• 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:

Bullroar , SHES BEING paid to keep CHINESE CRAP Coming !
Nord and Waterfield need to share the same jail cell !!!!!!!!!!!!


October 31, 2007
Chinese Chemicals Flow Unchecked to World Drug Market
By WALT BOGDANICH
This article was reported by Walt Bogdanich, Jake Hooker and Andrew W. Lehren and written by Mr. Bogdanich.

MILAN — In January, Honor International Pharmtech was accused of shipping counterfeit drugs into the United States. Even so, the Chinese chemical company — whose motto is "Thinking Much of Honor" — was openly marketing its products in October to thousands of buyers here at the world's biggest trade show for pharmaceutical ingredients.

Other Chinese chemical companies made the journey to the annual show as well, including one manufacturer recently accused by American authorities of supplying steroids to illegal underground labs and another whose representative was arrested at the 2006 trade show for patent violations. Also attending were two exporters owned by China's government that had sold poison mislabeled as a drug ingredient, which killed nearly 200 people and injured countless others in Haiti and in Panama.

Yet another chemical company, Orient Pacific International, reserved an exhibition booth in Milan, but its owner, Kevin Xu, could not attend. He was in a Houston jail on charges of selling counterfeit medicine for schizophrenia, prostate cancer, blood clots and Alzheimer's disease, among other maladies.

While these companies hardly represent all of the nearly 500 Chinese exhibitors, more than from any other country, they do point to a deeper problem: Pharmaceutical ingredients exported from China are often made by chemical companies that are neither certified nor inspected by Chinese drug regulators, The New York Times has found.

Because the chemical companies are not required to meet even minimal drug-manufacturing standards, there is little to stop them from exporting unapproved, adulterated or counterfeit ingredients. The substandard formulations made from those ingredients often end up in pharmacies in developing countries and for sale on the Internet, where more Americans are turning for cheap medicine.

In Milan, The Times identified at least 82 Chinese chemical companies that said they made and exported pharmaceutical ingredients — yet not one was certified by the State Food and Drug Administration in China, records show. Nonetheless, the companies were negotiating deals at the pharmaceutical show, where suppliers wooed customers with live music, wine and vibrating chairs.

One of them was the Wuxi Hexia Chemical Company. When The Times showed Yan Jiangying, a top Chinese drug regulator, a list of 186 products being advertised by the company, including active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished drugs, Ms. Yan said, "This is definitely against the law."

Yet in China, chemical manufacturers that sell drug ingredients fall into a regulatory hole. Pharmaceutical companies are regulated by the food and drug agency. Chemical companies that make products as varied as fertilizer and industrial solvents are overseen by other agencies. The problem arises when chemical companies cross over into drug ingredients. "We have never investigated a chemical company," said Ms. Yan, deputy director of policy and regulation at the State Food and Drug Administration. "We don't have jurisdiction."

China's health officials have known of this regulatory gap since at least the mid-1990s, when a chemical company sold a tainted ingredient that killed nearly 100 children in Haiti. But Chinese regulatory agencies have failed to cooperate to stop chemical companies from exporting drug products.

In 2006, at least 138 Panamanians died or were disabled after another Chinese chemical company sold the same poisonous ingredient, diethylene glycol, which was mixed into cold medicine.

China has an estimated 80,000 chemical companies, and the United States Food and Drug Administration does not know how many sell ingredients used in drugs consumed by Americans.

The Times examined thousands of companies selling products on major business-to-business Internet trading sites and found more than 1,300 chemical companies offering pharmaceutical ingredients. How many others sell drug ingredients but don't advertise this way on the Web is not known.

If the Milan show is any guide, most, if not all, are not certified by China's drug authorities.

China exports drug ingredients to customers in 150 countries, said Sun Dongliang, a Chinese trade official who helped organize his country's Milan exhibitors. Many suppliers have passed inspections by drug authorities and sell active pharmaceutical ingredients, or A.P.I.'s, of high quality, buyers say.

"Sometimes you can just have your lunch on the floor of the factory because it's so clean and so perfect, sometimes much better than in Europe," said Jean-François Quarre, a French drug company official who had a booth in Milan. But Mr. Quarre cautioned that he has seen the other side as well. "It's frightening."

At their worst, uncertified chemical companies contribute to China's notoriety as the world's biggest supplier of counterfeit drugs, which include unauthorized copies as well as substandard, even harmful, formulations. "Underregulated manufacturers are increasingly becoming the source of A.P.I.'s used in the production of counterfeit medicine," R. John Theriault, until recently Pfizer's head of global security, said in a statement to Congress.

Because United States drug regulators require pharmaceutical suppliers to meet high standards, the American supply chain is among the world's safest. But as China's chemical suppliers multiply, Congressional investigators are questioning the F.D.A.'s ability to protect consumers.

Even some Chinese chemical companies recognize their limitations in making pharmaceuticals.

"We don't have the resources and means to produce medicine," said Gu Jinfeng, a salesman for Changzhou Watson Fine Chemical. "The bar for producing chemicals is pretty low."

Even so, Watson Chemical advertises that it makes active pharmaceutical ingredients. But Mr. Gu said he would export them only to countries with lower standards than China, or if "we can earn really good profits."

A Trail of Steroids

Just days before the Milan trade show, United States officials made an announcement that brought home the global reach and attendant dangers of China's expanding chemical industry. The officials disclosed that they had dismantled a 27-state underground network for steroids and human growth hormone, arresting 124 people in "Operation Raw Deal."

The supply trail almost always led to China. Thirty-seven companies there supplied virtually all of the bulk chemicals, federal officials said.

Of the 37 suspect companies, all but one unnamed by the American authorities, The Times identified eight. Records show that six are uncertified chemical companies, including Hunan Steroid, which marketed its products at the Milan convention.

"Just want to see the old customers and develop the new market," said Sun Xueqin, a deputy export manager for Hunan Steroid. Ms. Sun said the company sold raw pharmaceutical ingredients in Europe and America and more advanced pharmaceutical ingredients in India, among other places.

Later, another Hunan official, Huang Zili, said the company did not sell to the United States, and declined to comment on the government's contention that Hunan was a supplier of bodybuilding drugs. Hunan has not been charged with any crime.

As serious as the accusations are in Operation Raw Deal, health experts say they believe that counterfeit drugs, particularly those sold on the Internet, pose a greater threat to a broader segment of the American public.

"The facts are irrefutable," Mr. Theriault, the former Pfizer official, told Congress. "The importation of counterfeit, infringing, misbranded and unapproved pharmaceutical products in the United States is increasing exponentially." Pfizer makes Viagra, one of the drugs most often counterfeited.

Finding uncertified companies feeding the market is not difficult. Orient Pacific International, the Milan registrant whose owner did not show up, advertised that it makes and exports pharmaceutical ingredients to "worldwide famous medical companies." The owner, Mr. Xu, is accused of selling counterfeit medicine to treat ailments like cancer, mental illness and heart disease, according to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or I.C.E.

Mr. Xu shipped drugs to an Internet pharmacy, investigators say. But he also penetrated the highly regulated supply chain of legitimate distributors in Europe, said David A. Faulconer, a customs official. Acting on tips from large drug companies, federal officials devised a plan to stop him from doing the same in the United States.

Posing as a buyer, an investigator for the immigration and customs agency met Mr. Xu in Bangkok on March 6. Mr. Xu gave him "detailed suggestions for transshipment and smuggling techniques to evade United States Customs detection," federal records show.

After investigators bought multiple shipments of counterfeit drugs, Mr. Xu traveled to Houston "to consummate an agreement for widespread distribution of his counterfeit products in the United States," according to an affidavit filed in federal court. Federal agents arrested Mr. Xu, who has pleaded not guilty.

Another company exhibiting in Milan, Honor International Pharmtech, was also the subject of a customs investigation. In January, agents seized 3,041 fake Viagra pills sent by the company to a DHL shipping hub in Wilmington, Ohio, according to customs.

The shipment, disguised as grape seed extract, was destined for an Internet pharmacy in Central America, said agents who requested anonymity because the investigation continues.

"We do make grape seed extract," the company's managing director, Nie An, said in a telephone interview. He denied shipping counterfeit Viagra, but he acknowledged other indiscretions: making false advertising claims, using another company's import-export license and creating a fake corporate name.

"We don't really have a factory," Mr. Nie said, even though he advertised that he did. Honor International is just a trading company, he said, adding, "As a trading company, saying you can manufacture attracts business. It was fake advertising."

The Times found several other companies posing as manufacturers, thereby obscuring a drug's provenance. In a recent joint statement, chemical associations in the United States and Europe cautioned that globalization has led to a rise in complexity in supply chains, "increasing the potential for contamination, mislabeling or substitution."

Pharmaceutical ingredients can pass through three or four trading companies, none of which check their quality. The ultimate manufacturer may not realize the ingredients came from an uncertified chemical company.

Mr. Nie, for example, said he markets Viagra's main ingredient, sildenafil, through a partnership with a chemical company in a distant region that he has never visited. "We met them at a trade fair," he said. "This company didn't even have a booth at the fair. They were standing outside the entrance to the exhibition center, and they handed us a flier with a menu of their products."

He said he was trying to the reach the factory, which has no Web site, to fill a Croatian company's order.

"Our main markets are in Latin America — Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay," he said. "A little in Canada, a little in the United States. In Europe, we export to Germany, Russia, Italy." But Mr. Nie faces an uncertain future. He said that Chinese investigators had recently visited his office, and that they knew about the seizure in Ohio.

Viagra is hardly the only drug that companies try to copy. The French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis grew weary of watching other companies sell knockoffs of its new diet drug, Acomplia, and alerted French authorities that three Chinese companies were marketing their own version of the product at the 2006 pharmaceutical ingredient trade show, held in Paris. Six Chinese company officials were arrested.

One of those arrested in Paris was Jin Lijie, managing director of the Wuxi Hexia Chemical Company. Still, Wuxi Hexia showed up in Milan in 2007 selling a line of pharmaceutical ingredients.

Its representatives declined to be interviewed in Milan, or at its offices in the boomtown of Wuxi. "We are all young college graduates and we are still learning about the market," said an employee named Du Yanqun.

Factories on the Yangtze

A good place to find companies selling uncertified drug ingredients is Changzhou in the Yangtze delta, where the raw materials for chemical production are readily available and easily transported by canals and roads.

Several factories there sent representatives to Milan, including the Changzhou Kangrui Chemical Company. It makes pharmaceutical ingredients in an old converted steel plant. "I'm afraid it will leave you with a bad impression," said Zhou Ladi, a sales representative, as she gave a tour. She said Kangrui Chemical hopes to move into a new plant by early 2009.

"As long as we don't export products that are under patent in other countries, the government encourages us to export," she said.

To help find customers overseas, smaller factories enlist the services of people like Bian Jingya, export manager for a trading company called the Changzhou Wejia Chemical Company.

Ms. Bian said chemical companies are involved in all phases of drug manufacturing, including making finished products. Some, she said, "are under patent in other countries."

Ms. Bian, who was also in Milan, said the government should spell out more clearly what companies may and may not do. "If you want to be regulated, they will regulate you," she said. "If you don't want to be regulated, they don't."

The Chinese drug agency does not oversee the making of pharmaceutical raw materials, called intermediates, which are the building blocks for active pharmaceutical ingredients. "It is unrealistic for us to certify all factories that make intermediates and regulate them like medicine products," said Ms. Yan, the agency official. But if companies make active ingredients, a more refined product, then they must be regulated by drug authorities, she said.

When The Times pointed out that many uncertified chemical companies openly advertise active ingredients, Ms. Yan said that was illegal. "If there are in fact chemical companies that are making drugs without certification then this is very serious," she said. "These companies are not qualified to make medicine. They make chemicals."

Wang Siqing, managing director of the Changzhou Yabang Pharmaceutical Company, estimated that uncertified chemical companies make half the active pharmaceutical ingredients sold in China. "The stuff produced by chemical plants is clearly counterfeit medicine, but they aren't investigating," Mr. Wang said in an interview at his office. "This has been happening in a regulatory void." He added that most chemical company exports go to unregulated markets in Africa or South America. "That's not to say these products don't enter the United States through these other countries," he said.

To find out how well American consumers are being protected from unsafe imported drugs, investigators from the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently accompanied F.D.A. officials on inspections of drug plants in China and India.

In a letter to the F.D.A. commissioner, the committee said that the agency was unable to provide such basic information as the number of firms exporting to the United States, and that overseas F.D.A. inspectors lacked necessary logistical support. A House hearing on F.D.A. oversight of foreign drug manufacturers is scheduled for Thursday.

"China alone has more than 700 firms making drug products for the U.S., yet the F.D.A. has resources to conduct only about 20 inspections a year in China," said Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The F.D.A. said it would answer the committee's questions at the hearing.

Poisonings in Haiti

United States officials learned of problems with China's chemical companies in the mid-1990s while investigating the fatal poisonings in Haiti. Chinese authorities took no action against the uncertified chemical company that made the poison, diethylene glycol, or the giant state-owned trader, Sinochem International Chemicals, that exported it.

A decade later another state-owned trading company, CNSC Fortune Way, exported the diethylene glycol — also from an uncertified chemical company — that ended up in the deadly Panamanian cold medicine in 2006.

Chinese officials have known for years that uncertified chemical companies are producing active pharmaceutical ingredients. In 2004 the Chinese drug authority's newspaper cited complaints that some licensed companies "affiliate" with unlicensed ones to hide their illegal purchases, while others buy only a token amount from certified suppliers to pass inspection. "The impact of chemical products on the bulk pharmaceutical market hints at a much larger problem: a huge hole in drug safety," the drug agency publication stated.

Since the Panama poisonings, China is considering ways to corral the chemical industry. At Panama's request, Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, has pressed the Chinese government to step up regulation of chemical companies selling pharmaceutical ingredients.

American and Chinese health officials held their first high-level meeting in May, and hope to sign a memorandum of agreement in December. "The Chinese have finally come to the realization that their regulatory system needs repair," said William Steiger, director of international affairs for Mr. Leavitt's agency. But meaningful change will be difficult. Chinese authorities may not have enough investigators to weed out the many small chemical companies that are making drug ingredients.

And efforts to close the regulatory gap must overcome one particularly thorny issue: some uncertified companies accused of selling counterfeit drugs are owned by the government itself.
 
Tex, I,too, heard the C-SPAN interview. From what many others commenting here said, it is very doubtful they have heard what the lady had to say. Since the incorrect quotes fit the agenda of those people, it is doubtful they will attempt to get the accurate story, IMO.

I agree with most of your points from the interview, but additionally I thought her point re. the more limited liability was, or included, the fact that our litigious society and making lawsuits easier would most likely clutter the field with outrageously greedy 'ambulance chasing type' attorneys and their clients armed with frivolous lawsuits which would make it even more difficult to sort out the facts and make for safer toys and other products.

It was refreshing and encouraging that a person in her position realized throwing money at a 'popular' cause as Congress, especially those running for office, are so willing to do, all too often causes more problems and rarely solves anything.

Is there no one here interested in the very real probability that the companies selling the toys BELIEVED they were getting safe items? It seems to be more fun for some people to assume the worst of corporate leaders.

mrj
 
MRJ ,here is a blog about our great Retailer,

Why I Don't Understand Politics and its Various Permutations
The Country of Origin Labeling Issue:


Consumers are demanding to know the origin of their meats, rather than accepting imported product from countries not identified on the packaging. This isn't a bad thing. We should be able to read a label and be informed, without having to blindly "trust" the middleman, especially the larger ones, such as WalMart, who do NOT "buy American" to the degree promised in the eighties. The 2002 Farm bill proposed country of origin (COOL) labeling for the sake of consumer awareness. The 2007 Farm Bill was supposed to have decided the particulars, yet it lingers in legislative limbo now till sometime in 2008. There is currently a lot of debate about this issue and its implications, since it's directly related to marketing rather than simply being a food safety issue. A bit more on this later in the post...

Buy WalMart...Buy Chinese

WalMart cares. About how consumer perception affects their bottom line. Sometimes.

Maybe not, though, in the meat labeling debate. You have to ask yourself WHY would they want to stand in the way of something as elemental as knowing the origin of that package of meat?

Let's talk about their consistency of message ...if that phrase can be applied at all.

I'm continually disenchanted with the proliferation of the WalMart empire and its departure from its earlier promises of "Buying American." WalMart makes no apologies for being one of the biggest suppliers of products "Made in China." I defy anyone to visit any aisle of WalMart and tally foreign-made goods against domestic ones.

I question why a company that superficially purports to be free-trade and America-friendly is one of the biggest customers of communist Red China, hardly an American ally. Isn't this a type of sleeping with the enemy? Why would our government allow this, and what with the ongoing human rights violations such as child and slave labor in China, again, why are companies like WalMart allowed to help perpetuate such a system? These are DIRTY DOLLARS.

I'm not particularly liberal. I am a regular citizen sickened by the greed machine. Since when do we BENEFIT by buying as cheaply as possible from countries that are committed to our demise?? (Hello, when did China become our best friend? Hello, aren't we supposed to be protecting ourselves even more in this era of vulnerability?)

And can someone remind me why, WHY we cannot be manufacturing our OWN consumer goods right here, where JOBS ARE NEEDED? Why are we fostering a dependence on other nations at the expense of our own citizens? This makes no sense to me. Therefore, I do not understand the politics of it. I know the answer is related somehow to money. I just can't figure out why it can't be protected...to center around American jobs and manufacturing rather than outsourcing. Why can an American housewife not hire a housekeeper, nanny, or landscaper to work below a certain wage and yet we will feed the WalMart machine to the tune of pennies an hour for child labor? Like I said, I don't understand politics.

Is a cheap set of frying pans and a drawerful of gym socks TRULY worth CHEAPENING our own workplaces, forcing out specialized and local business, and supporting a communist-based regime that flaunts ALL the international human rights laws regularly? Where is the return for this enormous sell-out? All I see 17 years later is that it's a joke even to WalMart itself to pretend its objectives are even remotely similar to those of the 1980s.
 
mrj said:
Tex, I,too, heard the C-SPAN interview. From what many others commenting here said, it is very doubtful they have heard what the lady had to say. Since the incorrect quotes fit the agenda of those people, it is doubtful they will attempt to get the accurate story, IMO.

I agree with most of your points from the interview, but additionally I thought her point re. the more limited liability was, or included, the fact that our litigious society and making lawsuits easier would most likely clutter the field with outrageously greedy 'ambulance chasing type' attorneys and their clients armed with frivolous lawsuits which would make it even more difficult to sort out the facts and make for safer toys and other products.

It was refreshing and encouraging that a person in her position realized throwing money at a 'popular' cause as Congress, especially those running for office, are so willing to do, all too often causes more problems and rarely solves anything.

Is there no one here interested in the very real probability that the companies selling the toys BELIEVED they were getting safe items? It seems to be more fun for some people to assume the worst of corporate leaders.

mrj

mrj, when someone sells a product, they are responsible for its safety whether they believe it is safe or not.

Our regulatory agencies do not need to protect companies who are doing this, they simply need to go out of business. If it takes a lawsuit to do it, then so be it.

My kids like to go to the store and buy little gifts for birthdays and the such for their friends. Having items with large amounts of lead in them that might hurt their friends or hurt their friend's siblings is not what they intended to spend their money on.

I am less interested in protecting businesses who sell these items probably because I am more interested in my kids and their friends having SAFE products that will not hurt them.

Can you explain why management of companies who sell these unsafe items should be protected? Maybe you believe more in these businesses surviving than the kids I care for.

This agency head has the responsibility of monitoring businesses who want to make a quick buck with cheap and dangerous products. These products are getting sold to people like my daughter(s). She doesn't have the resources necessary to do her job adequately and she refuses to ask for more funds to do it. She needs to be fired.

All you can come up with is that we need to protect businesses by not being tough on safety issues. A lead test is cheap. Any manufacturer or buyer from Chinese products could have prevented those products from coming in our markets.

And all you want is to protect businesses.

I wonder about your values sometimes, mrj.
 
Any manufacturer or buyer from Chinese products could have prevented those products from coming in our markets. SO TRUE!!!!
 
First,Porker and Tex, you have no moral superiority to me on caring for either workers or children, whether mine or those of anyone round the world. And, please stop your silly attribution to me of beliefs I never stated! Pointing out that problems with consumer goods and sales of unsafe products MAY not be intentionally done by corporations is NOT my attempt at protecting them from justice, but my attempt at injecting some common sense into the discussion.

Many of the products of the type your daughters or my granddaughters, for that matter, may be purchasing for themselves of others which have been found POSSIBLY unsafe due to lead paint at, near, or above acceptable levels were designed for use by older children above the age of toddlers who could be expected to put the things in their mouths. And for the most part in the TV reports I saw, were small enough that the choking hazard for toddlers would be far more dangerous than POSSIBLE ingestion of lead, especially given that most had lower levels of lead.

Some of you are so quick to cast corporate and government official with the devil that you do not take the time to learn if what politicians and media claims they said is what they actually did say! It was obvious, listening to Ms. Nord on C-SPAN that she was misquoted and taken out of context, as well. You are contributing to the politics of personal destruction practiced by so many these days when you gleefully repeat anything of an evil or mean spirited nature you read or hear about such people, IMO.

So, till we have a perfect society where government inspects each and every tiny bead and bauble and protects from ourselves to the point we may have to revert to home whittled toys, maybe you should supervise the purchases more closely and guide them to hand made items and increase the allowances to the point they can pay $20.00 for something safer, produced in the USA.

Re. "Red" China, slave labor, etc., answer this: are the Chinese people more, or less free than 20 years ago? Is trade with other nations in the world going to leave their people more, or less desirous of living like we do, especially in our freedoms? Are they making more money, or less per day than previously? I'm not saying things are great, or even good there, but they surely appear to be better than previously. I know there are more missionaries, teachers, laborers and businesses from the USA over there than 20 years ago.

Labeling is one thing. Honest labeling is another. COOL, as written does NOTHING to improve beef safety for consumers. Yet many politicians are going berserk in using it to curry favor with some ranchers. Wonder why? Those pols know it isn't going to improve beef safety, so do they intend to get out of it????

mrj
 
mrj said:
First,Porker and Tex, you have no moral superiority to me on caring for either workers or children, whether mine or those of anyone round the world. And, please stop your silly attribution to me of beliefs I never stated! Pointing out that problems with consumer goods and sales of unsafe products MAY not be intentionally done by corporations is NOT my attempt at protecting them from justice, but my attempt at injecting some common sense into the discussion.



Many of the products of the type your daughters or my granddaughters, for that matter, may be purchasing for themselves of others which have been found POSSIBLY unsafe due to lead paint at, near, or above acceptable levels were designed for use by older children above the age of toddlers who could be expected to put the things in their mouths. And for the most part in the TV reports I saw, were small enough that the choking hazard for toddlers would be far more dangerous than POSSIBLE ingestion of lead, especially given that most had lower levels of lead.

Tex: "POSSIBLY unsafe"? mrj, we are not talking about possibly unsafe items here when we are talking about lead poisoning. Either it has unsafe lead levels or not. I am sorry you can't grasp the fact that there are facts on which to base decisions on, not just biases. On lousy safety design, like the magnet toys, and small items prone to choking, you may have a point. I didn't bring up those examples and you lumping them together with mine shows your inability to process the difference between "innocent" or less intentional mistakes and total irresponsibility in the name of profits on cheaper imports.

China is decades behind the U.S. in environmental safety. It isn't that the safety issues are unknown, it is that they are not being taken into consideration when buying and selling their items. This "after the damage is done" method of safety is not the best way to keep items on the market safe. Businesses that take the shortcut and buy Chinese items because they are cheaper are trading safety for money. Plain and simple. You seem to want to excuse this behavior with all the excuses you provide. That is so far away from "moral superiority" that you shouldn't even be in the discussion. That type of attitude in our watchdog regulatory agencies is what is sorely missing. Items that are made (designed in the U.S. that are not safe, with current knowledge) in other countries should meet our safety standards or not be allowed to be imported and sold.

I did not question you on "moral superiority", I questioned your ability to achieve standards that will keep our kids safe.

Nord's position on fines (and their limits), and their ability to correct the wrongs are what are at question. Fines should have the effect of absolutely holding accountable those who did wrong. Limiting those fines to some arbitrary limit pulled out of the air only limits liability of those who have done wrong. I believe those fines should be levied based on the amount of value the goods have in the market. They can be divided into the different steps like wholesale and retail. Holding a firm accountable for a limited small fine can make fraud economical.

An example might be in order for you: If a company has a limited liability of a million dollars in fines and they can sell 30 million dollars worth of goods on the market (thus taking the place of 30 million dollars worth of safe goods) and make a profit of 5 million dollars, the limit of the fine limits its effectiveness. The "bad" company can still make 4 million dollars off of selling unsafe items. If you wanted "economic" justice, you would be able have a fine that approximated the value of the goods on the market, of 30 million dollars, in this case.

I also believe that the $30 million dollar fine should be set aside, after say 10% for the govt., in a fund for compensation for victims. If the items are recalled, the value of those items can be deducted from the total fine. If over a period of 10 years this fund has not been tapped by legal decisions for victims, it should all be turned over to the government. I am not saying that the liability of these companies should be limited to $30 million if the damages of unsafe items have been proven over this amount in a court of law. They have responsibility and liability over this limit just as a thief who kills a victim has liability over the amount he stole from the victim.

Your analysis is so shallow as to err on limiting liability for "businesses" at the cost of safety or breaking laws. You go further and incorrectly argue that if we don't do this, we will have only home whittled toys.


Some of you are so quick to cast corporate and government official with the devil that you do not take the time to learn if what politicians and media claims they said is what they actually did say! It was obvious, listening to Ms. Nord on C-SPAN that she was misquoted and taken out of context, as well. You are contributing to the politics of personal destruction practiced by so many these days when you gleefully repeat anything of an evil or mean spirited nature you read or hear about such people, IMO.

Tex: I don't believe in demonizing anyone. I do believe in holding them accountable for the responsibilities they have. Mrs. Nord is not even close to what a regulator should be.

Regulators should not try their best to limit business liability. We may have a fundamental difference on what regulatory agencies' responsibilities happen to be. In light of the fact that many potentially damaging and unacceptable toys (already known--Nord's agency is responsible for writing standards), it is much better to keep them off the market with competent regulatory agencies.

I do believe that my stance has logical superiority. I would rather have my population (and kids) have safe goods than buy goods from companies who are incompetent in providing safe goods. It seems you would support a policy of corporate liability limits to protect corporations instead of protecting kids. If I were you, I would be beet red with embarrassment the next time I was around them or their parents because I do have a conscience and the brains to go along.


So, till we have a perfect society where government inspects each and every tiny bead and bauble and protects from ourselves to the point we may have to revert to home whittled toys, maybe you should supervise the purchases more closely and guide them to hand made items and increase the allowances to the point they can pay $20.00 for something safer, produced in the USA.

Tex: I would rather my kids have "home whittled toys" than to pay good money for unsafe ones!

If you believe that this is the only option, and that we wouldn't have any toys at all, except home whittled ones, I surely accept your right to have that view, but I believe you are dead wrong. It also shows how lame your arguments are to have to say this would be the result.

We did have safer toys before cheap Chinese toys, you know. These companies have had to compete with cheaper but unsafe Chinese toys.


Re. "Red" China, slave labor, etc., answer this: are the Chinese people more, or less free than 20 years ago? Is trade with other nations in the world going to leave their people more, or less desirous of living like we do, especially in our freedoms? Are they making more money, or less per day than previously? I'm not saying things are great, or even good there, but they surely appear to be better than previously. I know there are more missionaries, teachers, laborers and businesses from the USA over there than 20 years ago.

I have no problem with the Chinese selling safe items and making money to better themselves. I do have a problem with an administration so bent on allowing the cheapest item on our market, regardless of the social costs including selling Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other real countries to the Chinese. We are selling our idea of freedom and democracy for cheaper goods because we don't include labor or political freedoms to be a part of our trade policy. China suppresses Christianity and other religions. I happen to know some of those missionaries, teachers, and laborers who will tell you the same thing. That is what they told me personally.

Labeling is one thing. Honest labeling is another. COOL, as written does NOTHING to improve beef safety for consumers. Yet many politicians are going berserk in using it to curry favor with some ranchers. Wonder why? Those pols know it isn't going to improve beef safety, so do they intend to get out of it????


mrj

"Honest labeling"? --- If you think the labeling bill is so dishonest, work to change the language. You are in the same position Representative Burgess was in expressed in a former post. Instead of supporting COOL, you make a strawman, just as you did with home whittled toys. You are against COOL because you happen to believe our government is protecting us, we should trust them, and all goods from other countries have the same safety standards as we do (you know ours has faults).

If our regulatory agencies are not going to do their job and protect the people, the people have the right to know if their goods are coming from other countries so they can look out for their own safety. This trusting the government to do it has shown to be a failure because, as is often repeated, we have an incompetent and corrupt government. It is a government that is willing to reduce its responsibilities in order to have cheaper goods, a government that will use fear as a tactic to increase its power and reduce the rights of citizens in our democracy, and one who will sell out real democracies like Taiwan.

I hate to say this, mrj, but I think you are just a country bumpkin. Nothing derogatory because you are from the country, but you fit well with the regulatory bumpkins and political bumpkins we have today. They will bend over backwards for a company (investors) to make money, and do little to protect the public from frauds. Thus, they are legalizing frauds and injustice in the name of corporate profits.

If you had real reasons and real arguments that made sense, I would just argue it out with you and we would both have a better understanding of each other's views. When you use strawmen and other rhetorical tools to win your points instead of logic or reasoning, I have to categorize you as I do.
 
We should be able to read a label and be informed, without having to blindly "trust" the middleman, especially the larger ones, such as WalMart, who do NOT "buy American" to the degree promised in the eighties.******* MRJ ,COOL is still about food safety unless you eat donkey meat from Algereia or dog from China. You may not eat dog or donkey as I don't either but I know that the packers in the US are at a higher level of sanitation than Algereia or China.

The fact that our litigious society and making lawsuits easier would most likely clutter the field with outrageously greedy 'ambulance chasing type' attorneys and their clients armed with frivolous lawsuits which would make it even more difficult to sort out the facts and make for safer toys and other products
*********MRJ, food poisoning to man or beast and lead poisoning to name a few items shouldn't be there in society unless you don't care who you kill or destory some peoples normal healthy lives in your rush to make millons for your investors and their CEO's.

She also said that a proposal to raise the cap on maximum penalties from $1.8 million to $100 million "may have the undesired consequence of firms,
****** The SEC would have taken them off the board and delisted them for lies. Money is why companies take chances and look the other way MRJ.

as a precautionary measure, flooding the agency with virtually every consumer complaint and incident." ****MRJ, When childern lay in hospitals with no kidneys because companies made a ton of money off a adulteratied product then where do you complain while others are falling ill of the same problem whether food or toys as the government looks the other way.

Her concern, she said, was that the increase in complaints would so overwhelm the commission that, "true safety issues would go unrecognized in the process," the New York Times reported. ***** OVERwhelm WHO????????????

Congress must protect against Chinese fish

The Farm Bill now before Congress needs to address the Chinese catfish issue. Yet, the bill headed for floor debate could ignore the problem and give China a free ride at consumers' expense. It would allow China to continue dumping fish in this country that are not up to U.S. standards.

Alabama is one of three states to ban Chinese catfish after the state took action against Vietnamese catfish, or basa, in 2005.

The imports were killing the catfish industry in Alabama while threatening the health of the people who never knew they were eating questionable imports.

But what about the catfish you are eating every Friday or Saturday night at your favorite diner? Do you know if they came from Alabama, Mississippi or another catfish producing state?

You don't, unlike in supermarkets where seafood is labeled by country of origin. But people eat 70 percent of catfish in restaurants.

Rep. Benny Thompson, D-Miss., wants Congress to alert diners about their catfish. His legislation, Country of Origin Labeling, for catfish served in restaurants could get lost in the massive Farm Bill debate.

COOL is supposed to be a partial solution to the Food and Drug Administration agreeing to no longer inspect seafood from a major Chinese importer. FDA inspected five shipments from the importer and found them free of banned substances.

That's not good enough.

China has to give its catfish strong doses of anti-biotics, anti-microbials, and anti-fungals before exporting them because of the heavily polluted environment in which they are raised.

At the least, Congress can pass COOL to allow diners to make informed decisions about their catfish. If the catfish are loaded with drugs, what about what is in Chinese shrimp and talapia?
 
Tex-Econ, Your namecalling style, when confronted with someone who QUESTIONS anything you believe adds to the similarity. So why did you change your name???

I believe we have SOME corrupt people in government, NOT a corrupt government.

I believe the sheer weight of our bloated bureaucracy is far more to blame than is actual corruption in these problems.

Outmoded and inadequate computer systems obviously play a part as well. Failure to find better means and methods to manage inspections certainly are a factor. Adding ever more government employees hasn't solved many problems in the past.

Obviously, our 'safety police' have been unable to keep up with modern trade practices. Obviously businesses have sought out less costly sources of supply to serve the low income people of the world, not only the USA. It might be nice to wave that government wand and decree that there be no low wages anywhere, but then prices would escalate as those with higher incomes demanded more and better goods. Vicious circle.

I have NEVER said or believed that anyone should be sold dangerous food, toys, or anything else, so leave off the accusations please.

Tex, do you absolutely know that there is NO safe level of lead for any product? If so, why is there any allowed, as I believe was stated in the story as some items having levels BELOW the legal standard.

Do you know the reasoning for use of lead in paint, plastic, other items? I don't, but do you believe it is simply added in order to harm people? BTW, I emphasized POSSIBLE lead ingestion or harm from lead because many of those items are NOT for children young enough to put them into their mouths, and that ANY item of a size to choke a small child poses the more quickly and permanently serious threat of choking.

Realizing you didn't bring up "those examples", I reserve the right to point out areas you did not. Is the "lousy safety design" the fault of manufacturers or designers? Are small magnets, not intended for small children to be outlawed? How about Monopoly pieces and other games? Checkers sure would be dangerous to a small child, or a foolish older one. So are those very small cars and other toys, yet parents still allow very small children to carry those and put them in their mouths. Where does responsibility ultimately lie? Obviously the lead question from imported toys has to be addressed firmly and quickly.

Just where do you get that crystal ball that shows you corporate boogeymen are deliberately manufacturing and selling items of great risk as a facet of "total irresponsibility in the name of profits on cheaper imports? Why do you automatically assume safety issues are deliberately and automatically sacrificed to money? I've not offered "excuses" for the lapses, I've more asked questions. Tried to put myself in the position of one who might have purchased toys to sell, and been shocked to learn that they still use lead based paints in other countries. Learning from those mistakes and changing mode of operation is, however necessary if they want to stay in business.

Tex, your comment "I wonder about your values sometimes, mrj" sure reads like you are claiming "moral superiority" over me! Certainly nothing there about my "ability to achieve standards that will keep our kids safe" which you claim you were questionning in your latest post.

I don't pretend to have the expertise to set such standards. However, I do believe sitting down a group of people ranging from consumers to corporate leaders to manufacturers to govt agency heads would be the best way to achieve the best standards and safety for products.

I believe fines should be levied for intentionable and verifiable wrongdoing and based on potential for, as well actua,l harm done. And further, that fines should be used for reparation of actual damage to consumers. Lawsuits.........maybe..... for truly deliberate and outrageous violations.

My inference on home whittled toys was that it may be the only way to assure absolute safety.....unless you are in too big a hurry and make them too small.......or with parts that some kid could/would break off and jab himself with, or swallow. Total safety cannot be guaranteed, nor can we legislate absolute protection is my major point. Are you going to guarantee such rigid rules and inspections that no one can be harmed by unintended usage of any product, as well as no harm from accidentaly breaking a toy, or mis-handling food in the home causing foodborne illness? I don't believe you will do that, morally superior though you STILL proclaim yourself compared with me.

You seem to me to be in the company of those who insist that regulators should have only adversarial relationships to those whom they regulate. I believe a cooperative relationship between regulator and regulated serves consumers best, assuming we all want the safest possible products for conusmers, and a viable business climate for sellers.

mrj
 
MRJ:
I have NEVER said or believed that anyone should be sold dangerous food, toys, or anything else, so leave off the accusations please.

Tex: ....and yet you formulate excuses, the main one being that the sellers didn't intend to do harm. That excuse might hold for bad designs, not yet known to be dangerous, but for lead, we already know the answer. It is already in the regulations. We took lead out of paint in the 70s, I believe, and yet even now, the low income people's children are subject to lead poisoning when they live in houses that where the lead has not been properly taken care of. I guess you have no problem with this because they are poor---it is not you or your family. You should have watched Moyer's latest interview on the 57 million Americans who fall in the "unseen" category who have to deal with these problems. The author of the book on these "unseen" showed what happens to these families (the youngest in the family had lead poisoning, was not diagnosed until way later, and the family suffered with the results).

Tex, do you absolutely know that there is NO safe level of lead for any product? If so, why is there any allowed, as I believe was stated in the story as some items having levels BELOW the legal standard.

Tex: So now you are trying to question the knowledge we already know? You are a piece of work, mrj.

Do you know the reasoning for use of lead in paint, plastic, other items? I don't, but do you believe it is simply added in order to harm people? BTW, I emphasized POSSIBLE lead ingestion or harm from lead because many of those items are NOT for children young enough to put them into their mouths, and that ANY item of a size to choke a small child poses the more quickly and permanently serious threat of choking.

Tex: So mix a safety issue we already know about---lead, and put it in with poor design. MRJ, here is a little tip for you---there is a recall for those magnets. It already exists -- after there were too many unintended consequences to the health of our nation's kids. Those magnets, unlike a small piece of monopoly game that can be ingested and possibly flow through the gut with less health consequences, can cause serious problems in the intestines and lead to death. The pieces are recalled! Please do not rationalize lead poisoning in this way--it shows your ignorance and the elitist view you have in reference to the poor.

Realizing you didn't bring up "those examples", I reserve the right to point out areas you did not. Is the "lousy safety design" the fault of manufacturers or designers? Are small magnets, not intended for small children to be outlawed? How about Monopoly pieces and other games? Checkers sure would be dangerous to a small child, or a foolish older one. So are those very small cars and other toys, yet parents still allow very small children to carry those and put them in their mouths. Where does responsibility ultimately lie? Obviously the lead question from imported toys has to be addressed firmly and quickly.

The responsibility lies with those who manufacture unsafe toys, mrj, and lead in them is NOT acceptable, no matter how many excuses you can think of. I don't care if the Chinese are so far behind us in environmental safety---we don't need lead in toys. Period. Toys like this should not be imported, or even made anywhere in the world. It harms small children (I am beginning to believe you may have had lead paint problems in your childhood)

Realizing you didn't bring up "those examples", I reserve the right to point out areas you did not. Is the "lousy safety design" the fault of manufacturers or designers? Are small magnets, not intended for small children to be outlawed? How about Monopoly pieces and other games? Checkers sure would be dangerous to a small child, or a foolish older one. So are those very small cars and other toys, yet parents still allow very small children to carry those and put them in their mouths. Where does responsibility ultimately lie? Obviously the lead question from imported toys has to be addressed firmly and quickly.

Just where do you get that crystal ball that shows you corporate boogeymen are deliberately manufacturing and selling items of great risk as a facet of "total irresponsibility in the name of profits on cheaper imports? Why do you automatically assume safety issues are deliberately and automatically sacrificed to money? I've not offered "excuses" for the lapses, I've more asked questions. Tried to put myself in the position of one who might have purchased toys to sell, and been shocked to learn that they still use lead based paints in other countries. Learning from those mistakes and changing mode of operation is, however necessary if they want to stay in business.

Tex, your comment "I wonder about your values sometimes, mrj" sure reads like you are claiming "moral superiority" over me! Certainly nothing there about my "ability to achieve standards that will keep our kids safe" which you claim you were questionning in your latest post.

I don't pretend to have the expertise to set such standards. However, I do believe sitting down a group of people ranging from consumers to corporate leaders to manufacturers to govt agency heads would be the best way to achieve the best standards and safety for products.

I would agree. What if they don't listen? What if they want to save their bottom line at the expense of safety? Companies who are competent to bring on safe products for our consumers should be welcome. The regulators should hold seminars to let them know of the safety risks the public is finding out. Good safe toys can and have been made. Lead in toys or paints is KNOWN to not be safe, regardless of your lack of knowledge. When companies do not follow the safety requirements, the regulatory agency should not be their "friend", just as a parent should do, they should be their "corrector".

I believe fines should be levied for intentionable and verifiable wrongdoing and based on potential for, as well actua,l harm done. And further, that fines should be used for reparation of actual damage to consumers. Lawsuits.........maybe..... for truly deliberate and outrageous violations.

So you believe that companies can just get away with selling products whose characteristics are known to be unsafe and wait until our slow legal system stops them? I will remind you, mrj, that investors, during that time, can and do just walk off with their profits. Investors are able to hide behind the corporate protections and just walk away with those profits. The company can go under, but the investors do not have to pay for the damages their hired bad management produced.

My inference on home whittled toys was that it may be the only way to assure absolute safety.....unless you are in too big a hurry and make them too small.......or with parts that some kid could/would break off and jab himself with, or swallow. Total safety cannot be guaranteed, nor can we legislate absolute protection is my major point. Are you going to guarantee such rigid rules and inspections that no one can be harmed by unintended usage of any product, as well as no harm from accidentaly breaking a toy, or mis-handling food in the home causing foodborne illness? I don't believe you will do that, morally superior though you STILL proclaim yourself compared with me.

Tex: Now you are confusing known safety issues with unintended usage. All lead in paint getting into our biological is unintended. Does that mean we should stop banning lead paint in houses or toys? You are also taking the argument to the extreme---and irrational, but I will answer you. If a company makes a toy out of materials that can easily be broken and swallowed or otherwise hurt a child should we be worried? Do we allow toy makers to make toys out of brittle glass? C'mon, mrj. Use your noggin.

You seem to me to be in the company of those who insist that regulators should have only adversarial relationships to those whom they regulate. I believe a cooperative relationship between regulator and regulated serves consumers best, assuming we all want the safest possible products for conusmers, and a viable business climate for sellers.

mrj

Tex: Yes, and you believe in the fox watching the hen house, and if the fox happens to eat a chicken, your answer is to allow him to still watch the henhouse. You would think you could learn the wisdom in such things, being from the country and all. Did anyone ever read you bedtime stories?
 
MRJ:
I have NEVER said or believed that anyone should be sold dangerous food, toys, or anything else, so leave off the accusations please.

Tex: ....and yet you formulate excuses, the main one being that the sellers didn't intend to do harm. That excuse might hold for bad designs, not yet known to be dangerous, but for lead, we already know the answer. It is already in the regulations. We took lead out of paint in the 70s, I believe, and yet even now, the low income people's children are subject to lead poisoning when they live in houses that where the lead has not been properly taken care of. I guess you have no problem with this because they are poor---it is not you or your family. You should have watched Moyer's latest interview on the 57 million Americans who fall in the "unseen" category who have to deal with these problems. The author of the book on these "unseen" showed what happens to these families (the youngest in the family had lead poisoning, was not diagnosed until way later, and the family suffered with the results).

Tex, do you absolutely know that there is NO safe level of lead for any product? If so, why is there any allowed, as I believe was stated in the story as some items having levels BELOW the legal standard.

Tex: So now you are trying to question the knowledge we already know? You are a piece of work, mrj.

Do you know the reasoning for use of lead in paint, plastic, other items? I don't, but do you believe it is simply added in order to harm people? BTW, I emphasized POSSIBLE lead ingestion or harm from lead because many of those items are NOT for children young enough to put them into their mouths, and that ANY item of a size to choke a small child poses the more quickly and permanently serious threat of choking.

Tex: So mix a safety issue we already know about---lead, and put it in with poor design. MRJ, here is a little tip for you---there is a recall for those magnets. It already exists -- after there were too many unintended consequences to the health of our nation's kids. Those magnets, unlike a small piece of monopoly game that can be ingested and possibly flow through the gut with less health consequences, can cause serious problems in the intestines and lead to death. The pieces are recalled! Please do not rationalize lead poisoning in this way--it shows your ignorance and the elitist view you have in reference to the poor.

Realizing you didn't bring up "those examples", I reserve the right to point out areas you did not. Is the "lousy safety design" the fault of manufacturers or designers? Are small magnets, not intended for small children to be outlawed? How about Monopoly pieces and other games? Checkers sure would be dangerous to a small child, or a foolish older one. So are those very small cars and other toys, yet parents still allow very small children to carry those and put them in their mouths. Where does responsibility ultimately lie? Obviously the lead question from imported toys has to be addressed firmly and quickly.

The responsibility lies with those who manufacture unsafe toys, mrj, and lead in them is NOT acceptable, no matter how many excuses you can think of. I don't care if the Chinese are so far behind us in environmental safety---we don't need lead in toys. Period. Toys like this should not be imported, or even made anywhere in the world. It harms small children (I am beginning to believe you may have had lead paint problems in your childhood)

Realizing you didn't bring up "those examples", I reserve the right to point out areas you did not. Is the "lousy safety design" the fault of manufacturers or designers? Are small magnets, not intended for small children to be outlawed? How about Monopoly pieces and other games? Checkers sure would be dangerous to a small child, or a foolish older one. So are those very small cars and other toys, yet parents still allow very small children to carry those and put them in their mouths. Where does responsibility ultimately lie? Obviously the lead question from imported toys has to be addressed firmly and quickly.

Just where do you get that crystal ball that shows you corporate boogeymen are deliberately manufacturing and selling items of great risk as a facet of "total irresponsibility in the name of profits on cheaper imports? Why do you automatically assume safety issues are deliberately and automatically sacrificed to money? I've not offered "excuses" for the lapses, I've more asked questions. Tried to put myself in the position of one who might have purchased toys to sell, and been shocked to learn that they still use lead based paints in other countries. Learning from those mistakes and changing mode of operation is, however necessary if they want to stay in business.

Tex, your comment "I wonder about your values sometimes, mrj" sure reads like you are claiming "moral superiority" over me! Certainly nothing there about my "ability to achieve standards that will keep our kids safe" which you claim you were questionning in your latest post.

I don't pretend to have the expertise to set such standards. However, I do believe sitting down a group of people ranging from consumers to corporate leaders to manufacturers to govt agency heads would be the best way to achieve the best standards and safety for products.

I would agree. What if they don't listen? What if they want to save their bottom line at the expense of safety? Companies who are competent to bring on safe products for our consumers should be welcome. The regulators should hold seminars to let them know of the safety risks the public is finding out. Good safe toys can and have been made. Lead in toys or paints is KNOWN to not be safe, regardless of your lack of knowledge. When companies do not follow the safety requirements, the regulatory agency should not be their "friend", just as a parent should do, they should be their "corrector".

I believe fines should be levied for intentionable and verifiable wrongdoing and based on potential for, as well actua,l harm done. And further, that fines should be used for reparation of actual damage to consumers. Lawsuits.........maybe..... for truly deliberate and outrageous violations.

So you believe that companies can just get away with selling products whose characteristics are known to be unsafe and wait until our slow legal system stops them? I will remind you, mrj, that investors, during that time, can and do just walk off with their profits. Investors are able to hide behind the corporate protections and just walk away with those profits. The company can go under, but the investors do not have to pay for the damages their hired bad management produced.

My inference on home whittled toys was that it may be the only way to assure absolute safety.....unless you are in too big a hurry and make them too small.......or with parts that some kid could/would break off and jab himself with, or swallow. Total safety cannot be guaranteed, nor can we legislate absolute protection is my major point. Are you going to guarantee such rigid rules and inspections that no one can be harmed by unintended usage of any product, as well as no harm from accidentaly breaking a toy, or mis-handling food in the home causing foodborne illness? I don't believe you will do that, morally superior though you STILL proclaim yourself compared with me.

Tex: Now you are confusing known safety issues with unintended usage. All lead in paint getting into our biological is unintended. Does that mean we should stop banning lead paint in houses or toys? You are also taking the argument to the extreme---and irrational, but I will answer you. If a company makes a toy out of materials that can easily be broken and swallowed or otherwise hurt a child should we be worried? Do we allow toy makers to make toys out of brittle glass? C'mon, mrj. Use your noggin.

You seem to me to be in the company of those who insist that regulators should have only adversarial relationships to those whom they regulate. I believe a cooperative relationship between regulator and regulated serves consumers best, assuming we all want the safest possible products for conusmers, and a viable business climate for sellers.

mrj

Tex: Yes, and you believe in the fox watching the hen house, and if the fox happens to eat a chicken, your answer is to allow him to still watch the hen house. You would think you could learn the wisdom in such things, being from the country and all. Did anyone ever read you bedtime stories?

mrj:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:31 am Post subject:
Tex-Econ, Your namecalling style, when confronted with someone who QUESTIONS anything you believe adds to the similarity. So why did you change your name???

I believe we have SOME corrupt people in government, NOT a corrupt government.

Tex: WHEN THEY ARE APPOINTED HEADS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEY ARE PROTECTING BUSINESSES WHO GIVE MONEY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND TO CONGRESSMEN, "SOME" TURNS INTO "A"

I believe the sheer weight of our bloated bureaucracy is far more to blame than is actual corruption in these problems.

My remedies would put more responsibility on businesses and investors who sell into our markets. Yours would limit their liability. If you want more bureaucracy, follow your remedies. Consumer activist groups are having to push these issues because our regulatory agencies don't seem to be doing the job. Heck, Nord complains that she might be flooded with complaints!

Outmoded and inadequate computer systems obviously play a part as well. Failure to find better means and methods to manage inspections certainly are a factor. Adding ever more government employees hasn't solved many problems in the past.

Please don't confuse government size to competence. The government loses that argument almost all the time. That is why oversight hearings, government accountability office, office of inspector generals are important. It is the BEST MONEY SPENT BY GOVERNMENT. Had we competent oversight in the Iraq spending, for example, we could have funded the complete CHIPS program (a program that does address lead paint in the poor)

Obviously, our 'safety police' have been unable to keep up with modern trade practices. Obviously businesses have sought out less costly sources of supply to serve the low income people of the world, not only the USA. It might be nice to wave that government wand and decree that there be no low wages anywhere, but then prices would escalate as those with higher incomes demanded more and better goods. Vicious circle.

Tex: No, mrj, they haven't sought out less costly sources of supply to serve the low income people. Big mistake here. THEY SOUGHT LOW COSTLY SOURCES OF SUPPLY TO MAKE MORE MONEY OR GAIN MARKET SHARE TO MAKE MORE MONEY.


MRJ, much of your world view, I can tell, comes out of the assumption that everyone may have the values that you think you do. Those happen to include good intentions, and competence, values you and I probably share.

There are a lot of unsavory characters out there who do not even try to aspire to those values and they aren't just the common criminals on the street. Some of them sit in high places in their companies and in our government, set there to maximize shareholder profits or their self interests, without regard to the values you may think you have.

Because these people exist, we need consequences, not excuses. For the health of our families, our children, our nation, and our world, we need to keep this in mind.
 
Recent reports from China are all show and no-go.Blog reports

They are right out of the old Communist propaganda play book. How can I assume that? Did you see the video shot in the manufacturing plant in China with the production line of workers all wearing red baseball caps? I laughed.
Every worker had on a clean red cap, no sweat on any of them, clean and pressed white blouses and hair all combed nice and neat. What a joke? When did you last see every worker in a factory dressed the same and who took the time to have their shirts matching and dry cleaned?

The Totino's and other pizza recall is an example that should be demonstrating there is something that has gone wrong in the food chain production chain. Food production is a serious business. One has to wonder what is wrong in the production cycle.

Showing us Chinese workers all dressed nice and neat shouldn't be enough to persuade anyone the Chinese manufacturers and government are taking these recent set-backs seriously. The video propaganda only confirmed otherwise for me. We should not be naïve about what our government is not doing.
We need to demand changes by our own government. We need regulation. We need uncontaminated food. That will come about only through serious effort on the part of our own government, not Chinese propaganda.
 
China to improve inspection on food safety MAYBE if they are FORCED


www.chinaview.cn 2007-11-08

Source of Article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/08/content_7035644.htm

BEIJING, Nov. 8 (Xinhua) -- China will revise 600 national standards for food safety inspection to bring them into line with international practice by 2010, a government industry watchdog announced Thursday.

Qiu Yueming, a senior official with the Standardization Administration of China, said the country's test standards lagged behind international practice, leading to failed testing results on overseas markets.

Qiu cited the case of milk powder, which was difficult to export due to inadequate carbohydrate testing.

The government has waged a massive campaign since August to address product quality and food safety issues, which includes agricultural products, food processing industries and medicine.

Pu Changcheng, deputy director of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, also said Thursday that trade protectionism had triggered criticisms of Chinese products, but it was unfair to denigrate the "made-in-China" label or regard Chinese goods as inferior.

The government had introduced a series of measures to improve the quality, such as tagging qualifying labels on export goods and filing registrations of export-oriented fruit farms, said Pu.

"If any single item is found to be unqualified, it might cause restrictions or bans on the whole industry," he said, adding that such a system would "protect the long-term interests of manufacturers, especially farmers."

Pu stressed that "quality" should be the priority to compete in the international market. "We need to ensure there is no major quality problem in export goods and to prevent problematic imports from entering our market."
 
Made in China: consumer craze
By Elizabeth Black

November 12, 2007


I thought I was safe. I wasn't a child, so I wasn't likely to suck on lead-paint toys. I wasn't a pet, so I wouldn't get melamine-tainted wheat gluten in my food. Then Sanjay Gupta knocked me out of my safety net.

On CNN last weekend, he happened to mention that a whopping 50 percent of the active ingredients in our American-made pharmaceuticals are imported from China. At first, I figured, sure, who knows what's in those generics? No, the good doctor was not talking about generics, but expensive brand-name drugs and over-the-counter medications. They may be manufactured here, said Sanjay, but the active ingredients come from China.

Well, of course, that makes sense: Our giant pharmaceutical companies aren't making enough profits, so they must buy cheap ingredients from China to boost their bottom line.

As for oversight on whether those "active" ingredients are the genuine article and/or are safe to ingest, FDA checks all drugs for safety and efficacy, right? We know they ignore our food, but they are vigilant about our drugs, right? Guess what FDA's oversight amounts to on these Chinese-made active ingredients? The FDA must formally be invited by the Chinese government to inspect a supplier being used by an American company. Then the Chinese government gives that company a 30- to 60-day notice that the FDA will be coming around. Finally, the Chinese companies themselves generally provide the Chinese translators.

Being a fiction writer, my mind started churning up a few scenarios. How's this one? Before I start spinning, here's an important disclaimer: I am not one of those conspiracy theorists. I'm talking fictitious plot, strictly Hollywood, as in a James Bond movie.

Here's the plot for my B movie. In a move to take over the planet, an up-and-coming empire whose specialty is manufacturing and exporting cheap junk decides to take down a once-great empire, formerly referred to as the Leader of the Free World. Taking over the world, if you are the maker of cheap junk, does not involve getting rid of your enemy. Rather, it can be as easy as turning the target country into a mindless, frenetically insatiable consumer population.

How do you do that — in this purely fictional movie? First, get to the children, every one of them, by coating all their toys in beautifully colored lead paint. You do not want to kill the children, just stunt their intellectual development enough to turn them into undiscriminating adolescents for their whole lives. A perpetually adolescent-like population will mindlessly consume cheap junk and then lust for more, always discarding one piece of junk for the latest, new wonderful piece of junk. You need just enough lead poisoning to create the kind of fuzzy minds that could be convinced to spend a thousand dollars on a ticket to scream in person over a corporately created rhyme such as "Hannah Montana."

I'd like to meet the person who thought up that name. It's got that same hypnotic pull as "Rock Chalk! Jayhawk!" Hannah Montana! Hannah Montana! Absolutely brilliant marketing. And parents fall for it because they want nothing better than to be loved by their children, and of course the best way to be loved by your children is to give them everything they ask for, right? Yeah, right, if you've been sucking on lead paint a bit too long.

Babies put everything in their mouths. It's part of their natural development. Toddler toys coated in lead-laced paint. Perfect vehicle to zap a whole generation's brains. So that's step No. 1. (I thought about maybe having them lace a few toys with the same chemical found in the date rape pill but rejected that. Nah, couldn't happen.)

Next, in this B movie… for those too old for the lead paint attack, mess with their meds. Make sure they don't work, that they never quite feel well, leading them to embark on a lifetime of trying one cure after another on an endless search to find something to make them feel good. That seems to come naturally to boomers, who were the first generation to hang out way too long in adolescence. So zap the aging boomers. No matter if the diabetes test strips are a fraud. No matter if the active ingredient in their pills ain't active at all. Foolish Americans! Thinking they can swallow health anyway. The ancient sages of this emerging Great Empire know what good medicine really is, and it isn't found in a bottle. But the dumb Westerners don't know that.

I don't know where to fit the pet food debacle in this scenario. This is stretching … but maybe a few beloved pets dropping here and there demoralizes the old crumbling Empire's population. After all, they've forgotten how to connect with other human beings. TV reality shows and pets are all they've got to get them through the night. Maybe when their pets die, they will need more doodads to distract them from their grief.

By the way, did anyone other than me wonder why a pet food company based in Kansas, the Wheat State, needed to buy wheat gluten from China? Just asking.

OK, done with the conspiracy daydreaming and the bad scriptwriting. I don't for a moment think China has dreamed all this up as a scheme to fell our Empire. For them it's just frenetic greed — dare I say it, for them it's just capitalism. We, the consuming nation, are at fault. It's our Empire, grown phlegmatic and addicted to stuff, stuff and more stuff. What makes us think that quantity is more important than quality. What makes us think it's a good thing to put 35 things under the Christmas tree for our children instead of three or four. What makes us think that it's a good thing to litter our children's world with cheap toys that stunt their imagination, with or without a coating of lead paint.

What kind of world have we created for ourselves? Why does our economic system depend on how much stuff people buy over the Christmas shopping season? Is anybody other than me getting tired of Christmas decorations in the store the day after Halloween or the "Retailers Are Worried" headlines in the media that begin appearing in November?

Why must we be "consumers" instead of people?

A group of influential black radio talk show hosts asked their listeners to go one day — Nov. 2 — without buying anything. It didn't get much publicity. I don't know what the point of it was supposed to be. But I do know that a number of major retailers tried to talk them out of it. One day without buying would hurt our economy irreparably, they said.

One day without buying cheap stuff made in China might be the best medicine this country could swallow.

Elizabeth Black is a writer living in Lawrence. A southwest Kansas native who attended Kansas University, she recently returned to Lawrence after living in Chicago and then on the East Coast for more than 30 years.
 
China touts crackdown on tainted goods
By David Barboza

SHANGHAI: China said Monday that it had arrested 774 people over the past two months as part of a nationwide crackdown on the production and sale of tainted food, drugs and agricultural products.

Government regulators hailed the arrests as a major step forward for food and drug safety and said that the "criminal suspects" were detained during inspections across China of thousands of restaurants, food and drug production facilities and wholesale food markets.

Determined to counter accusations that it has been producing and even exporting tainted goods, China vowed earlier this year to revamp its food and drug safety regulations and to close down illegal manufacturers and exporters.

Last summer, the government even executed the former head of the nation's food and drug administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, after he was convicted of accepting bribes and failing to properly supervise food and drug companies, some of which had sold counterfeit drugs.

But the government also acknowledged Monday that as of earlier this month only 82 percent of the food tested in medium and large cities in China met food safety standards, and that nearly 30 percent of the restaurants surveyed by regulators had failed food safety inspections.

The announcement, which was made over the weekend but only posted Monday on a government Web site, offered few details about the arrests or the nature and seriousness of the food and drug safety violations. The government only said that it had investigated 626 criminal cases.

The arrests came after nearly a year of high-profile recalls involving everything from tainted pet food ingredients to problem toys, that would include toothpaste made with a chemical we use in antifreeze; kids' toys, clothes and jewelry coated with lead-based paint; appliances and battery packs with flammable flaws; poison pet food; substandard medicines; Hanukkah candleholders that melt; hammocks, recliners and kitchen stools that collapse; tires that come apart; tainted seafood; and, most recently, Aqua Dots that can turn into a date-rape drug when swallowed. It was after repeated promises on the part of government regulators to crack down on tainted goods and restore confidence in the Made in China label.

As part of its effort, the government is also trying to counter widespread concern that the quality and safety of the food and drugs sold to its own citizens is far worse than the products it exports.

In fact, China acknowledged earlier this year that while it believes 99 percent of its food exports meet safety standards, only about 80 percent of the food sold domestically has passed inspections.

Monday, however, the government said a four-month campaign to root out bad food and drug producers and sellers was paying dividends.

"This action of inspecting food safety demonstrates our determination, and we should make every effort to further consolidate our previous work," Li Changjiang, the head of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection & Quarantine, said, according to a statement published on a government Web site. "We will carry out inspections throughout the country to safeguard our people's living standard."

In a separate announcement Monday, the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was revoking the registration of 11 highly toxic pesticides because of food safety concerns.

In several cases, the pesticides were banned from use in China but were manufactured in the country and exported to other countries. Government regulators said they worried that the toxic pesticides were finding their way back into the Chinese market.

The government also said this week that since July, inspectors working at Chinese ports have destroyed or recalled over 1,000 tons of fake products.

China is also working with U.S. and European regulators to cooperate on product safety and to put into place new methods to detect harmful products.

The government has called this a "special battle" to save the Made in China label.

The problems began earlier this year, after American pet food makers recalled millions of tons of pet food ingredients tainted with industrial chemicals imported from China. Later, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration blocked imports of some Chinese seafood, including shrimp and eel, because of recurring problems with illegal chemical residues, including cancer-causing substances.

Then regulators and safety inspectors around the world began turning up toxic toothpaste from China and toys coated in lead paint, which can be harmful if ingested by small children, leading to global recalls.

The crisis led to worldwide calls for stepped up food security and toy safety regulations, and prompted a backlash against the Made in China image and calls by the U.S. Congress for a ban on some Chinese imports.

Trade statistics, though, show that with few exceptions, Chinese exports to the rest of the world continue to soar, even exports of toys, seafood and agricultural products.
 
Tainted Ginger's Long Trip
From China to U.S. Stores

Supply Chains Make
Finding Source Tough;

Lots of Small Farms

By NICHOLAS ZAMISKA and DAVID KESMODEL
November 19, 2007

JUXIAN, China -- In July, two dozen Albertson's grocery stores in California received a shipment of fresh ginger and put it on shelves. Several days later, state inspectors discovered that the ginger, which had been imported from China, contained a dangerous pesticide. State health officials warned Californians to avoid ginger grown in China.

But while the tainted ginger's country of origin was clear, the actual supplier -- let alone the farm where it grew -- was anything but. The path of this batch of ginger, some 8,000 miles around the world, shows how global supply chains have grown so long that some U.S. companies can't be sure where the products they're buying are made or grown -- and without knowing the source of the product, it's difficult to solve the problem.


Nicholas Zamiska
Chinese ginger shows up in American cuisine in everything from soups to cookies, and sells in many U.S. grocery stores. Layers of middlemen obscure who actually produces goods, complicating efforts to police the production process. In the case of the tainted pet food that first raised concern over Chinese imports in March, neither the Chinese government nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has pinpointed the original source of the problem ingredient, contaminated wheat gluten. In that probe, FDA officials traveled to China and worked with the Chinese government. But often, U.S. officials trace problems with food imports only within American borders, due partly to limited resources.

Industry analysts say many U.S. companies save money by sourcing in China but are reluctant to spend on vetting supply chains. "You can't just throw the [orders] over the Great Wall and hope it comes back good," says Kent D. Kedl, general manager for Technomic Asia, a consulting firm in Shanghai that advises U.S. and European clients. He says companies "need people camped out" in China.

Some U.S. companies dedicate hundreds of people to keeping track of Chinese shipments, but others dedicate little to the effort. Christopher Ranch LLC, in Gilroy, Calif., is one of the companies that bought the Chinese ginger and distributed it to supermarkets. Bill Christopher, owner, says his company didn't test products it purchased because it expected the Chinese exporter to follow U.S. rules. Since the recall, he says he is now doing testing on imported products.

Mr. Christopher says the U.S. government should assume more responsibility. "The government needs to do more testing, and if they don't have enough people, then they shouldn't allow so much food into this country," he says. "I don't think it can be the responsibility of every supermarket and every broker."

'As Long as It's Cheap'

American companies that buy Chinese-grown produce often demand such low prices that it isn't practical for exporters and importers to run tests, says Clara Shih, president of Best Buy Produce International Inc. The Vernon, Calif., company imports Chinese-grown produce and resells it to other buyers including supermarkets. "People in this country don't really care as long as it's cheap," says Ms. Shih.


Chinese ginger, which shows up in American cuisine in everything from soups to stir fry to cookies and tea, is cheap. Prior to the recall, Christopher Ranch was buying ginger from China for about $7 per 30-pound box; after the recall, the company started buying Brazilian ginger, which costs five times as much, or about $35 a box. Consumers pay about $2 to $3 a pound for fresh ginger in U.S. stores. In 2006, China accounted for 78% of unground dry ginger imported into the U.S., says the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In July, inspectors for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation tested samples of fresh ginger at a Save Mart Supermarkets Inc. distribution center and found potentially harmful levels of aldicarb sulfoxide, a pesticide not approved for use on ginger by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aldicarb(TEMICK) is registered for restricted use on certain U.S. crops, including cotton, peanuts and soybeans. The EPA says that applying limited levels of the pesticide to certain crops, often early in the growing process, doesn't pose a risk to health.

China has similar restrictions. In addition to ginger, China has banned the pesticide on certain vegetables, fruit trees, tea leaves and Chinese herbal medicine, says the Ministry of Agriculture in Beijing.

Aldicarb is considered a health threat under certain conditions. Symptoms of aldicarb poisoning, including nausea, headaches and blurred vision, can occur within an hour of exposure, according to the California Department of Public Health. Higher levels can cause muscle spasms and difficulty breathing; at high doses, aldicarb can be fatal.

On July 29, California officials announced the recall after discovering the problem during an ongoing state program to monitor pesticide use. The recall included ginger sold at Albertson's supermarkets in northern California owned by Save Mart Supermarkets, Modesto, Calif. The state warned consumers who had purchased the ginger to discard it and contact their physician if they had symptoms of poisoning. It warned consumers to avoid fresh ginger from China.

Two shoppers at stores owned by Save Mart reported temporarily experiencing some symptoms, says a spokeswoman for the chain. She says the company expects its suppliers to ensure their foods are safe, and like many grocers, requires suppliers to sign forms stating products are hazard-free. The California health department hasn't received any reports of illnesses, spokeswoman Lea Brooks says.

The recall triggered concern across the food industry. Pittsburgh ketchup giant H.J. Heinz Co., which uses ginger in some soups and frozen meals, contacted suppliers to ensure no product was contaminated, says a spokesman. Glenn Farrell, president of Full Flavor Food Products Inc., a California firm that makes a ginger puree used by Heinz, says he had his ginger independently tested for all pesticides, with no problems.

Although not directly involved in the recall, other grocery companies reacted. Trader Joe's, a Monrovia, Calif., grocery chain with some 280 stores in more than 20 states, decided to indefinitely discontinue sales of all individual food products from China by year's end, a spokeswoman says. Safeway Inc., the nation's fourth-largest food retailer by sales, has stopped selling Chinese-grown ginger and garlic "for the foreseeable future," a spokeswoman says. Both say the recall was one of several reasons for their decision.

Not long after the tainted ginger was discovered, California authorities and the FDA began to try to trace the ginger's source. They learned Save Mart had purchased the ginger from Christopher Ranch, one of the nation's largest garlic growers. Christopher Ranch bought about 19,000 pounds of ginger from another California company, Modern Trading Inc., Mr. Christopher says.

Halting Operations

On July 30, David Margosian, an investigator from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, visited Modern Trading, which was operating in a Southern California warehouse next to a mattress-supply company. According to county records, Mr. Margosian discovered the company lacked a public health license required by county law for companies handling food. The county ordered Modern Trading to halt operations that day.

Rich Pirozzoli, national logistics manager for Christopher Ranch, who had visited Modern Trading, says he wasn't aware it had no health license. "There are so many companies down there that sell the Chinese ginger," he says. "You kind of go from one to the other, based on what's available." Five other distributors purchased parts of the tainted ginger load from Modern Trading, says Ms. Brooks of the California health department.


The FDA investigated Modern Trading, but didn't probe the source of the ginger in China. The agency tested a sample of ginger at Modern Trading and found no illegal pesticides, says FDA spokesman Michael Herndon.

The FDA has occasionally conducted inspections of food producers outside the U.S. after injuries or outbreaks, but "it is more common and more efficient to" restrict imports at the border, says FDA spokesman Brad Swezey. That could change under a recent proposal by the Bush administration to better police imports. The plan includes, among other things, putting more U.S. inspectors overseas.

According to records filed with the California secretary of state, Modern Trading was incorporated by Liu Zhian in May 2005.

Copies of shipping documents provided by Mr. Christopher show Modern Trading imported the ginger from a company in China, Juxian Modern Organic Ginger Co., in Shandong province. The documents, certified by Chinese government officials, list an invoice date of June 18 and show that the shipment totaled about 52,000 pounds.

In a faxed statement, a person calling himself Liu Zhian, corporate representative of Modern Organic, which is also known by its Chinese name Hua Teng Organic Ginger Co., said it isn't clear that Modern Organic was the source of the tainted shipment. Modern Trading, the California company, bought ginger from several companies in Los Angeles, as well as from Modern Organic in Juxian, China, he said in his statement. "Obviously, it is a fact that they found problematic ginger from China, but no evidence shows which exact providers this ginger was from," he said.

In China, Modern Organic buys ginger from thousands of farmers, packages it, then ships it around the world, says Liu Zhixue, a 48-year-old manager at the company and brother of Liu Zhian.

Modern Organic is one of scores of ginger exporters in China. A farmer may sell only a few thousand pounds of ginger to the company, Liu Zhixue says, so a standard 40-foot-long shipping container might be filled with produce from 50 or more farmers.

In an interview at Modern Organic's office in Juxian, an agriculture hub where trucks loaded with apples and onions race down roads, Mr. Liu said the Chinese government recently shuttered his ginger-export operation. One recent day, the company's warehouse was dark, with hundreds of boxes of ginger in limbo. Mr. Liu said he didn't understand the fuss. "Chinese people have always eaten this ginger -- no problem."

The Chinese government has recently restricted ginger exports from other companies in the area, U.S. distributors, importers and Chinese farmers say. The government is now requiring shipments to be inspected before being exported, weeding out smaller, unapproved companies, says Jim Provost, president of I Love Produce LLC, a Pennsylvania importer of garlic and ginger who recently was in Shandong to meet with suppliers.

The Ministry of Agriculture said, in a written statement, "It is illegal to use aldicarb in ginger farms, and those who violate the regulation will be seriously punished."

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, China's quality-control agency, didn't reply to written questions about Modern Organic and the ginger shipment. But in an interview earlier this year on a range of topics, including agricultural exports, Li Changjiang, head of the 30,000-person inspection service, welcomed U.S. officials to do on-site checks of Chinese farms.

"If there are Chinese exported products which don't meet the U.S. standards, then we could make corrections," Mr. Li said at his headquarters in Beijing.

It's not clear how the Chinese ginger became contaminated with aldicarb. "We don't have an exact answer for that at this moment," Liu Zhian said in his statement.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce recently sent investigators to China to learn more about its food-production system in the wake of tainted-product scandals. The committee issued a report last month that said the processing industry is "largely composed of very small, family-based operations," making it difficult for the government "to monitor food production activities in order to ensure product safety."

Liu Zhian said his company examines ginger from the farmers it buys from and sometimes tests for more than 200 chemicals. "We will take samples from the ginger and send it to the commodity inspection bureau. The tests are carried out very frequently," he said in the statement.

Liu Weizhong, a ginger farmer in Juxian, says he is one of Modern Organic's suppliers. From a half-acre of land, he has been selling ginger, most recently for 18 cents a pound. Mr. Liu, 49, uses only pesticides allowed by the government "to kill the germs," he says, pointing to spiky, three-foot-high ginger plants. He was referring to a product he and others in the area use to battle fungus. "We just use it on the leaves of the ginger to protect the plants."

Mr. Liu says he doesn't use aldicarb, which is used to kill insects, and knows of no farmers who do.

'Defying the Prohibition'

At the Juxian Agricultural Materials Shop No. 23, which sells to local farmers, a notice from the Juxian Ministry of Agriculture was glued to a wall, detailing five banned pesticides. Aldicarb, though only allowed on certain crops, wasn't listed.

"We still find that in some towns and villages, there are people defying the prohibition and selling pesticides containing these five poisons, which seriously affect the quantity of agricultural products in our country and threaten directly people's health," says the March 30 notice.

Shop owner Yang Mingzhi says government officials occasionally come to his shop to make sure he's not selling banned products. "This year, they are coming much more often than in years past," says Mr. Yang, 36.

A few doors down at Huayang Pesticide Co., farmers can buy a package of pesticide containing aldicarb. Directions on the label suggest using 3,500-4,000 grams for about a tenth of an acre to kill red spiders. The one-kilogram package -- whose brand name, "Shen Dong Dan," translates as "Gold Farmer Pill" -- sells for $2 and is popular with farmers, said the shopkeeper, who declined to give his name.

The pesticide carries a warning in red letters: "Strict prohibition against use on vegetables, melon and fruit," as well as a warning not to use the chemical in paddy fields.

--Juliet Ye in Hong Kong and Julie Jargon in Chicago contributed to this article.

Write to Nicholas Zamiska at [email protected]. and David Kesmodel at [email protected].
 

Mr. Christopher says the U.S. government should assume more responsibility. "The government needs to do more testing, and if they don't have enough people, then they shouldn't allow so much food into this country," he says. "I don't think it can be the responsibility of every supermarket and every broker."
 
Widespread counterfeiting of products in China

Europe imports half a billion euros ($750 million) worth of goods from China every day, so even 1 percent is not acceptable," Mandelson said at the opening of an international food safety forum in Beijing.

His comments angered Vice Premier Wu Yi, who heads a Cabinet-level panel to improve China's product safety. "I am very dissatisfied with Peter Mandelson's speech," Wu told reporters after the opening ceremony, without elaborating.

China has struggled to convince foreign consumers it is a safe manufacturer and exporter after discoveries around the world of potentially dangerous levels of chemicals and toxins in some Chinese products, from toothpaste to fish.

It launched a four-month nationwide safety campaign in August and has repeatedly promised more stringent regulations, inspections and enforcement, especially for a multitude of small and illegal enterprises that form the core of the food industry.

Mandelson said he had seen "a very positive set of moves."

"But it is a long and meticulous process and ... China's partners will be watching very closely," he added. "Restoring and then maintaining consumer trust and confidence in Chinese products must be China's priority if it wants to maintain the export growth rates of recent years."

The two-day food safety conference drew delegates from the United States, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and Japan.

Wu, who also spoke at the forum's opening, said China was "willing to make greater efforts, together with countries in the world, to maintain food safety."

She said enhanced reporting and monitoring, greater international cooperation and better media management would improve China's record.

Mandelson said about half of the 1,000 safety violations registered last year by the EU's monitoring system were for nonfood products made in China.

The EU is the richest world's and largest consumer market with 490 million people.

Beijing has accused the EU of using safety concerns as a pretext to protect its own producers, an allegation Mandelson called "unfounded."

"I strongly reject the argument that strong consumer rules are trade protectionism," he said.

He said fixing product safety problems depended on tackling the widespread counterfeiting of products in China, where bogus goods ranging from movies to bags and even food are widely sold.

Eight out of 10 fake products _ including medicines _ seized at Europe's borders are made in China, he said.

"China will never properly tackle the issue of product safety without addressing the tidal wave of counterfeit goods. This is a war that China must win," Mandelson said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
China renews campaign against spoiled pork
Reuters
Wednesday November 28 2007

Source of Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7109257

BEIJING, Nov 28 (Reuters) - China will start a renewed push against illegal slaughterhouses and the sale of diseased, spoiled and doctored pork as part of a campaign to ensure food safety, the Commerce Ministry said on Wednesday.
Scandals involving substandard food and medicines are reported by Chinese media almost every day, and the issue has burst into the international spotlight since tainted additives exported from China contaminated pet food in North America.
China's pigs have been battered by an outbreak of blue ear disease, or Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, that killed as many as a million last year, though the government says infections have fallen after a vaccination campaign.
The outbreak contributed to soaring domestic pork prices and put pressure on national inflation levels, prompting Premier Wen Jiabao to visit a pig farm where he pledged to ensure meat for the poor of the pork-loving nation.
The Commerce Ministry, together with the health and agriculture ministries and police, will step up checks to make sure no illegally slaughtered pigs or tainted pork find their way into the market, it said in a statement on its Web site (www.mofcom.gov.cn).
"Strike hard against illegal abattoirs, the sale of meat injected with water or diseased and other illegal behaviour," it said. "Resolutely crack major cases, and stop meat entering the market which has not been inspected."
The government unveiled a similar plan over the summer, suggesting problems remained in the system which still needed to be tackled.
Vice Premier Wu Yi, China's "Iron Lady" who is leading the effort to stamp out tainted and dangerous products, earlier this month lamented that many farmers had little idea about food safety and were still using underground slaughter houses.
This week, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson told China its reputation was at risk after a series of food and product safety scandals and that it must do more to tackle the problem.
Public fears about food safety grew in China in 2004 when at least 13 babies died of malnutrition in the eastern province of Anhui after they were fed fake milk powder with no nutritional value. (Reporting by Ben Blanchard, editing by Nick Macfie)
 
Data Analysis
SouthEast Asia fish Carries WORMS
( And you want to buy Chinese talapilai)

Results of fecal examinations for helminth eggs were analyzed for prevalence and intensity of infection (epg), as measured by enumeration of eggs per gram of feces. Species infection rates (number of expelled worms) were descriptively analyzed by using SPSS version 11.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and χ2 and Student t tests.

Results
Parasite Diversity, Prevalence, and Intensity
A total of 615 persons, 563 men (91.5%) and 52 women (8.5%), were selected and submitted stool for examination. Fecal egg examinations showed that 554 persons (90.1%) were positive for helminth parasites (Table 1). Trichuris trichiura (whipworm) nematode eggs were found in 58.2% of the stool samples. A total of 64.9% were infected with small trematode eggs (<50 μm long), and 39.5% were infected with Ascaris lumbricoides (roundworm). Hookworm eggs (3.1%) and large (>50 μm long) trematode eggs (0.8%) were infrequently seen (Table 1). Multiparasitism was common in this community, with 65.1% of the persons expelling eggs having >2 species or types of eggs. Small trematode eggs, all <50 μm long, were presumed to be either those of C. sinensis or of intestinal trematodes of the family Heterophyidae. However, differentiation was not considered reliable by light microscopy, and selected persons were treated to expel their helminth parasites.

On the basis of egg count data, small trematode infection prevalence differed significantly between men (68.7%) and women (23.1%) (χ2 43.56, p<0.05). The infection rate for small trematode infection in men also differed significantly between age groups; it was significantly higher for those >40 years of age (χ2 7.95, p<0.05). In contrast, women did not show a significant difference in infection rates between age groups (χ2 0.85, p>0.05).

Most persons with small trematode eggs showed low infection intensity (epg); 344 (86.2%) of 399 shed <1,000 epg, and 55 (13.8%) of 399 shed 1,000–9,999 epg. Infection intensity differed significantly between those <40 years of age and those >40 years of age (χ2 4.17, p<0.05) (Table 2).

The prevalence of A. lumbricoides was 39.3% in men and 42.3% in women. There was a significant increase in prevalence with age only in women (χ2 6.4, p<0.05). Infection with T. trichiura infection did not differ significantly by sex or age (p>0.05).

FZT Species Identification
Trematodes responsible for releasing small eggs were identified by using morphologic characterization of adult stages expelled from patients. A total 15,185 adult worms were collected from 33 patients. The number and prevalence of individual species of expelled trematodes are shown in Table 3. C. sinensis and 4 species of intestinal fishborne zoonotic flukes were identified (Figure 3); C. sinensis was isolated from 51.5% of patients. Intestinal fluke species identified (mean body length × width measurements in μm) were Haplorchis pumilio (632 × 291), H. taichui (756 × 421), H. yokogawai (760 × 400), and Stellantchasmus falcatus (468 × 298). Prevalence of intestinal flukes was H. pumilio, 100%; H. taichui, 69.7%; H. yokogawai, 6.1%; and S. falcatus, 3.0%. H. pumilio was the most common trematode (90.4%) of all worms isolated; 13,734 adult worms were isolated from 33 persons (mean 416.2); 1 patient expelled 4,525 worms. The plantborne intestinal pig trematode Fasciolopsis buski was isolated from 1 patient.

Multiple infections with FZTs were common (Figure 4): 54.5% of patients were infected with 2 trematode species, 33.3% with 3 species. A total of 9% were infected with only 1 species. One person (3%) was infected with 4 FZT species and F. buski.

Discussion
Our results demonstrate that zoonotic fishborne intestinal trematodes are endemic in Vietnam. These trematodes represent, to our knowledge, a new and previously unrecognized public health problem. To our knowledge, in the many publications on human parasites originating in Vietnam since the 19th century colonial era, no reports on these intestinal fishborne parasites have appeared (11). Whether this zoonosis is newly emerging in Vietnam because of changes in agriculture/aquaculture, demographics, social, or environmental changes or if it has been overlooked because of diagnostic problems is not known. However, snail vectors (e.g., Melanoides tuberculata) and suitable vertebrate intermediate (fish) and reservoir hosts (fish-eating birds, dogs, cats, pigs) for FZTs are common in this country (1,4,11,19,21). Furthermore, H. taichui, H. pumilio, H. yokogawai, and S. falcatus are endemic in neighboring countries such as Thailand (14), Lao People's Democratic Republic (10,15), and the People's Republic of China (16).
 

Latest posts

Top