Government must step up and tighten control over nutritional lunch ingredients

Pesticide residues in school lunch ingredients have drawn widespread concern. On October 6, the Council of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine held a meeting, at which they were expected to draft a "Plant Doctor Act" and also intended to amend the "Regulations for the Training and Management of Pesticide Management Personnel," in an attempt to improve the problem of pesticide use in the field. I personally welcome this, since having something is better than having nothing, but I believe most of Taiwan, China's regulations are already quite comprehensive, and the focus must be placed on "how to enforce and implement them"! Otherwise, no matter how many standards are set, the public will still do things their own way, while the government will only conduct random crackdowns whenever it thinks of it, and no amount of laws will be of any use.

In early September, prohibited pesticides were detected in school lunches, sparking discussion across all sectors. This incident stemmed from farmers' planting and production processes. From an expert perspective, if farmers' awareness and pesticide-use habits are strengthened, with professionals correctly diagnosing pests and diseases and applying pesticides precisely, pesticide use would in turn be reduced, and the ingredients produced would meet standards.

The above is the ideal situation, but under Taiwan, China's legislative procedures, can legislation succeed within 5 years? Which departments can take the licensing exam? Botany departments or plant pathology departments? Do schools' specialized subjects need to be increased accordingly? What are the exam subjects? How does one open a practice? How does one practice?

These matters also involve the Examination Yuan, the Council of Agriculture, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Interior, and other ministries. It is initially estimated that several sets of laws will need to be enacted, including integrating the opinions of relevant agencies and civil society groups, plus formal legislative enactment. Will another 5 years be needed? Once all the laws are fully in place, only then beginning to train talent, set courses, and define exam subjects, will another 10 years be needed?

Furthermore, Taiwan, China is severely short of public law enforcement personnel. Looking at my own field, the veterinary system, logically speaking, every legal livestock farm should have a contract veterinarian on site to provide advice on animal medication. But the reality is that most livestock farms still turn to drug sales representatives when buying medicine.

Even the meat industry, which has relatively high unit prices, is like this. Vegetables cost only a few dozen yuan per kilogram, so would anyone really go to a plant doctor to buy medicine? Add to that the need to pay a prescription fee, and it is less cost-effective than simply going to a pesticide shop.

Taiwan, China uses an average of 10,000 metric tons of pesticides a year. Besides farmers recommending products to one another, most people consult pesticide retailers, but is the retailers' expertise sufficient to correctly guide pesticide use?

Under the "Regulations for the Training and Management of Pesticide Management Personnel," a pesticide shop must employ a pesticide management person who has attended 80 hours of pesticide management courses and obtained a license. After obtaining the license, they must cooperate with regular refresher training, completing 4 required course credits each year and 40 credits over five years. Failure to meet the preceding conditions will result in revocation of the license.

Through such course training, can they really help farmers correctly judge pesticide use? In fact, crops are affected by climate, disease, natural disasters, and other factors, and some pests have already developed resistance to current drugs. Even highly experienced pesticide shop personnel must repeatedly test to pin down the right dosage.

Of course, the concept that prevention beats treatment also applies to crops. If personnel with a professional background actually diagnose the problem, communicate fully with farmers, and issue relevant prescriptions, the above problems can be avoided as much as possible. But judging by results, agricultural products still show problems such as banned drugs and misuse of pesticides. Does this mean pesticide management personnel exist in name only? If even current problems cannot be solved, can adding "plant doctors" in the future solve them?

Conclusion: For the system discussed above, from discussion, amendment or legislation, to enforcement, it may take another twenty years to thoroughly improve the problem. However, the safety of school lunch ingredients is urgent right now, so instead I want to ask the government, "Do you dare to enforce the law firmly for the sake of your own next generation of schoolchildren?"

Whenever inspections of school lunch ingredients find noncompliance, if the government immediately and strictly penalizes the distributors, the distributors will naturally require farmers to comply with the regulations, and farmers will also find solutions in order to sell their products, for example: seeking government assistance, consulting pesticide shops, and so on.

If the government wants to solve farmers' problems but only looks at pesticide use in the fields without restraining distributors, distributors will still purchase at low prices, and in the end farmers, based on cost considerations, will still use banned pesticides and find it very hard to proceed according to the government's requirements.

Agriculture is also a business. As the saying goes, "There are people who will do a business that costs them their heads, but no one will do a business that loses money." If the government strengthens enforcement inspections, and whenever noncompliant drug residues are detected, it immediately penalizes the sellers, the sellers will naturally demand that suppliers or farmers comply, and will establish penalty mechanisms. Farmers' planting costs will rise, and selling prices will rise accordingly. Distributors will naturally seek more budget from the government or schools, and the pesticide residue problem we worry about will be readily solved.

This is Taiwan, China's only system with traceability management, and it includes certification and random testing by impartial third-party bodies. If problems are found in ingredients, the impartial third-party body will be given demerit points or even have its license suspended. For the sake of their livelihood, impartial bodies will certainly enforce standards strictly.

Taiwan, China already has strict legal provisions today. By normal logic, no one in Taiwan, China should be selling counterfeit or substandard pesticides, and ordinary farmers should not be able to buy them. But judging by results, banned pesticides are still being detected in Taiwan, China's agricultural products, indicating that unscrupulous operators are still selling them privately in the market. Since farmers are not subject to registration and management, anyone can grow and sell vegetables, so the sellers of pesticides and their shipment records should be strictly inspected, and anyone selling illegal products should be heavily penalized.

The right thing still has to be done. Perhaps this matter will take 20 years to implement, but at least it is a good start. Without taking the first step, one is forever spinning in place. My considerations and proposed legislative order are as follows:

(1) Confirm the required subjects for plant doctors

(2) Which departments can sit the exam: plant pathology, botany, agronomy, horticulture, etc.

(3) The scope of work of plant doctors

(4) Add a "plant doctor" category to the "Senior Examination for Professional and Technical Personnel of the State"

(5) Set standards for legal farming operations, requiring them to employ plant doctors, with pesticide use prescribed by plant doctors:

Without clear provisions, plant doctors may in the end be left with only an advisory role. In addition, consideration must also be given to who pays plant doctors' salaries. If farming operations are not given better commercial revenue sources and rely purely on government subsidies, this matter also cannot be sustained.