• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is China's Food Production Poisoning Us?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

CHINA company caught again!

SHANGHAI, CHINA — Earlier today it was announced that exports from Maling Food Co., one of China's best-known food makers, were halted after Hong Kong authorities said they found unsafe chemicals in canned luncheon meat, according to the Associated Press.

The Shanghai-based processor has since said it had sent top executives to Hong Kong to assist with an investigation into allegations that a shipment of its meat, which is about as famous in China as Spam is in the United States, was contaminated with the antibiotic nitrofurans, which is thought to cause cancer.
In recent days Chinese officials have vowed to tighten controls on food processors, slaughterhouses and other suppliers to help improve safety. China also recently closed more than 6,000 slaughterhouses and created a database of 23,052 slaughter facilities across the country as part of its campaign to improve food safety, the report added.

When traveling aboard , request that no Chinese food products be served to you for food safety reasons.
 
When traveling aboard , request that no Chinese food products be served to you for food safety reasons.
Click to expand...

Is that a joke? Other countries seem to care more about their people and are or have passed laws..... its the United States that refuses to protect its people......
 
Bone fragments found in U.S. beef shipment

Sunday, December 9, 2007
CNA


TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The Department of Health (DOH) said Saturday that two bone fragments were found in a shipment of imported U.S. beef, marking the third such case within the last two weeks.
Hsieh Ting-hung, deputy director of the DOH's Bureau of Food Safety, said that the beef was from Colorado based Swift Beef Co., which has been banned by the DOH from shipping its products to Taiwan since Nov. 27.

However, he said that beef in question was already on its way to Taiwan in mid November, so the DOH accepted the application for inspection from the Taipei importer.

The two pieces of bone fragments measure 2.4 centimeters and 4.8 centimeters in size, respectively Hsieh said, adding that the importer will now have to send back or destroy the shipment.

Two bone fragments were also found in a Swift Beef Co. shipment in late November. Earlier, Cargill of Nebraska was also banned from shipping its products to Taiwan for the same reason.

The number of U.S. beef packaging houses allowed to export their products to Taiwan now stands at 44.

Taiwan banned beef imports from the United States in December 2003 after the discovery in Washington State of a single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease.

In April 2005, Taiwan lifted an import ban on U.S. boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age but then suspended American beef imports again on June 25 of the same year after a second case of mad cow disease was confirmed in the United States.

Taiwan lifted the second ban on Jan. 25, 2006, but in April 2006, Taiwan found bone fragments in a shipment of beef from U.S. meat supplier Tyson Fresh Meats, leading Taipei to halve its imports from the packing house.


http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/12/09/134173/Bone-fragments.htm
 
I bought some "boneless" pork chops in one of the locally owned stores in Pierre, SD a while back. While preparing to cook them, I was disappointed that the considerable fat cover was carefully hidden by placing it at the bottom of the package.

Not as troubling was the fact that there definitely were bone chips in the meat, obviously due to careless, or machine cutting. One certainly was small as a piece of a fingernail, and another was about the size and twice as thick as a quarter. It seems illogical that unless we are willing to have such products X-RAYED, exposing the fears of health effects some people will attribute to that process, it is nearly impossible to avoid such "contamination" or "mis-labeling" of meats.

mrj
 
mrj said:
I bought some "boneless" pork chops in one of the locally owned stores in Pierre, SD a while back. While preparing to cook them, I was disappointed that the considerable fat cover was carefully hidden by placing it at the bottom of the package.

Not as troubling was the fact that there definitely were bone chips in the meat, obviously due to careless, or machine cutting. One certainly was small as a piece of a fingernail, and another was about the size and twice as thick as a quarter. It seems illogical that unless we are willing to have such products X-RAYED, exposing the fears of health effects some people will attribute to that process, it is nearly impossible to avoid such "contamination" or "mis-labeling" of meats.

mrj
Click to expand...

Bone chips wouldn't be an issue if the USDA had not exceeded their authority, stiffled value addition, and quashed private enterprise (with NCBA's blessing) by banning BSE testing. Those countries don't like being bullies, and if the USDA wants to be a-holes, they can be a-holes right back. Meanwhile, how much money have US cattlemen lost so far?
 
Sandhusker said:
mrj said:
I bought some "boneless" pork chops in one of the locally owned stores in Pierre, SD a while back. While preparing to cook them, I was disappointed that the considerable fat cover was carefully hidden by placing it at the bottom of the package.

Not as troubling was the fact that there definitely were bone chips in the meat, obviously due to careless, or machine cutting. One certainly was small as a piece of a fingernail, and another was about the size and twice as thick as a quarter. It seems illogical that unless we are willing to have such products X-RAYED, exposing the fears of health effects some people will attribute to that process, it is nearly impossible to avoid such "contamination" or "mis-labeling" of meats.

mrj
Click to expand...

Bone chips wouldn't be an issue if the USDA had not exceeded their authority, stiffled value addition, and quashed private enterprise (with NCBA's blessing) by banning BSE testing. Those countries don't like being bullies, and if the USDA wants to be a-holes, they can be a-holes right back. Meanwhile, how much money have US cattlemen lost so far?
Click to expand...

mrj is way too interested in defending the party line than to think that far back to find the truth, Sandhusker.

Can you say "bumpkin"?
 
China's processing water is poisoned

But it is in China - the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gas - that the water problem is most pronounced, as fears grow that the country is turning into an ecological disaster area. The head of the country's national development agency said recently that a quarter of the length of China's seven main rivers was so poisoned that the water was harmful to the skin. Moreover, water-related issues are sparking popular protests after the sanctioning of dams and irrigation projects that have displaced hundreds of thousands of people who have no recourse to compensation. Beijing has passed legislation to punish companies that pollute supplies but, in China, such laws can be difficult to enforce.

So pressing are issues surrounding water that China has invited Western companies to run systems in many towns and cities. One of the biggest is French-owned Veolia, once part of the Vivendi utilities empire. In parts of China, water provided by Veolia no longer has to be boiled, but the cost to consumers has doubled. For the middle class, the price is still relatively low - but most Chinese are not middle class. Many say up to half their income is now being swallowed by water bills. That leaves Beijing between a rock and a hard place because, like many emerging economies, it desperately needs Western know-how and technology to solve its water problems, as China's food system is polluted.The Washington Post has unearthed FDA documents showing human food shipments from China with high levels of carcinogens, filth, and pesticides.
A former FDA associate commissioner, William Hubbard, told the Globe this last spring that just 2 percent of all food imports from China get inspected - even with that country's checkered safety record problems.
 
It may be better being a true "bumpkin" (though I really can't claim to be one, I think they are rather sweet people) than one of those on this site who resort to name-calling and put-downs to compensate for having no facts to present. I RARELY use the terms or names those people deserve! And won't do so now.

FACT: I'm far more interested in questioning the accusers who make charges and claims and charges against the systems providing the broadest and, yes, the safest! food production and distribution system in the world with no suggestions other than breaking up those systems and slowing down the speed of commerce as 'solutions' for problems than I am in any so called "party line" which exists ONLY in you imagination, Tex/Econ.

My previous post was simply relating an experience demonstrating some simple irritation with a product purchased in a small, independently owned grocery store......demonstrating that poor product quality control happens in all sizes of businesses.

I know that isn't so popular with those dominating bull session these days as is joining in the 'dog pile' of accusations against the perceived evils of corporate businesses, and accusations of lack of moral character of people in management and/or ownership of same.

Tex....Econ, if you had a leg to stand on here, you would not need to hide out and change your 'name' attempting to make readers believe your outlandish views have more support on this site than they really do.

mrj
 
China is estimated to be the source of 83 per cent of the total counterfeit goods seized at EU borders in 2006, according to figures from the European Commission.

As a result of this fraud, some European manufacturers estimated in April that intellectual property right infringement in China was costing business within the bloc one in every five euros earned in the country.

Spirit manufacturing remains an area of particular concern though, according to a recent survey of customs authorities and companies conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Industry respondents noted that the most common infringement was the refilling of original bottles with inferior substitutes, the OECD reported.

Alcohol commonly used in cocktails are also particularly attractive as the mixer can mask the distinctive taste of the underlying alcoholic base, the OECD stated.

While many of the substitutions use original bottles and are carried out as small scale cottage industries, industry representatives noted the increasing evidence of large scale operations that include the use of semi-automated bottling lines as well as sophisticated printing machines, the OECD stated.

The investment in such operations could also include bottle moulds, production of packaging and the production of raw spirit. Industry representatives indicated that organised crime may be entering the sector.

The majority of infringements in the food and drink industry involve the misappropriation of trademarks or registered designs, the OECD noted.

Recent research has suggested that China has begun to act against some local group's

According to findings by the US Department of Agriculture, in certain situations, the Chinese government has already been stepping in to repeal trademarks deemed as being unfairly registered.

Not all companies have been this lucky though, last year Italian chocolate maker Ferrero revealed that "copycat" products of its brands in China were hindering its growth in the country.

Despite having been operating in China since 1984, the group decided to take the copyright issue to the country's courts.

The move came over allegations that local confectioner Montresor had packaged one of its chocolate products identically to Ferrero's, Ferrero Rocher brand.

Lawyers for Montresor claimed that the Chinese firm uses its own original packaging design.
 
One has got to wonder whether we should ask for a refund from all the political appointees who were supposed to be protecting our intellectual rights and our safety with foreign trade.


Oh, I know, globalism is inevitable. So is ignorance, if you are so inclined.
 
Tex said:
Oh, I know, globalism is inevitable. So is ignorance, if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good one, Tex.

Globalism is inevitable, but how it's regulated is the issue. USA manufacturers have to pay living wages with benefits to workers...China and India pay their workers pennies per hour. Trade with these countries is called 'free trade', yet what is fair about this trade to the USA manufacturers??????
 
RM, how have you accounted for the extreme pressure to 'outsource' perceived 'dirty' indrustrial production from the Enviro-extremists as a cause of "Globalism"?

Don't forget that Al Gore and others of like mind have indicated we should outsource want animal agricultural production because they believe it 'fouls' THEIR environmant like industrial production did.

BTW, isn't it fact that quality of life, including incomes, IS improving in China and other oppressive nations due to trade? "Pennies per hour" may go further in those places than here, too. No one should be oppressed, and increased freedom isn't always easily won. It just might help if improvements, when made, were recognized rather than continually berating governments for being too slow at it.

mrj

mrj
 
mrj said:
It may be better being a true "bumpkin" (though I really can't claim to be one, I think they are rather sweet people) than one of those on this site who resort to name-calling and put-downs to compensate for having no facts to present. I RARELY use the terms or names those people deserve! And won't do so now.

FACT: I'm far more interested in questioning the accusers who make charges and claims and charges against the systems providing the broadest and, yes, the safest! food production and distribution system in the world with no suggestions other than breaking up those systems and slowing down the speed of commerce as 'solutions' for problems than I am in any so called "party line" which exists ONLY in you imagination, Tex/Econ.

Tex: You are so interested in the speed of commerce that you don't even support systems to prevent lead from being in toys from China. You are interested in allowing corporate frauds just to make a buck. I am not bent on breaking up systems of trade, just systems of fraud and fast profits on those frauds. You are not.

My previous post was simply relating an experience demonstrating some simple irritation with a product purchased in a small, independently owned grocery store......demonstrating that poor product quality control happens in all sizes of businesses.

I know that isn't so popular with those dominating bull session these days as is joining in the 'dog pile' of accusations against the perceived evils of corporate businesses, and accusations of lack of moral character of people in management and/or ownership of same.

Tex: Not all corporations are "evil" but they aren't all good either. I propose solutions that make the bad not profitable and therefore not competitors with the honest in commerce. You believe in business profits over everything, including out and out fraud. Your inability to separate (or even try) the wheat from the chaff shows you have no ability to judge right from wrong.

Tex....Econ, if you had a leg to stand on here, you would not need to hide out and change your 'name' attempting to make readers believe your outlandish views have more support on this site than they really do.

Tex: mrj, I don't need to change my name to make readers believe in anything. It is your character fault that you need numbers or important people to say things rather than be able to listen and make up your mind based on the facts, not the characters involved. I wonder sometimes, if you are a Christian, whether you think you will be able to turn around and answer The Judge based on what a group of people say.

mrj
Click to expand...
 
Tex/Con's first lie is that I don't support preventing lead in toys.

Lead should not be in ANY toys from ANYWHERE. I've never said it should. It would be at least as correct and fair to say that Tex believes parents have no responsibility to protect small children from having small toys they could and might swallow.

I've repeatedly stated that PROVEN fraud (and profits gained from fraud) by ANYONE, not just corporations, should be stopped and perpetrators punished.

It's ridiculous to say I believe in business profits "over eveything". We surely do not operate that way, nor do I believe profit is a dirty word, as you constantly insinuate it is.....until you are called on it, that is.

Really, Tex/Con(man), your preaching on morality and judgement of others based solely on your crystal ball telling you what people are THINKING makes you look more foolish and like a charlatan every day!

Obviously, your crystal ball fails you yet again! Or you refuse to admit that I can listen to many voices and consider facts in my own mind to arrive at conclusions and opions different from your own. Does this apply only to me, or do you judge all people and their opinions the same way????

mrj
 
mrj said:
Tex/Con's first lie is that I don't support preventing lead in toys.

Lead should not be in ANY toys from ANYWHERE. I've never said it should. It would be at least as correct and fair to say that Tex believes parents have no responsibility to protect small children from having small toys they could and might swallow.

I've repeatedly stated that PROVEN fraud (and profits gained from fraud) by ANYONE, not just corporations, should be stopped and perpetrators punished.

It's ridiculous to say I believe in business profits "over eveything". We surely do not operate that way, nor do I believe profit is a dirty word, as you constantly insinuate it is.....until you are called on it, that is.

Really, Tex/Con(man), your preaching on morality and judgement of others based solely on your crystal ball telling you what people are THINKING makes you look more foolish and like a charlatan every day!

Obviously, your crystal ball fails you yet again! Or you refuse to admit that I can listen to many voices and consider facts in my own mind to arrive at conclusions and opions different from your own. Does this apply only to me, or do you judge all people and their opinions the same way????

mrj
Click to expand...

mrj, I don't mind opinions other than my own. What I do mind is uninformed opinions that do not change even when information is provided that is irrefutable.

I am still waiting to see you refute the NCBA quotes, if you can. By the way, Senator Brownback, who thought Phil Gramm was the best economist in the world, and whose wife (Wendy Gramm) was on the board of Enron, and IBP (had to know the market frauds or was put on those boards just for political purposes which is just bribery) couldn't refute the comments on the floor of the Senate when he quoted NCBA untruths and was confronted.

I would like to see you react to the truth and actually win an argument instead of just making up stuff and then saying you have dirty laundry to take care of.
 
Change happens when information is provided that is irrefutable.

Distributor and retailer drop China-sourced fresh ginger
by Joan Murphy
12/12/2007
WASHINGTON -- Christopher Ranch Foods, based in Gilroy, CA, said that it has stopped sourcing fresh ginger from China after last summer's discovery of harmful pesticides and has switched to Brazilian varieties.

"No Chinese ginger will be brought in until they figure out what's going on" with the country's food-safety programs, said Bill Christopher, managing partner of Christopher Ranch. The company said that it now sources from Brazil half the year and Hawaii the other half, and it conducts its own tests for contaminants.

"We learned a good lesson. People need to test it before it comes in," he added.

California officials detected aldicarb sulfoxide, a pesticide not allowed on ginger, during routine sampling and alerted Christopher Ranch. On July 29, the California Department of Public Health warned consumers not to eat fresh ginger imported from China, one of the world's larger ginger producers. Retailers have been making similar decisions after finding problems with China-sourced foods.

Safeway said that it was currently not carrying ginger from China after California regulators found fresh ginger contaminated with unsafe pesticide levels this summer. Safeway decided not to carry the products, and "that's the case for the foreseeable future," said a spokesperson for the supermarket chain.

In the meantime, Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt is traveling to China during the week of Dec. 10 to broker safety agreements with Chinese officials on food, feed, drugs and medical devices.

This comes as Congress is reviewing the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's current spending levels for this year and the Bush administration is developing its fiscal 2009 budget, the one that is expected to include budget increases to implement the new import food-safety plan, which was released by the agency this fall.
 
Glory Be! An example of the market place solving a problem before government can pass massive new regulations to 'fix' the problem.

And some of you thought it couldn't be done!

mrj
 
mrj said:
Glory Be! An example of the market place solving a problem before government can pass massive new regulations to 'fix' the problem.

And some of you thought it couldn't be done!

mrj
Click to expand...

Do you think Tyson and Cargill will do the same?
 

Latest posts

Top