Plant Doctor Law - An Old Concept and New Thinking

People often say, "There are a hundred laws, but you have to sort things out yourself." We may feel that Taiwan, China already has plenty of laws, very complete ones, yet there are always a few fish that slip through the net. As times advance and the environment and people's ideas change, things that ought to exist but do not, and things that ought to be done but are not, will always slowly come to the surface. The other day, the draft "Plant Doctor Act" proposed by the Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine of the Council of Agriculture was one example. Once awareness of food safety, pesticide residues and ecological damage awoke, we were shocked to realise that the management of diagnosis and treatment for Taiwan, China's crop plants was so incomplete.

That humans and animals fall ill and die is taken as a matter of course to be of paramount importance; but what about plants? If they die, you just plant new ones. It was only after these plants were eaten into people's bellies that we realised the matter had become serious. Do the vegetables schoolchildren eat contain pesticide residues that should not be there? Is the organic rice Mum buys really organic? How exactly should fruit be washed so it can be eaten with peace of mind? Is the disappearance of bees really related to pesticide spraying? In fact, none of these problems arose only recently, so why have they been brought up again and again only lately? From the standpoint of ideas, the reason is simple: people's neglect, our long-term turning a blind eye, always assuming for ourselves which things are important and which are not.

The other day a veterinarian wrote and submitted an article to this website (please see [Citizen Writer] To guard the ingredients of school lunches, it is time for the government to toughen up!), largely encouraging that the establishment of a Plant Doctor Act is the right thing and should keep going forward. I personally am very happy, and I hope this can begin to spark broader and deeper discussion between the government and the public. However, the article also raised many of his personal worries, so I want to use this open forum to express some of my own views as well.

A society that began to progress with the Veterinarian Act

Looking back at Taiwanese society before the Veterinarian Act formally came into force, perhaps not many people felt that when the cats and dogs at home fell ill they needed to register at a veterinary hospital to see a doctor, or that people raising pigs and chickens needed a veterinarian's diagnosis and treatment. I think there must have been the same confusion at the time of legislation. The reason was that nobody did this back then. Would anyone be willing to queue and spend money just to treat a kitten or puppy's illness? Wouldn't it be enough to find some folk remedy yourself to feed it, or take it to the old fellow next door who has raised dogs for many years and let him take a look?

Look at things now: would you find it strange for an animal to see a doctor when it is ill? The effect of legislation is in fact the government guiding people to think and act in the right direction. Even with a law, some people will inevitably not comply, but at least we have turned the previous norm, where nobody did this, into what is now possibly an illegal minority, and that is a sign of progress.

Is the idea that sick plants need a doctor so hard to understand?

When plants have pests or diseases, you just go to the pesticide shop and buy some medicine to spray. Doesn't that feel very much like being your own veterinarian in the old days? The problem is, do we know what we are doing? Why do the foods we eat contain pesticide residues that should not be there? Because doing this does not really break the law, especially when we are not caught. When farmers cannot correctly diagnose the cause of disease, and when pesticide dealers cannot correctly provide knowledge on how to use the medicine, the problem of improper pesticide residues will follow right on its heels.

Sick plants should be treated and should be medicated, but do we not know that these processes are all professional? In Taiwan, China, plant pests and diseases, plant protection and even plant medicine have long been established professional disciplines, just as it is hard for us to imagine that, before the Veterinarian Act was legislated, the veterinary discipline was once not regarded as a necessary profession.

What kind of people can sit the exam to obtain plant doctor qualifications?

This is a very interesting question. If we ask who can sit the exam to obtain physician qualifications, the answer is in fact very clear. Plant medicine is already a discipline with a long history; it is just that in the past, without the constraints of law, people working in agronomy, horticulture and forestry, pesticide shops and even ordinary farmers could all do these things. Under such circumstances, we cannot blame the results for being so shocking. That a professional field has been neglected and even belittled to such a degree is truly speechless.

Perhaps some people will begin to question whether future plant doctors can shoulder this heavy responsibility. On this question, I personally am very optimistic. One purpose of legislation is also to urge the reform of the education schools provide. The Plant Doctor Act is the first step in changing people's thinking, and also the best path to return the profession to the professionals.

The guidance of the Plant Doctor Act will absolutely make the discipline that already exists advance again and better meet the needs of society. Of course this will take time, but just think: was the improvement of the physician and veterinarian training systems not also walked step by step like this? When society neither needs this profession nor gives it recognition, it will forever remain merely a subject of study kept on campus, and the consequences it causes will simply have to be borne by everyone.

Can plant doctors survive in the job market?

Will plant doctors have job opportunities? Will they be unemployed? A bunch of greens for a few yuan, a jin of fruit for only a few tens of yuan - will anyone really spend money to hire a plant doctor for diagnosis? The answer is, if the law does not regulate it, then there will truly never be a chance. Although it is said that there is always someone who will do a business that costs your head, nobody does a business that loses money, but at least letting everyone know that this is a matter that could cost you your head is not a bad thing. Job opportunities and pay, to put it bluntly, are a matter of market supply and demand, and market supply and demand is often guided by regulations and policies.

For example, with many national licences today, such as those for fire protection technicians and civil engineers, do we worry about their prospects? Because the law restricts the qualification to sign off, this in turn creates their job opportunities; unless you are willing to break the law, you have to bear these costs. Although in the end it will still come down to the market's selection mechanism, legislation is always the first step. We cannot now fully predict plant doctors' future job opportunities and pay, but I think these newly added costs should be a sweet cost that the public is happy to bear.

As for whether farmers or agribusinesses will have their earnings affected because of this, my view is exactly the opposite: a good, safe agricultural production system is instead precisely an opportunity for adding value to products.

How much longer until the plant doctor system can be legislated and implemented?

The Plant Doctor Act will be a parent law regulating plant medical conduct. Of course in future it will need supporting legislation from other competent authorities and the setting of related implementation rules, including examinations, appointment, or the future establishment of public plant doctor posts. Since it is so important, how much longer until it can be passed and implemented? To be frank, I do not know either. Although the passage of the regulations may affect some practitioners who are already carrying out these services on their own, I personally am optimistic.

As for how to properly handle the existing situation during the transition period, I think that given the mature environment in Taiwan, China, where the public's level of understanding is already open, farmers and industry operators should all support returning to the level of professional considerations. The legislative process is mostly about dealing with people's problems. I think that, on the professional understanding and scientific argumentation of plant medicine, and weighing the risk of harm to humans, there is a chance of gaining more people's consensus in the not-too-distant future.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the legislative process first and foremost has to deal with people's problems, including the cooperation of administrative and legislative bodies, examination and appointment, supervisory and enforcement bodies, private enterprises and so on, but more important still is the awakening of the awareness of farmers, industry operators and consumers, for that is the force that strongly urges the government to speed up legislation.

Are we plant medicine students already prepared?

I remember I once told students in class that I personally majored in entomology, and under the current circumstances, compared with the students studying plant medicine, I actually do not possess the qualifications to be a candidate plant doctor. A complete plant medicine training covers everything from soil and fertiliser management, cultivation techniques, and the health management of plant diseases, insects, weeds and rodents, to safe use of medicine and inspection. At present, the cultivation of talent in plant medicine-related departments in the country has been going on for years, including the establishment of undergraduate plant medicine departments and graduate plant medicine degree programmes. We must affirm the long-term, quiet efforts of these departments in this professional field.

If you ask my view, I will tell you very firmly that the cultivation of plant medicine talent already has a very complete plan, and has already begun to operate. Although there is still room for improvement, everything is now in place, just waiting for the wind to rise.

Finally, a discussion of the separation of medicine and pharmacy

What exactly should plant doctors do? Simply put, under the current planning of the Plant Doctor Act, their main business is plant health diagnosis and treatment, including the diagnosis and identification of plant disease causes and the prescription recommendations for follow-up actions (prescriptions), and so on. At least up to now, I think these cannot be replaced by any other profession. Someone may ask, do we not already have regulations such as the Pesticide Management Act? Why do we still need a Plant Doctor Act? Will there be a conflict?

I think this is a misunderstanding. Although the issue of separating medicine and pharmacy still causes some troubles in practice in the veterinary and even human medical fields up to now, we should know that in plants there is currently an abnormal state of having medicine but no doctors, just like the situation of having only pharmacies but no hospitals. That is also a notion of everyone having to fend for themselves. I wonder what you all think? In future implementation, I believe the medicine and pharmacy of plants must go through a period of adjustment, but the final result should be a virtuous shared prosperity.

That people and animals need to see a doctor when ill is already an old notion that needs no argument, but the idea that plants need professional medical care has only just been brought out for discussion again because of the emergence of issues such as food safety and the environment. Our crops, old trees and forests all have urgent plant-medicine needs. Reflecting on it, testing crops is not a path to lasting food safety; food safety testing at the back end is forever only a function of treating symptoms and preventing fraud, and it is a professional and responsible mechanism at the front end that is the truly fundamental solution.

I very much hope that society can give the plant doctor profession support and recognition, and at the same time give our food safety environment a chance to start afresh.