(Central News Agency reporter Su Long-chi, Taipei, May 21) The Control Yuan said today that the Department of Health had long ignored the fact that some or all rice flour products sold domestically were adulterated with corn starch, and the Control Yuan passed a correction against the Department of Health (the full text of the Control Yuan statement is at the end of this article)

The Control Yuan held a meeting of its Finance and Economics Committee this morning, at which Control Yuan members Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling presented an investigation report and correction case titled "The Department of Health of the Executive Yuan has long ignored the situation in which some or all domestic rice flour is made by adulterating corn starch into long-grain rice, yet it is all uniformly called 'rice flour'" and the committee also passed this correction.

Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling said that rice flour is a rice food product favored by the public, but in April of the 92nd year of the Republic of China (2003), many media reports said that almost all domestic rice flour was not made from "rice" and the issue of ingredients and labeling of rice flour in January of the 102nd year of the Republic of China (2013) once again triggered concern.

The Control Yuan members said that the issues related to rice flour, including national standards, legal regulations, manufacturing ingredients, labeling content and management responsibilities, all needed in-depth understanding. After on-site visits to the Hsinchu County Farmers' Association and some domestic rice flour manufacturers, and interviewing relevant government agencies, the case found that the Department of Health had committed violations.

The Control Yuan members pointed out that according to an April 17 letter from the Council of Agriculture, the price of corn starch raw material was about NT$18.5 to 20 per kilogram, while long-grain rice flour was about NT$35 to 45 per kilogram, meaning the raw material prices differed by 2 to 2.5 times, that is, the cost gap was at least more than 2 times, so rice flour products made from corn starch naturally had a lower cost. The term "rice flour" obviously misled people into believing it was made from pure rice or mainly from rice, and indeed caused a difference in consumer perception.

Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling believed that the fact that some or all domestic rice flour was made from corn starch was clearly an industry "unspoken rule" that had been practiced for years, yet the Department of Health had long acquiesced in this "open secret." Since the 92nd year of the Republic of China (2003) to date it had not actively managed the issue or proposed effective countermeasures, seriously affecting consumer rights, and this was deemed improper. Therefore, a proposal was passed to correct the Department of Health(for the original news source, please click here).

Full Control Yuan press release 102NEWS16, May 21, 102nd year of the Republic of China (2013)

Failure to fulfill the duty to manage and inspect the domestic "rice flour without rice ingredients" problem

The Finance and Economics Committee of the Control Yuan passed the investigation report and correction case proposed by Control Yuan members Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling, titled "The Department of Health of the Executive Yuan has long ignored the situation in which some or all domestic rice flour is made by adulterating corn starch into long-grain rice, yet it is all uniformly called 'rice flour'."

Control Yuan members Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling said that rice flour is a rice food product loved by the people, and the production process often requires air-drying to facilitate preservation and carrying. The fierce, dry "nine-fall wind" of Hsinchu helps in making rice flour, so rice flour has also become a major local specialty of the Hsinchu area. However, in April of the 92nd year of the Republic of China (2003), many media reports carried related information that almost all domestic rice flour was not made from "rice," and in January of the 102nd year of the Republic of China (2013), the issue of rice flour ingredients and labeling once again aroused public concern. Therefore, issues related to rice flour, including national standards, legal regulations, manufacturing ingredients, labeling content and management responsibilities, all needed in-depth understanding. After this Yuan obtained relevant files and evidence from the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection, the Department of Health and the Council of Agriculture, conducted on-site visits to the Hsinchu County Farmers' Association and some domestic rice flour manufacturers, and also interviewed the above government agencies, the following violations by the Department of Health were found:

The Department of Health has long ignored the situation in which some or all domestic rice flour is made by adulterating corn starch into long-grain rice, yet it is all uniformly called "rice flour," and to date it has been unable to actively manage, inspect and propose solutions, seriously affecting consumer rights, and this is deemed improper.

According to the national standard of the Republic of China for "rice vermicelli," the scope of application is: "Applicable to packaged edible rice vermicelli, commonly known as rice flour." In the definitions of "pure rice vermicelli" and "blended rice vermicelli" in that standard, "pure rice vermicelli" is made entirely with "rice" as the raw material and has a crude protein content of 5.0% or more; "blended rice vermicelli" uses more than 50% "rice" as the main raw material and has a crude protein content of 2.5% or more. Also, according to the Act Governing Food Sanitation and its enforcement rules, the product name of domestically sold "rice flour" products should use the name specified in the national standard, and related labeling must not be false or misleading. Therefore, the Department of Health bears responsibility for the safety, hygiene and quality management of rice flour products.

Upon investigation, because the rice content of domestically sold rice flour generally failed to meet the national standard, or even contained no rice at all, the Taiwan Confectionery, Biscuit and Floury Food Industry Association wrote to the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection on June 2, 95th year of the Republic of China (2006) requesting revision of the "rice flour (rice vermicelli)" standard and suggesting relaxation of the rice content limit for rice flour to 10%, that is, a protein content of 0.7%. Therefore, the fact that domestic rice flour products are made with partial or total corn starch adulteration yet are all uniformly called "rice flour" or "pure rice flour" is not only true but has been practiced for years.

After media reports in the 92nd year of the Republic of China (2003) on the rice content issue of rice flour, the Department of Health wrote on April 24 of the same year asking local health bureaus to strengthen inspections of the processing procedures, raw materials used and product labeling of rice flour manufacturers under their jurisdiction, and found that products of rice flour manufacturers under the health bureaus of Hsinchu City, Hsinchu County and Nantou County had insufficient rice content. The Department again wrote to the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection on December 30 of the same year to provide the test results for reference. Upon review, from the 92nd to the 101st year of the Republic of China (2003 to 2012), apart from specially asking local health bureaus to conduct inspections in the 92nd year (2003) because of newspaper and media reports, the Department of Health in the past 10 years did not supervise and join with county and city health bureaus in managing and inspecting the rice content and labeling issues of domestically sold rice flour products.

According to a letter from the Council of Agriculture dated April 17, 102nd year of the Republic of China (2013), the price of corn starch raw material was about NT$18.5 to 20 per kilogram, long-grain rice flour was about NT$35 to 45 per kilogram, and whole-grain raw rice was NT$38 to 50 per kilogram, meaning the raw material prices differed by 2 to 2.5 times, that is, the cost gap was at least more than 2 times. Therefore, rice flour products made from corn starch naturally had a lower cost, while the term "rice flour" obviously misled people into believing it was made from pure rice or mainly from rice, and this indeed caused a difference in consumer perception. Control Yuan members Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling believed that the fact that some or all domestic rice flour was made from corn starch was clearly an industry "unspoken rule" that had been practiced for years, yet the Department of Health had long acquiesced in this "open secret." Since the 92nd year of the Republic of China (2003) to date it had not actively managed the issue or proposed effective countermeasures, seriously affecting consumer rights, and this was deemed improper.

In addition to issuing the above correction for these violations, Control Yuan members Cheng Jen-hung and Yang Mei-ling believed that the Council of Agriculture and the Department of Health should immediately review and improve the following matters:

The Council of Agriculture should actively establish an assessment mechanism and feedback channel for domestic rice processed product manufacturers regarding their demand for public rice stocks, and properly address the relevant manufacturers' demand for raw material rice, so as to facilitate the proper use of public rice stocks and promote the development of the rice processed products industry.

According to the Food Administration Act, the Council of Agriculture has the statutory duty to purchase public rice stocks to ensure the domestic food security reserve. To promote diversified uses of rice, increase rice consumption and enhance the market competitiveness of rice products, the Council allocated rice for use as raw material for rice product processing and specially formulated the "Directions for the Allocation and Sale of Rice for Use as Raw Material for Rice Product Processing." As for the assessment mechanism for rice processed product manufacturers' demand for public rice stocks, according to the Agriculture and Food Agency, the current operation for allocating and selling rice for use as raw material for rice product processing has been handled since August of the 80th year of the Republic of China (1991) based on the "Taiwan Provincial Government Food Bureau Procedures for Handling the Allocation and Sale of Rice for Use as Raw Material for Domestically Sold Rice Food Products" issued by the former Taiwan Provincial Government Food Bureau. It has been implemented for more than 20 years, and the allocation and sale mechanism is handled on a first-come, first-served basis, with relevant allocation and sale information promptly notified to manufacturers by letter. The Agency also emphasized that the current public rice stock is sufficient and can fully supply rice processed product manufacturers.

However, upon reviewing the annual domestic public rice allocation amounts from the 97th to 101st years of the Republic of China (2008 to 2012), it was found that in recent years public rice was mainly allocated and sold as feed rice, and in the 101st year of the Republic of China (2012) the allocation and sale quantity accounted for as much as 41%, while the quantity allocated and sold as raw material rice for rice products was rather limited. Also, the Hsinchu City Rice Flour Business Association stated during this Yuan's visit that the current release of public rice of the hard long-grain variety (long-grain rice) was limited, and rice flour manufacturers did indeed have demand for long-grain rice. Although the Council of Agriculture opened applications for relevant manufacturers to obtain raw material rice for rice products, the actual allocated and sold quantity was rather limited, and most of it became aged rice and was allocated and sold as feed rice, while rice flour manufacturers actually still had demand for raw material rice. This clearly shows that the Council failed to make good use of public rice stocks, and the Council of Agriculture must take the initiative to establish the necessary assessment mechanism and feedback channel for relevant manufacturers' demand for raw material rice for rice products.

The Department of Health should squarely address the situation in which the crude protein content of some domestically sold rice flour is higher than 7%, carefully investigate the reasons, and avoid artificially adding harmful substances or falsely imitating nutritional components to raise protein content; it should also actively manage and inspect the safety and hygiene issues of adhesives used by rice flour manufacturers, so as to protect the people's dietary safety and consumer rights.

Upon investigation, it was found that some rice flour products had a questionable protein content exceeding 7%. Also, after inquiry by the Department of Health, the Food Industry Research and Development Institute, a juristic person, had accepted 19 rice flour product samples submitted by private manufacturers for testing in the past 3 years, and the crude protein test results mainly ranged from 0.3% to 7%, but among them there were 5 cases with crude protein content higher than 7%, clearly showing that the crude protein content of some domestic rice flour products was indeed higher than 7%. As the central competent authority for food safety and hygiene, the Department of Health should uphold a strict and cautious attitude, investigate the root causes of the crude protein content higher than 7% in some domestically sold rice flour, avoid artificially adding harmful substances or falsely imitating nutritional components to raise protein content, and should also actively manage and inspect the safety and hygiene issues of adhesives used by rice flour manufacturers, so as to protect the people's dietary safety and consumer rights.

Conclusion

In summary, therefore, a proposal was made in accordance with the law to correct the Department of Health, and a letter will be sent to the Council of Agriculture and the Department of Health requesting that they genuinely review and improve the matter and reply.