard. Utilizing a global standard of trade has been a long dream for trade liberalists. Whilst, although adopting the Codex’s standards can be assumed to fit the requirement of SPS Agreement, it may also impair the protection of domestic public health, in particular the standards of Codex are designed for the globally average circumstances without concerning each Member own situation. Thus, here, I suggest our government to adopt the impermanent standards of 0.01 ppm, like the EC and Japan. At least, it is not only so loose as the standards of Codex, but it also slightly eliminates the current strict standards that no residue is permitted.
沒有留言:
張貼留言