Milk shocking interpretation: Chen Liangyu, the original inspector of the Shang and Zhou dynasties, on NTNU chemistry professor Wu Jiacheng
Business Weekly ran the cover headline "Milk Is Frightening" on November 20, based on research by Chen Liang-yu, associate professor in the Department of Biotechnology at Ming Chuan University, alleging that dairy products from major domestic food companies Uni-President, Wei Chuan and Kuang Chuan - including fresh milk and flavored milk products, as well as drinks such as Taiwan Bifido's "Cocoa Good Friends" - were found to contain illegal residues of veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, plasticizers, estrogen, sedatives and antidepressants.
While the Business Weekly "Milk Is Frightening" issue was fermenting, claims also circulated online that Article 40 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation - which states that "when publishing food sanitation inspection information, the inspection method, inspection unit and basis for interpreting results shall be published at the same time" - was a government move to suppress freedom of speech.
Once the report came out, it drew public attention, and the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health and Welfare separately tested the problem dairy products named by Business Weekly, with the test results released yesterday afternoon. Of the 9 products listed by Business Weekly, Wei Chuan papaya flavored milk had been discontinued, while the Ministry of Health and Welfare sampled the other 8 products and tested 86 items for "veterinary drug residues and antibiotics", 9 items for plasticizers, hormones, antidepressants and analgesics; all results complied with the law. The Department of Animal Industry, in addition to the 8 products named by Business Weekly, also randomly tested 15 fresh milk products on the market, 23 fresh milk products in total, testing 86 items for veterinary drugs, all of which complied with the law.
Nearly a week has passed since the Business Weekly "Milk Is Frightening" incident broke out, and the official test report and Business Weekly's investigation results are poles apart, creating a state in which believers keep believing and non-believers keep disbelieving, each side saying its own thing. To that end, reporters from NewsMarket conducted telephone interviews with Chen Liang-yu, associate professor in the Department of Biotechnology at Ming Chuan University, and Wu Chia-cheng, former secretary-general of the Consumers' Foundation and professor in the Department of Chemistry at National Taiwan Normal University, to hear their views on the dairy testing process and results this time.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────
[Interview with Chen Liang-yu] The Business Weekly dairy investigation was only my preliminary scientific research - where is there any certified laboratory?
Q: Today both the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health and Welfare released test results for the problem fresh milk in the Business Weekly investigation, all showing zero detection. What is your view?
Chen Liang-yu (hereafter "Chen"): I have not yet seen the test results and report. But now that government agencies are asking me for the data, I told Business Weekly that I will provide all the data to the government agencies; whatever the government agencies want to know, I will provide it all.
Q: The public has been very concerned about which laboratory Business Weekly commissioned for the testing. Can you explain?
Chen: I do not know why everyone cares about this, but let me put it this way: at the very beginning it was not a laboratory at all. I commissioned a friend of mine, who used to be my student. At the time, Business Weekly and I made him a promise that these data would absolutely not be published, but the data I give to the Ministry of Health and Welfare will certainly be there. Hmm... tsk, many people do not know my experience and criticize me as someone who does urine tests. Let me tell everyone, I have seven years of experience in a certified food analysis laboratory (emphasized twice in a row), and that is all there is to it.
Q: So with this experience, you think there is no problem with the Business Weekly report?
Chen: This is a scientific study, a preliminary scientific study. My goal with this preliminary study is to do food safety preventive monitoring, to first know which things may be very dangerous, right? We should go find these things! Which things are very dangerous! You keep talking about my testing technology, but from beginning to end I never said I was going to issue a certified report, and Business Weekly never said this either! Business Weekly also never said it was going to issue a certified report!
Q: So Business Weekly overinterpreted your test report?
Chen: Oh~ (lets out a long sigh), I am not in a position to comment on this. Interpretation, well, everyone interprets differently. Many media think I have gone into hiding, but in fact it is because I have too many classes. How could I go into hiding? Right, I had just gotten out of class, and you just happened to call me, that is how it is!
Q: There are claims circulating on Facebook that the Ministry of Health and Welfare wants to restrict private parties from publishing test results. What do you think?
Chen: This part is not my expertise, but such a move by the government is very dangerous, really very dangerous. I also must explain that people with testing capability are absolutely not the general public. Just as during this process, everyone kept saying "certified laboratory", "certified laboratory", talking about GC/MS, talking about ELISA - for the general consuming public, how many people can understand these methods? Does this also mean that ordinary citizens, consumers, could possibly acquire such technical capability? No! Only government agencies, academic institutions, or manufacturers have the ability to do these things.
I happen to have such a background, but as for instruments and equipment, I do not have the Food and Drug Administration, I do not have the Council of Agriculture, I do not have anything as good as National Taiwan University. But after all I have some experience, and I can do some things - this is academic service, social service, I suppose. This is just what I can do!
As for whether it restricts freedom of speech, I am not too clear on that! I am not an expert in this area either.
Q: Earlier, Wu Chia-cheng, professor in the Department of Chemistry at National Taiwan Normal University, criticized your research when interviewed by the media. What do you think?
Chen: (lets out a long sigh) That is because they do not understand me. You media people have dug up my old data. Let me ask you as an example: do you know what I studied in university? (Reporter answers: University? Did you study at National Central University? Or?) You do not know! National Central University was my doctoral program; for university I was in the Department of Chemistry at National Taiwan University, so would I be this amateurish? Heh heh heh heh. It does not matter, I respect that everyone has different views and comments. I have not heard him (referring to Wu Chia-cheng) say it directly; I am now so busy that I do not even have time to watch TV news.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
[Interview with Wu Chia-cheng] If Business Weekly keeps forcing its argument, I will make more facts public
Q: You said Business Weekly and Chen Liang-yu once came to discuss testing details with you. Do you know the testing laboratory?
Wu Chia-cheng (hereafter "Wu"): Business Weekly is trying to keep the name of this laboratory secret. (Last Friday, November 22) when they came to see me, compared with today (November 25) when I met Business Weekly deputy editor-in-chief Liu Pei-hsiu, they were saying one thing and then another, and there were even situations where they deceived me. I myself was already very unhappy.
Business Weekly claims the investigation was commissioned to an academic laboratory; they had better voluntarily publish the name. The laboratory commissioned by Business Weekly should not count as what they claim is a national-level laboratory, nor does it look like a laboratory doing this kind of project (meaning food safety).
Business Weekly must face society with 100% honesty and publish which laboratory was commissioned to conduct it; this can no longer be concealed. (Last Friday) when they came to see me, I told them, where was this thing done, which laboratory? What method was used to do it? Which person did it? All of this must be stated frankly. They told me this thing was done in a national-level laboratory. Which national-level laboratories there are, I am actually very clear about, this cannot be concealed.
If Business Weekly does not say it, this method is like shooting a hidden arrow to hurt people. Where you shoot the arrow, nobody knows; where you do the experiment, nobody knows - this is not right.
Q: Some people say that Article 40 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, regarding "when publishing food sanitation inspection information, the inspection method, inspection unit and basis for interpreting results shall be published at the same time", does not allow private organizations to publish test results on their own, and that this is the government suppressing freedom of speech. What do you think?
Wu: Actually, the current food sanitation management act does not restrict everyone from publishing food-related test reports. Article 40 only provides that as long as you clearly explain the inspection unit, inspection method and the way the inspection is judged, such food inspection data can be released to the outside; it does not restrict everyone from releasing it to the outside.
So regarding this matter of freedom of speech, according to the provisions of the food sanitation management act, it can be published, it is just that when publishing you must be very candid!
Now Business Weekly's approach is: do not say it, do not say it honestly, do not bring out the data - this thing is like a hidden arrow wounding people. Now someone is using freedom of speech to blur the focus; this approach is not right!
Whether Business Weekly's test report is correct or not, whether it is worth believing, whether she should be allowed to report in this way and with this amount of space, is one matter; as for whether Taiwan's dairy products are safe, that is another matter. The two cannot be lumped together.
Science is about truly making judgments based on scientific evidence; we cannot solve it with law and politics. What I worry about most now is that when this thing is pushed to the end, it cannot be discussed on its own terms. Whether the test report is reasonable, scientific, correct is one matter; whether dairy products are safe is another. When these are put together now, and then at that point it is solved with "blue" or "green", solved with politics, that is a huge mistake, because at that point it actually will not be able to guarantee real food safety!
Q: You once mentioned that if Business Weekly and Chen Liang-yu continue not to publish the testing unit and method, you would not rule out making more facts public?
Wu: Yes, yes, yes, I think they are now forcing their argument. I (yesterday afternoon) had just come out of recording CTi's
Q: When Business Weekly approached you at the time, did they not indicate which laboratory did the testing?
A: I roughly know which testing laboratory it is! But now they say one thing and then another.
Q: So you think it is impossible that it was a national-level laboratory, and also impossible that it was an academic laboratory?
A: The laboratory she claims is what she claims, but I believe that at the latest tomorrow she must say it; she cannot not say it, because this thing has already violated relevant legal provisions. The laboratory they claim is not any great laboratory either; the instruments and equipment have existed since thirty or forty years ago. Domestic and foreign dairy research laboratories more precise than hers published a great pile of papers in international journals long ago.
The laboratory they commissioned is also not specifically doing food testing, otherwise it could not have been done so crudely, and still sent this report out in a very short time, worse than a test report done by an undergraduate student.
Q: Some people say that the method of using athletes' metabolites to infer whether prohibited drugs were used is more accurate than the existing method of testing milk. What is your view?
Wu: This kind of statement and inference is not entirely correct. Academic inference has a correct way of doing academic inference, and these can all be brought out for public scrutiny.
Q: If Business Weekly does not publish the testing unit and method again tomorrow, what are your plans?
A: If they keep forcing their argument, I will present more facts to the outside. Last Friday, in front of me, Business Weekly's reporter herself also thought it was done too hastily and not well enough, and Professor Chen also said this in front of me. If they keep forcing the argument, it will absolutely become uglier and uglier.