Controversy lingers even after Scientific American removed its Facebook post, in which it claimed ractopamine is "not only profitable but also eco-friendly." The magazine admitted the seemingly informative article is actually an advertisement placed by the Council of Agriculture.
Controversy still continues even after Scientific American removed its Facebook post on September 19, in which it claimed that leanness-enhancing agent ractopamine is "not only profitable but also good for the environment. The internationally renowned Science magazine further explained that the post was actually an "advertisement" placed by the Council of Agriculture. In response, the Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine issued a statement, saying it was the magazine who approached them in the first place and it is also not the first time for both sides to put out an "advertorial" together. But the Council of Agriculture said the content was entirely created by the magazine and it felt "regrettable" that the post has been removed. Premier Su Tseng-chang personally came forward and explained.
The Council of Agriculture did not provide such controversial information. The magazine had clarified the issue and apologized publicly.
Minister of Agriculture Chen Chi-chung was trying to clarify the issue back on the 21st. He said the Council of Agriculture only provided technical information and the Scientific American should be held accountable for the controversial wordings. The Kuomintang, meanwhile, accused the Council of Agriculture of shifting the blame.
In fact, the Council of Agriculture wants to whitewash the fact that ractopamine pork is harmful to the human body. Once this was disclosed, the Minister of Agriculture Chen Chi-chung, however, evaded his responsibility immediately. We should also be asking if the Council is spending budgets on ads somewhere else.
The opposition party further criticized the Council of Agriculture for attempting to brainwash Taiwanese on the effects of the leanness-enhancing agent. In response, the Chief Editor of Scientific American Li Chia-wei said on the telephone that he will no longer comment on the issue publicly.