The protocol overturns the previous ban imposed by the former Democratic Progressive Party government on US beef imports after the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (also known as "mad cow disease") in the U.S. in December 2003, a prohibition which was moderated three years later to allow imports of boneless beef from calves less than 30 months old but continued to ban imports of higher-risk beef-on-bone, ground beef and intestines and other "offal."

The signing of the protocol between the Taiwan Economic and Culture Representative Office (TECRO) and AIT after secretive talks was met with stiff protests from consumer and health groups as well as the DPP and mayors and lawmakers of all parties, has promoted one mass demonstration and two days of legislative boycotts by DPP lawmakers of KMT-sponsored revisions to the Food Sanitation Regulatory Act that would legalize its contents, and sparked the Consumers Foundation to launch a petition campaign for a national citizen referendum to mandate re-negotiation, a drive which has already received support by over 100,000 citizens.

Contrary to the sentiments expressed by the AIT chairman, demands raised by consumer, and health safety protection groups and the DPP for renegotiation of the October 22 protocol aim to guard against genuine and grave dangers to both the health security of our 23 million citizens and the health of our democracy and are not "anti-American" but pro-health and pro-democracy.

First, it is necessary to recognize that there are genuine health safety concerns associated with US beef products, especially ground beef and "offals" which are known to carry higher risk of BSE, which can cause the fatal variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans, and other pathogens.

BSE is particularly worrisome because, as acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Food Safety and Inspection Service, there are no effective preventative tests or effective treatment for BSE and because prions, the suspected agent, cannot be killed by cooking, even by microwave, which means that consumers cannot "protect themselves."

In sum, there is no "acceptable" level of risk for the entry of BSE into Taiwan's food chain.

Contrary to claims by President Ma Ying-jeou and other KMT government officials, the October 22 protocol provides weaker protection for Taiwan consumers than similar agreements signed between Washington and Japan and South Korea.

For example, Taiwan's protocol does not set an age ceiling for beef imports, including of offal, and Taiwan must rely on inspections by the USDA, while both Japan and South Korea are allowed to carry out their own on-site inspections at US government expense.

It is worth noting that U.S. based consumer and health safety organizations, such as the Consumers Union, have expressed little confidence in the effectiveness of the procedures put in place by USDA, which has a vested interest in beef exports, to protect even the health of US citizens.

Ma's claim that Taiwan had no option but to accept such liberalization as part of its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization disregards the WTO's Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which gives member states the power to carry out import risk assessments and implement import controls over goods which may pose serious health risks.

The protocol also carries a political pathogen as the KMT government once again violated the principles of democratic transparency and accountability by signing this pact without carrying out any advance discussion with consumer protection or health protection civic groups and without submitting it for legislative ratification.

Claims by National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi that the U.S. - Taiwan beef import protocol "transcends domestic law" illustrates the Ma government's susceptibility to authoritarian habit, including Orwellian "double-speak."

While the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does mandate that a state "may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty," the Ma administration certainly did not handle the protocol as a "treaty" under the Republic of China Constitution.

In its Interpretation 329 issued in December 1993 on the issue of what "treaties" were and how they should be handled, the Constitutional Court essentially stated that all international agreements with ratification clauses and "administrative agreements" involving the national interests and people's rights and obligations should be submitted to the national legislature for deliberation.

This interpretation took account of the reality most international pacts signed by the Taiwan government are in the form of "administrative agreements" which normally do not require ratification in most countries.

The continued defiance of this principle by the KMT government, including its refusal to submit agreements signed with the authoritarian People's Republic of China for legislative ratification, constitute a "clear and present" threat to the survival of Taiwan's democracy as well as our national and health security.