光說不安全是不夠的：美牛風險、管制理論與政策選擇

Saying 'Not Safe” is Not Enough: When Different Moral Worlds Collide on the Issue of Importing US Beef

因為我們日常生活的一舉一動與風險息息相關，風險與現代社會可說是如影隨形。為能有效控制風險，政府與私人企業無不依賴科學的精密計算來對風險進行管控。本文以2009年所發生的美國牛肉進口問題來闡析不同政策選擇背後的價值觀衝突。我們認為，美牛事件表面上看來只是風險的問題，但實際上由於風險與管制是一體的兩面，因此這個議題也牽涉到吾人對自由、平等議題的看法。作者在結論處指出，正因為風險是一種社會的選擇而不是一種科學的決定，因此我們不能依賴科學家來替我們做出抉擇。

After some cases of mad cow disease were found in the US, the Taiwanese government swiftly imposed a total ban on US beef. In 2009, the Taiwanese and US governments signed a trade agreement stating that Taiwan will re-open its market to US beef. This agreement immediately invited bitter opposition. Some insist that US beef is not safe; others however demand further evidence. This article examines the moral dilemmas that regulators are facing on this issue. We argue that in most risk-regulation debates, root differences lie in values and preferences, rather than science and facts. Thus, 'how safe/risky is safe/risky enough? is not a scientific/legal question, but a social one. We further suggest that although it is important to know the risk of mad cow disease, it is equally, if not more, important to recognize the fact that regulations which are meant to control such disease are also risky.