Fuli rice pesticide residue case is like Rashomon, the Fuli Farmers' Association should clarify

After the Consumers' Foundation recently announced that Fuli organic rice was found to contain trace residues of the pesticide "carbaryl," the Hualien County Government yesterday (June 11) held a major press conference to release the official sampling test results, stressing that no pesticide was detected in Fuli organic rice, steering the direction of the issue toward the idea that the Consumers' Foundation's test report has wronged organic farmers, and the Fuli Farmers' Association is not ruling out filing a lawsuit against the Consumers' Foundation.

However, according to information obtained by NewsMarket, the Fuli Township Farmers' Association sent samples of the withdrawn Fuli organic rice to the Agricultural Testing Center of the Liugong Agricultural Production and Marketing Foundation for testing, and trace amounts of "carbaryl" were still detected. This information was not disclosed at the press conference held by the Hualien County Government. It is unclear whether the Fuli Township Farmers' Association failed to report it back to the Hualien County Government, or whether the county government's Agriculture Department deliberately kept silent. The Fuli Township Farmers' Association needs to clarify and explain this clearly to the public.

What the Consumers' Foundation tested was rice harvested last year; what the Hualien County Government sent for testing were mixed samples, including last year's rice and this year's rice plants

The sampling results announced at the Hualien County Government's (June 11) press conference were based on individual testing of 27 space bags of rice stored in the Fuli Township Farmers' Association warehouse, along with 33 field samples taken from fields of the organic production and marketing group for this year's first rice crop about to be harvested. A total of 60 samples were sent to the Liugong Foundation for testing, and the result was zero detection.

Hualien County Agriculture Department Director Chang Chih-chao stated that in addition to zero pesticide detection in these 60 samples, the Agriculture Department, together with the Eastern Region Branch of the Agriculture and Food Agency, also sampled 4 items in total from fields, rice in space bags, packaged rice not yet on the market, and withdrawn packaged rice, and sent them to the Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute of the Council of Agriculture for testing, which also returned a result of zero detection.

In addition to the official samples showing no pesticide residues, a reporter called yesterday the NCKU Green Product Testing Laboratory, which is responsible for the organic certification of Fuli rice, and was told that two processed rice samples and one field sample taken on June 7, totaling three samples, as well as one organic brown rice sample taken again on June 10, have been sent to a private laboratory for testing, and the results are not yet available.

Samples sent by the Fuli Farmers' Association itself still showed trace amounts of pesticide

However, when the reporter called Hualien County Agriculture Department Director Chang Chih-chao and NCKU Green Product Testing Laboratory head Wen Yun-che yesterday to inform them that organic rice samples sent by the Fuli Township Farmers' Association to the Liugong Foundation still showed trace amounts of the pesticide "carbaryl," Chang Chih-chao immediately said that it might be last year's second rice crop, processed and milled on March 4 this year, that was mixed with ordinary conventionally grown rice during processing and milling, or that carbaryl was used when disinfecting the processing plant, thereby contaminating the organic rice.

Professor Wen Yun-che, head of the NCKU Green Product Testing Laboratory, also said that the trace pesticide residue detected in Fuli organic rice by the Consumers' Foundation this time might have come from contamination during packaging, transportation or sales, and that they would assist the Fuli Township Farmers' Association in strengthening management of the entire process.

Both Chang Chih-chao and Wen Yun-che coincidentally said that "carbaryl" is a sanitation pesticide and is not permitted for use in fields, and that farmers would not use the pesticide, repeatedly emphasizing that the trace pesticide residue detected in Fuli rice this time might have come from contamination during processing or storage and transportation.

However, when the reporter checked the websites of the Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute and private pesticide manufacturers for information on "carbaryl," the information obtained was that "carbaryl" is a pesticide currently widely used by farmers, applicable to crops including rice, tea, vegetables, citrus and other fruit trees, and targets pests including green rice leafhoppers, brown planthoppers, leaf rollers, leafhoppers, tea caterpillars, yellow-striped leafhoppers, geometrid moths, snout moths, mealybugs, flower beetles, and stink bugs, and is not only usable as a sanitation pesticide.

In addition, when the reporter called Director-General Chen Jung-tsung about the Fuli Township Farmers' Association sending Fuli organic rice to the Liugong Foundation and trace carbaryl being detected, the response received was "I'm not clear on that, please ask Extension Section Chief Lin Hui-huang." And as early as June 5, the day the Consumers' Foundation announced the test results of organic brown rice on the market, when a NewsMarket reporter called Lin Hui-huang, the answer received was: "This morning, through traceability of the production and marketing history, the brown rice in question was tracked down. The farmer who grew it admitted that because of poor weather and many pests and diseases, he had privately used the insecticide carbaryl without authorization." (For related reports, see "Consumers' Foundation testing: 60% of brown rice on the market mislabeled, one organic brown rice with pesticide residue")

Matters concerning the long-term development of the organic industry; the Fuli Farmers' Association has an obligation to clarify the truth

But after the Hualien County Government held a press conference yesterday (June 11) to refute the Consumers' Foundation's test results, Lin Hui-huang only said that he had not yet thought about whether to file a lawsuit against the Consumers' Foundation, and that the priority was to require farmers to strengthen field management, and that the Farmers' Association would also strengthen factory and processing management. (For related reports, please see Liberty Times Net, "Big reversal! Fuli rice self-tested, zero pesticide detection")

Regardless of whether the trace carbaryl residue detected in Fuli rice this time was due to farmers' pesticide use, contamination from adjacent fields, or contamination during processing, storage and transportation, did the Hualien County Government know about the samples sent by the Fuli Township Farmers' Association to the Liugong Foundation that still tested positive for trace carbaryl? If the county government knew, did it "selectively disclose information" to the media, steering the issue toward the idea that the Consumers' Foundation has wronged organic farmers? Both the Hualien County Government and the Fuli Township Farmers' Association need to clarify and explain this clearly, and cannot use the method of "matching Zhang Fei against Yue Fei" by using different sampling times and test results to confuse the public.

Consumers' Foundation testing: 60% of brown rice on the market mislabeled, one organic brown rice with pesticide residue