What Taiwan can learn from the EU Health Law in the issue of US beef imports

1.Article 36 TFEU aithorizes one Member State to prohibit the imports of goods from the other Member States, on the ground of public health.


2.In Sandoz (Case 174/82), the backgound is about the use of vitamins in food. It was admitted that, vitamins could be beneficial to human health, but it was also accepted that excessive consumption could be harmful to health. The backgound is very similar to the situation we face now in the imports of US beef.

3.In Sandoz, scientific evidence was not certain about at which consumption of vitamins became excessive, in particular since vitamins consumed in one source of food might be added to those eaten from a different food source. Again, the very simialr difficulty of culculating problem we may face in US beef.

4.Indeed, we need more evidence to ban the imports of US beef which have been lawfully manufactured and marketed in the US and the other trading partners. In this regard, The ECJ in Commission v. Germany emphasizes (Case 178/84) that, both the findings of international scientific research from WHO, Codex, FAO and the eating habits prevailing in the importing Member States need to be taken into account (Case 178/84, para. 44). In our case, it is worthy to note that the eating habits in Taiwan is much different from the US.

5.Finally, if we determine to continue the ban, we also need to prove that the ban of US beef on the ground of public health does not result in favoring national production methods and thus constitutes a disguised means of protecting domestic pork industry(Case 178/84, para. 51). If Ma administration detemine to open the US beef imports, it is also necessary to consider whether the compulsory affixing of suitalbe labells on US beef is sufficient to inform our consumers and to portect public health.

6.This article is free to be referred but please mention the name of author and keep the integrity of the content.

.