Chinese adulterated food.

[Higgly]

We are all familiar with the stories of Chinese adulterated pet food. Fido and Mr. Boots going to an early grave with a heavy dose of melamine. The truth is that the Chinese have had an adulterated food problem for years. In the 90s, the Economist was reporting stories of babies dying in China because they had been fed a heavily advertised baby formula product that had no nutritional value. Mothers were bringing their babies in and doctors were asking them "Your baby is starving to death. Are you feeding him/her?" and the mothers would earnestly reply "Yes, I am feeding her/him with Special Recommended baby formula from the Number 9 machine tool factory. It is advertised everywhere".

Well who can fault them folks. We buys cars for the same reason....

Of course the Chinese government found the culprit and executed him properly. They sent the bill for the bullet to his poor mother, who still isn't sure what it was all about. Nothing like a public execution to teach everybody a lesson...

And then we have the western approach - set standards and inspect for compliance. The great thing about standards is that they are not only an enforcement tool, but they are also a teaching tool? Want to know how to build a good house? Go buy a copy of the CMHC building codes. Instead killing a whole lot of people (the customers plus the one dumb bastard who ran the company), you set up an infrastructure.

Who to do such a thing? The Chinese government? Well of course, but what the hell do they know? Not a lot apparently. The Americans, who know a lot about this, but are a pain in the ass and can't be trusted. Who then?

How about the UN? The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation? They know a lot about this. What have they been up to lately? Well fighting the US Congress of course. In fact a lot of the UN apparatus seems to be focussed on jackasses like John Bolton. I mean the guy has a great Mark Twain moustache but he has shown as much vision as a commuter trying to get home before supper gets cold.

Hmmm....

[guyser]

Well fighting the US Congress of course. In fact a lot of the UN apparatus seems to be focussed on jackasses like John Bolton. I mean the guy has a great Mark Twain moustache but he has shown as much vision as a commuter trying to get home before supper gets cold.

Hmmm....

Supper was served in December 2006 when he left the UN. Not sure if it was cold or not.

[M.Dancer]

It take a great contortionist to turn Chinese incompetance into the fault of the US.

Edited August 23, 2007 by M.Dancer

[kimmy]

Canada and the US can't even completely agree on a harmonized set of standards for food imports.

How much more complicated would it be trying to arrive at a harmonized set of standards that 150-odd countries are all happy with?

But I do agree that a set of globally recognized standards, and a credible means of inspecting and enforcing them, would sure be nice.

-k

[August1991]

Canada and the US can't even completely agree on a harmonized set of standards for food imports.

How much more complicated would it be trying to arrive at a harmonized set of standards that 150-odd countries are all happy with?

But I do agree that a set of globally recognized standards, and a credible means of inspecting and enforcing them, would sure be nice.

Between an employee of a corporation very much concerned about its reputation and an international bureaucrat who can't be fired, I think I know who I would ultimately trust more when it comes to the food I eat, or the din-dins my kitty gets.

[plug]BTW, Whiskas is doing well now because none of its meals were tainted.[/plug]

By and large, we don't buy food from China. We buy wrenches used in making food. How dangerous is this? Dunno. I live in a city where a viaduct collapsed and killed five people. As far as I know, the construction workers who built the bridge probably ate Chinese food at some point. Don't we all?

[margrace]

It take a great contortionist to turn Chinese incompetance into the fault of the US.

Boy you sure come up with some convoluted arguments. What exactly are you trying to prove?

[AngusThermopyle]

On this one I have to agree with M.Dancer. I noticed the rather pointed slur directed at the U.S. when I read the post. I wondered what poor Chinese quality control standards had to do with America. All nations have both faults and strong points, if relevant these should be mentioned, in this case however I find the statement made was totally irrelevant.

With manufacturing moving more and more to third world/emerging countries I believe the issue of standardization will become more immediate and at the same time far more difficult to achieve. Keep in mind also that many times associated problems can be laid at the door of an individual, not so much the standardization organization.

Any and all regulations are only as good as the effort to comply displayed by the individuals involved in the implementation of these regs. I must admit though, the Chinese method of ensuring compliance is rather extreme e.g. execution or suicide.

[Higgly]

OK, first of all, if the US were to get involved, it would only be addressing the problem from its own perspective and handing out solutions that serve its interests vis-a-vis its imports. That's why they would not be too trustworthy. Rather than look at the problem as how it affects we, the pampered princesses of the western world - or at least our percious pampered little furballs, how about looking at it from the Chinese perspective? Whatever ills may befall us here, think about what is happening to the people of China - ergo the baby formula example.

Is it coming into focus now?

The Chinese method of ensuring compliance is pretty much useless. You have to set standards and then inspect for compliance. Standards not only provide benchmarks for enforcement, they also are educational.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Higgly

[AngusThermopyle]

Higgly. A good part of your last post was based upon a hypothetical "if". If the U.S. were to become involved.... etc. As such it is irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion. I stand by what I said, it was unnecessary to cast stones in the manner you did in your initial post.

My next question to you is why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to ensure standards compliance for the rest of the world. In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the country producing the goods to ensure compliance is enforced.

[Higgly]

Higgly. A good part of your last post was based upon a hypothetical "if". If the U.S. were to become involved.... etc. As such it is irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion. I stand by what I said, it was unnecessary to cast stones in the manner you did in your initial post.

My next question to you is why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to ensure standards compliance for the rest of the world. In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the country producing the goods to ensure compliance is enforced.

OK, there was no if. I said the US are a pain in the ass and can't be trusted, and I later elaborated on my reasons. Can we all take a moment to review the sorry tale of the softwood lumber business? Are the Americans not over there right now trying to enforce their copyright laws? They're not doing that for the good of the Chinese. I can see them going over and making USDA compliance a condition of exporting food to the US, and then having that inspection regime and regulatory framework spreading to become a de facto standard. The Europeans have enough experience to fight this sort of bullying but the Chinese really are babes in the woods, whether they want to admit it or not.

It is not the responsibility of the US. Never said it was. It is, however, an excellent opportunity for the FAO to prove its worth. The Chinese and the Indians benefitted from not having a decent telephone network in place and ended up with brand spanking new mobile telephone facilities. They could do the same with food quality issues.

[AngusThermopyle]

There are things the U.S. government does that I disapprove of, there are also things our government does that I disapprove of too. I don't see that as reason to insult them though. If you look closely enough you'll find every nation on this planet has done, and is doing things that are questionable at best.

The point I'm trying to make is that the topic deals with Chinese standards, or lack there off. That being the case I find it really is unnecessary to slag our U.S. breatheren in that manner. what it does is distract from the point you are trying to make and in large part cheapens anything else you say after that.

I've known many Americans, have had American girlfriends, American contacts on a professional basis, American friends. In just about all cases I found them to be likeable people, very friendly. In fact a hell of a lot more likeable than the rabid Canadian type spouting their poison crap about others with a nauseating attitude of superiority.

If you don't know any Americans perhaps you should try getting to know a few.

[guyser]

My next question to you is why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to ensure standards compliance for the rest of the world. In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the country producing the goods to ensure compliance is enforced.

Not really.

As the US is the main retailer of these goods it is in their best interests to have a series of checks and balances with respect to thier products--NO matter where they are made.

The last recall about lead paint is a no brainer. There is nothing that stops the US retailer in doing a random check of the product as it comes in. After all, they are on the hook for the liability when the proverbial pooh hits the fan. Protect ones own . Any lawsuit brought against a US mfger or retailer will include the the (in this instance) Chinese maker, but that wont be binding when the fault is doled out. So if US guy is handed 20% liability and china guy 80%, the US person will have to cover the China portion.

It is not the US job to ensure standards, but they certianly are in the fore front to establish the limits.

[Higgly]

There are things the U.S. government does that I disapprove of, there are also things our government does that I disapprove of too. I don't see that as reason to insult them though.

:

If you don't know any Americans perhaps you should try getting to know a few.

I know plenty. Had lunch with one yesterday in fact.

The US is a pain in the ass. That's not an insult, it's a fact. They know they are a pain in the ass. They're proud of it. No reason to adopt everything they shove at you without question.

Take their copyright laws. Somebody like Lucille Ball produces a comedy show. Over the years puts in maybe a total of 3 years worth of work. She and her estate get paid forever every time somebody replays the show or a copy of it gets sold on DVD. Even worse, with the internet, Hollywood wants to charge every time somebody watches the show. How dumb is that? Say you're an engineer. You design a bridge. Do you get paid a penny every time somebody hoofs it across the bridge? The system is unsustainable, and in fact, it's silly, but still the US is running around all over the place trying to shove it down everybody else's throat. Now that's being a pain in the ass.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Higgly

[bush_cheney2004]

It is not the US job to ensure standards, but they certianly are in the fore front to establish the limits.

Why? Do you realize that with such thinking you are complicit in American hegemony (gasp!)? Abdicating responsibility to let the Americans "establish the limits" will definitely lead to "a pain in the ass".

[August1991]

Take their copyright laws. Somebody like Lucille Ball produces a comedy show. Over the years puts in maybe a total of 3 years worth of work. She and her estate get paid forever every time somebody replays the show or a copy of it gets sold on DVD. Even worse, with the internet, Hollywood wants to charge every time somebody watches the show. How dumb is that? Say you're an engineer. You design a bridge. Do you get paid a penny every time somebody hoofs it across the bridge? The system is unsustainable, and in fact, it's silly, but still the US is running around all over the place trying to shove it down everybody else's throat. Now that's being a pain in the ass.

Their copyright laws? We have similar laws too, and for good reason.

You don't pay GM when you rent a car from Hertz, but you do pay Hertz. By your logic, you should be able to take a rental car without paying for it. Indeed, by your logic, you should be able to take anybody's car at any time without paying for it. And following your logic to it's logical conclusion, why would anybody buy a car if someone else could just take it without having to pay for it. And if no one buys a car, why would anyone make them?

IOW, if we had no copyright laws, we'd have no entertainment industry.

The US is a pain in the ass. That's not an insult, it's a fact. They know they are a pain in the ass. They're proud of it. No reason to adopt everything they shove at you without question.

Given your immature reasoning above, I'm not surprised that you claim opinion to be fact.

[kimmy]

Between an employee of a corporation very much concerned about its reputation and an international bureaucrat who can't be fired, I think I know who I would ultimately trust more when it comes to the food I eat, or the din-dins my kitty gets.

[plug]BTW, Whiskas is doing well now because none of its meals were tainted.[/plug]

The pet food debacle was no doubt a serious blow to Iams and some other businesses who likewise bought tainted Chinese ingredients to put in their pet-food.

That doesn't actually bring back Fluffy, though, does it.

Companies, whether Iams, Mattel, or whoever, are playing the odds. I think in statistics it's referred to as a "expected payout" calculation.

if (savings from cheap Chinese ingredients)*(lprobability that nothing goes wrong) > (cost of something going wrong)*(probability of something going wrong) then buy cheap Chinese ingredients.

And this was really the worst case for Iams, because the pets became sick and died very quickly enough that they could be linked to the tainted product. And that the tainted product was still fresh on the shelves for the scientists to analyze.

It seems to me that a more likely situation would be that a company simply gets away with it. A woman is distraught when the ultrasound shows that her baby has no hands or feet, but no way of knowing whether it's linked to something she's ingested or if it was just part of "god's plan." If she's been eating imported food containing pesticides that civilized nations banned long ago, she doesn't know it and even if she suspected, how could she go about linking it to any particular product she's purchased?

So this is why I don't put a lot of faith in your argument that companies' concern for their own reputations will guarantee the safety of the products they provide. It seems to me that it's quite likely that a company can cut corners and save money while hurting their customers in a way that simply can't be traced back to them.

By and large, we don't buy food from China. We buy wrenches used in making food. How dangerous is this? Dunno. I live in a city where a viaduct collapsed and killed five people. As far as I know, the construction workers who built the bridge probably ate Chinese food at some point. Don't we all?

Flat out false. China is a huge exporter of food and agricultural products, most commonly in the form of concentrates. For instance, China is the world's largest producer of tomatoes. And only 15 percent of that crop is for domestic use. The rest is turned into concentrated tomato paste for export. Likewise many other fruits and vegetables. China produces a lot of concentrates and processed fruit and vegetable products. One needn't read very far to verify that. And one needn't read very far, either, to discover that there is considerable question as to Chinese agricultural practices: which pesticides are used, the extent to which produce is cleaned before processing, and so-on.

Who imports this stuff? We do, among others. Sun Rype, for instance, the BC fruit-juice company, admits that it buys some of its concentrates from foreign countries, including China.

"Product of Canada" doesn't mean much when it comes to knowing what actually goes into your stuff.

A company could import tap-water from Mexico and fruit concentrate from China and still be legally entitled to put "Product of Canada" on the label, just as long as they mix the concentrate and water here.

-k

[Higgly]

Their copyright laws? We have similar laws too, and for good reason.

You don't pay GM when you rent a car from Hertz, but you do pay Hertz. By your logic, you should be able to take a rental car without paying for it. Indeed, by your logic, you should be able to take anybody's car at any time without paying for it. And following your logic to it's logical conclusion, why would anybody buy a car if someone else could just take it without having to pay for it. And if no one buys a car, why would anyone make them?

IOW, if we had no copyright laws, we'd have no entertainment industry.

Given your immature reasoning above, I'm not surprised that you claim opinion to be fact.

Oh my. Do we have a member of the entertainment industry here? Watching too muh E-talk Daily an make you grouchy.

Sure you'd have an entertainment industry. It would just be in a different form than it is now.

In any case, this has little to do with the original thread topic. Move on please.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Higgly

[scribblet]

So this is why I don't put a lot of faith in your argument that companies' concern for their own reputations will guarantee the safety of the products they provide. It seems to me that it's quite likely that a company can cut corners and save money while hurting their customers in a way that simply can't be traced back to them.

Flat out false. China is a huge exporter of food and agricultural products, most commonly in the form of concentrates. For instance, China is the world's largest producer of tomatoes. And only 15 percent of that crop is for domestic use. The rest is turned into concentrated tomato paste for export. Likewise many other fruits and vegetables. China produces a lot of concentrates and processed fruit and vegetable products. One needn't read very far to verify that. And one needn't read very far, either, to discover that there is considerable question as to Chinese agricultural practices: which pesticides are used, the extent to which produce is cleaned before processing, and so-on.

Who imports this stuff? We do, among others. Sun Rype, for instance, the BC fruit-juice company, admits that it buys some of its concentrates from foreign countries, including China.

"Product of Canada" doesn't mean much when it comes to knowing what actually goes into your stuff.

A company could import tap-water from Mexico and fruit concentrate from China and still be legally entitled to put "Product of Canada" on the label, just as long as they mix the concentrate and water here.

-k

Good info, and goes to show that we need better labelling as to where the product is actually grown or produced. Is there a site somewhere that gives the info on various products, I won't be buying anything from Sun Rype knowing where it buys from now.

[kimmy]

Good info, and goes to show that we need better labelling as to where the product is actually grown or produced. Is there a site somewhere that gives the info on various products, I won't be buying anything from Sun Rype knowing where it buys from now.

What makes you think that Sun-Rype's competitors are any better?

The radio show on which I heard this indicated that they'd asked a number of companies where they purchase their concentrates, and Sun Rype was the only one willing to give them a specific answer.

-k

[August1991]

The pet food debacle was no doubt a serious blow to Iams and some other businesses who likewise bought tainted Chinese ingredients to put in their pet-food.

That doesn't actually bring back Fluffy, though, does it.

Companies, whether Iams, Mattel, or whoever, are playing the odds. I think in statistics it's referred to as a "expected payout" calculation.

if (savings from cheap Chinese ingredients)*(lprobability that nothing goes wrong) > (cost of something going wrong)*(probability of something going wrong) then buy cheap Chinese ingredients.

And this was really the worst case for Iams, because the pets became sick and died very quickly enough that they could be linked to the tainted product. And that the tainted product was still fresh on the shelves for the scientists to analyze.

One could make the same argument about any activity or action. When you fly on an airplane, you are literally puting your life into many anonymous people's hands. In fact, in the past, many people died in airplane crashes until airlines and airplane manufacturers learned how to build and fly safer planes.

Here's an example closer to home. Everytime you press the brake pedal, you are trusting unknown engineers, mechanics and factory workers with your life.

"Product of Canada" doesn't mean much when it comes to knowing what actually goes into your stuff.

A company could import tap-water from Mexico and fruit concentrate from China and still be legally entitled to put "Product of Canada" on the label, just as long as they mix the concentrate and water here.

If I'm not mistaken, the use of the phrase "Product of Canada" is determined by a bureaucrat in Ottawa. So you are really undermining your own argument with that example.

In the wake of the Menu Foods problem of tainted Chinese ingredients, I think it's reasonable to assume that many food companies in North America immediately reviewed carefully their suppliers and the suppliers of their suppliers. Why? They stand to make alot more in future profits by protecting their brand names than in the few quick bucks they can save now by using mystery meat for the "meat byproducts".

And Kimmy, if a bureaucrat makes a mistake and approves for consumption a tainted shipment, or if a bureaucrat doesn't police properly the correct use of labelling, what recourse do you have? Can we sue the bureaucrat? Can we even fire the bureaucrat?

Now compare that with what people did when several DC-10 planes crashed shortly after the plane was first introduced in the 1970s.

[kimmy]

One could make the same argument about any activity or action. When you fly on an airplane, you are literally puting your life into many anonymous people's hands. In fact, in the past, many people died in airplane crashes until airlines and airplane manufacturers learned how to build and fly safer planes.

Here's an example closer to home. Everytime you press the brake pedal, you are trusting unknown engineers, mechanics and factory workers with your life.

I strongly suspect that the functioning of that brake pedal is regulated by a set of standards that was instituted by the US Department of Transportation (and corresponding national entities in other countries) and probably derived from research and study done by agencies like Underwriters Laboratories.

A quick survey of my apartment shows that everything that I can plug into my AC outlets has a "UL" certification logo somewhere on it. Having your electrical product UL-certified appears to be a standard practice of some sort.

Is it a legislated standard? (ie, a bureaucrat somewhere deemed that products sold in Canada must be UL certified?)

Or is it a de-facto standard? (ie, manufacturers have their products UL certified before they go to market because they believe it is important for business reasons?)

I don't actually know which is the case.

However, I am under the impression that UL is a private business that sells, essentially, piece of mind. If you're a manufacturer, having your product UL certified means that you've had your product thoroughly studied to make sure it's safe. If you're a consumer, buying a product with the UL logo means that you're buying something that has been thoroughly studied to make sure it's safe. I am under the impression that Underwriters is independent and takes the integrity of their logo very seriously.

If food suppliers are concerned about their reputation, perhaps there is some need for a food safety equivalent of UL. An independent organization who studies food manufacture and can credibly assure consumers that what they're about to eat was prepared according to acceptable standards and contains safe ingredients.

If I'm not mistaken, the use of the phrase "Product of Canada" is determined by a bureaucrat in Ottawa. So you are really undermining your own argument with that example.

That current implementation of the "Product of Canada" designation is woefully behind present industry practices does not invalidate the idea of having such a designation.

In the wake of the Menu Foods problem of tainted Chinese ingredients, I think it's reasonable to assume that many food companies in North America immediately reviewed carefully their suppliers and the suppliers of their suppliers. Why? They stand to make alot more in future profits by protecting their brand names than in the few quick bucks they can save now by using mystery meat for the "meat byproducts".

They reviewed their practices because the Menu Foods disaster forced them to substantially reevaluate the probabilities in their "expected payout" equation.

And Kimmy, if a bureaucrat makes a mistake and approves for consumption a tainted shipment, or if a bureaucrat doesn't police properly the correct use of labelling, what recourse do you have? Can we sue the bureaucrat? Can we even fire the bureaucrat?

Perhaps we should follow the Chinese model for dealing with these bureaucrats...

Now compare that with what people did when several DC-10 planes crashed shortly after the plane was first introduced in the 1970s.

Consumers had the option of not flying on a DC10 if they're not sure the bugs have been worked out.

They had the option of not buying a Corvair or a Pinto if they're not sure they're safe.

Shouldn't consumers have a corresponding choice when deciding whether they wish to eat Chinese products?

Being allowed to put a "Product of Canada" designation on stuff that's made of Chinese concentrates is like selling somebody on a Mustang but delivering them a Pinto. Except that you as a food consumer have no way of determining whether your Mustang is actually a Pinto, and instead of exploding in one sudden impact, your food might hurt you so slowly and gradually that you might never know what exactly caused your health to fail.

-k