May 31, 2007
Chinese Make a Brutal Point on Food and Drug Safety
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
China has a lot riding on consumer confidence. The rest of the world is increasingly dependent on its exports. Losing newly won global markets could be disastrous, just as its own people are beginning to understand what other people have and to enjoy the fruits of Western retailers opening premises where they can now afford to shop.
So the recent scandals about melamine infecting pet food and animals entering the human food chain, soon followed by revelations about toothpaste containing poisonous chemicals, left the Chinese government having to take action.
To show they mean business, Zheng Xiaoyu, the commissioner of China’s Food and Drug Administration from 1998 to 2005, was sentenced to death on May 29 after being found guilty just the day before for taking bribes to approve substandard medicines, including an antibiotic blamed for at least 10 deaths.
The sentence was unusually heavy even for China – known for its court-ordered executions – and likely indicates the leadership’s determination to deal with the recent scares involving unsafe food and drugs.
“The Chinese government attaches great importance to the safety and security of food,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a press briefing when asked about Mr. Zheng’s case, according to the Associated Press. “We stand ready to work with the international community to safeguard the quality and reputation of the Chinese food industry.”
Other actions are also being taken. Following what was called a two-day “strategic economic dialogue” between Chinese and American officials, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said, “the Chinese government clearly understands the world marketplace will swiftly disadvantage any nation or economy or firm that is not able to establish a sense of confidence and reliability.” One Chinese official pointed out that although importers of uninspected products must also share responsibility, steps are being taken by the Chinese government to prevent future problems.
Among other things, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that “companies are now required to tell Chinese customs when they export or import glycerine, and have it inspected, according to a notice published on the customs website (www.customs.gov.cn). Five proteins, including casein which is used as a food binding agent, are also on the list, as are citric and tartaric acid, other widely used food additives, molasses, maple syrup and even ginger biscuits.”
In addition, China’s government also announced plans for its first recall system for unsafe products to be in place by the end of the year.
“All domestic and foreign food producers and distributors will be obliged to follow the system,” Wu Jianping, director general of the administration’s food production and supervision department, was quoted as saying by the state-run China Daily newspaper.
The State Food and Drug Administration plans to blacklist food producers breaking the rules,” the China Daily reported, adding that serious violators could be barred from the market. At present, the paper said, “only one section on product inspection issued in 2002 touches upon food recall and the need for such a system.”
Discussion Questions: Do you think the death sentence given to the former
head of its food and drug administration as well as newly proposed regulations
will instill confidence among countries China exports to? What is your view
on how dependent China has become on the income from food sold in the U.S. and
Europe?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Well one thing’s for sure–no one will criticize the Chinese for being too soft on inept and crooked government officials! It’s hard not to wonder who of our own government, business and agency administrators would no longer be with us if they were sentenced to death for criminal and inept behavior leading to needless deaths and suffering. If I were in a role like that, this story would scare the heck out of me.
Certainly the death of the head of the agency helps preserve “face” for the government. Restoring confidence of buyers and/or consumers will be determined by whether or not the new rules actually stop the problem.
Given the willful disregard for public safety shown in this case, I am hesitant to say the penalty does not match the crime. I have to doubt that the criminal negligence in this case rests with only person and I would feel more confident if there was more thorough house cleaning. My basic feeling is, I don’t mind using hard goods from China, but it will be a long time before I even consider trusting their food supply.
The preceding comments pretty much cover the questions posed. So I’ll just add my vote on whether China’s deep-sixing its top food administrator and installing proposed new regulations will inspire global confidence in food products from China. My answer is NO.
This death sentence will only serve to reinforce the image that China is a brutal, out-of-control country. It will do nothing to assuage the concerns of consumers around the world that products from China are unsafe and potentially lethal.
Having traveled to China recently I can say with authority that the country is beautiful and the people are charming. But it is also easy to see that in a country of that size, with that much poverty, with that little understanding of farming sanitation, and that much regional corruption, it will be virtually impossible for the Chinese government to get control over their agricultural and pharmaceutical standards in order to assure safe exports. That leaves it to responsible importers and conglomerates in the West to take on additional testing and monitoring (adding significant additional costs) if they choose to import and sell Chinese foods and ingredients that are safe. The idea of certified “organic” labeled foods from there is almost unbelievable.
David’s comments about “petty scares” are exactly what the exporters and Chinese government hope will be the general understanding of this mess. But in the view of many, they are not petty and they are merely the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of dead pets from poisoned pet food ingredients, “mislabeled” human foods that are currently forbidden for US import but here anyway, tainted medicines from China that killed hospital patients in South America, fake formulas that starved babies to death in China, and large numbers of rejected shipments of various contaminated Chinese products at port of entry are well documented by responsible news media and require only the most basic Google search.
The death sentence in China may help send a message there but will have little impact on confidence of American consumers. In my view it will be the inevitable lawsuits in America and Canada to make a real difference in assuring safe imported food and drugs on grocery shelves, and will determine whether ultimately the benefits of Chinese food imports are worth the risk and cost to companies who care about their customers (and shareholders’) well-being.
In Japan, leaders who were responsible for grave errors used to commit Harakiri for public effect…they don’t do it now. In China they apparently still believe in taking a life when grave errors are committed…especially where such errors have caused the death of others.
Yes! it will certainly drive fear into people of responsibility. But the real question is whether these leaders have a proper system through which they are able to manage results. Quite often management and administrative systems in China, especially in the provinces, are bureaucratic and outmoded.
I fear that if those in responsible positions become fearful and see one way to really manage….the able ones would look for other jobs resulting in a drain of existing talents–hence creating a worse situation.
The less talented with less mobility would probably micro-manage and introduce a slew of ineffective checks which will also aggravate the situation.
Punishment certainly would not help the current situation…a realistic and objective evaluation of the system will. The recent agreement by China, resulting from these incidents, to work with international experts towards improving these areas is probably a far more important area to highlight than the brutal punishment.
I’m with David (though I would prefer a long-term lease/purchase option on Iraq, rather than an outright sale….)
Back on topic: China has serious, systematic problems with quality, safety, ethics, etc.–all those little niceties that get overlooked in the headlong rush to look at price alone. Are the problems pervasive and of longstanding(?): yes. Can they be “solved”(?): I don’t know…but reactionary moves like this inspire little confidence (in me, at least.)
I think we are responsible as much as the Chinese exporters. If we, as a country, did not put so much emphasis on pricing–always trying to get the cheapest deals, anywhere in the world–we would not have such problems. Of course, we also want best quality with the lowest price. Something has to give! Look at our own country, and why we export a lot of jobs to the third world…because we always want to have the lowest price, yet the highest quality.
We have become the slaves of Wall Street! A company has to show better financial results every quarter (which is a very short time) continuously, to infinity. Then, all the Wall Street wonder boys will make a lot of money and we get poor quality, over the long haul. Then, we will blame somebody else.
China’s poor quality starts with the U.S., always wanting the lowest price for similar things. Look at North Carolina now, with all the furniture manufacturing gone to China. Now, it’s the food ingredients’ turn and it will be something else down the line. However, we are always ready to cast the first stone!
The Chinese FDA appeared ineffective but who says the US FDA is all that it can be? China food exports are enormous. The melamine scandal attracted a lot of attention, but how often does anyone hear about China food scandals? And how often do we hear about American food scandals?
As far as consumer reaction in the U.S., I would look to the recent findings of the Food Marketing Institute. FMI’s Consumer Trends 2007 survey showed that the number of consumers “completely or somewhat confident” in the safety of supermarket food declined from 82% in 2006 to 66%–the lowest point since 1989 when the issue of pesticides in apples and contaminated grapes were widely reported. Consumer confidence in restaurant food is even lower at 43%. Of course a lot of the focus of consumers was on spinach and bagged salads which were front page stories during the time of the survey in early 2007. However, the recent incidents with pet food and ingredients from China can only add to consumer concerns.
Responsibility rests with manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, restaurants, food service, government and others to exercise due diligence and oversight of products from China and all areas, including the U.S. Only then will be begin to regain consumer confidence.
Two more stories about attitudes towards food in China cropped up in today’s papers. The first is a Reuters report about the wariness of Chinese consumers, the second about monkfish that contained pufferfish poison which has somehow been exported to and then “lost” in the US.
I really don’t believe that this death sentence is going to change much for anyone (except Mr. Scapegoat and his family, no matter how illegally and unethically he may have behaved). The world, including and especially the US and UK, are way too dependent on China for far more than food to be able to kick up much fuss and the Chinese know it. I suppose it’s mostly a matter of risk management–how many people (and animals) can they let get sick and/or die before it really matters to the powers that be. Personally, I have lost confidence in the ability of the individual to influence governments anywhere. Judging by voter turnout in my two countries, particularly, I would guess that an awful lot of other people feel the same way. And I really don’t believe, either, that enough people believe in anything other than “it can’t happen to me” to vote with their proverbial purses.
This is simply wrong. It’s window dressing and does not address the root of the problem–that the Chinese manufacturers cut corners to offer the cheapest price. The Chinese FDA, while corrupt and inefficient, did NOT add the melamine to the pet food, they just missed inspecting it. That makes them culpable, but not by death. The actual perpetrators are the manufacturers and to some extent, the US firms that subcontracted the manufacturing to them.
A good solution to prevent this from happening: make the US firms add a statement to the labels of food products: “The company XYZ takes complete ownership of the safety of this product until the expiration date and will be completely liable for any and all claims.”
Something like that should solve the issue….
If nothing else the disposition of the Zheng Xiaoyu case provides food for thought for all of those who feel government needs to be more accountable. Hard to imagine any politico anywhere that wouldn’t see life as the ultimate carrot and death as the ultimate stick. That aside, an execution alone won’t do much to bolster international confidence in Chinese exports. The proof is–and will remain–in the products. Still, back to their idea about discipling derelict regulators….
The death sentence for Zheng Xiaoyu, the commissioner of China’s Food and Drug Administration, certainly does show that China is passionate about the recent melamine scandals; however, I expect that consumers here will continue to be skeptical about quality and safety of food imports from China.
Ok–this is going to freak people out. At least consumers in western countries who are aware of it.
Will it actually change consumer behavior? No. Most of the time, consumers don’t know where a product is manufactured until they inspect an inner label. Even then, sub-contractors aren’t always listed.
Ultimate impact on average Joe: increased wariness of China. Ultimate impact on consumer behavior: none.
To effectively deal with China one must have a keen understanding of their culture and the importance of “face.” An example is the issue with Taiwan. To mainland China, Taiwan’s independence is a self perceived embarrassment to their nation and to maintain face they will do whatever it takes to re-unify their country and will not allow outside interdiction. In the case of the recent food/pet food poisoning scandals they have both real economic and reputation issues to deal with.
Does the execution of this bureaucrat show the earnestness of China in dealing with the core issues? The answer is no, this is a measure designed to address their own need to maintain face. This type of punishment has been effected in the past, especially during the WTO period when the US was making a lot of noise over IPR and piracy. A few manufacturing executives were found guilty and executed, a few factory raids were widely publicized to show their effort at cracking down on piracy, but it did not bring about lasting change, nor was it meant to.
China’s largest problem is one of ensuring compliance to national laws and regulations. The country still operates under significant regional authority and corruption and bribery are a way of life at the very lowest levels of government. Compliance by the tens of thousands of component manufacturing factories is all but impossible in today’s China.
China’s factory base is a pyramid where the base is made up of many thousands of small factories who are subcontractors to larger factories and suppliers at the top. Quality control is all but impossible due to this structure and will continue to be so until China begins to more closely regulate compliance to local, national and international quality and safety laws.
It is the lack of compliance to these laws (including pay, working conditions, environmental and safety issues) which keep China’s production priced so low. Production prices will have to rise to offset the additional costs business will incur to comply. These increases will impact China’s competitiveness in the world market and they are loathe to slow the engine.
China’s attempt to bolster confidence in the short term through face saving executions and factory raids will fall short the moment that another incident is brought to light, which it undoubtedly will. In my opinion, the deeper, core issues at play are not likely to be fixed anytime soon.
Death sentences in China are normal and I don’t think anyone in China will think much of it. This appears to be more window dressing than actual change. Just who is dependent on whom here? We depend on China for a lot more than food such as money from bond sales to run our country. I was hoping we would be able to solve our Middle East problems by selling Iraq to China. China would get oil and probably whip Iraqi citizens into obedient servants of the state. The USA would get their $200 billion plus investment back and perhaps a sweetheart deal on some oil. Even more important, more places to build Wal-Marts. If we are going to control the flow of oil to the USA and eliminate terrorist threats, we need a brutal friend such as China. Let’s not go overboard over some petty scares involving food and drugs. The two countries need to work together and certainly not take sides. We should work with China and defend them in the world market place.
This strong action by the Chinese will get a lot of attention but I don’t think that most people who are educated will feel that this will make the food supply any safer in the near future. This is something that is going to take the Chinese a long time to overcome. The next time this comes up–and I predict there will be a next time–all of the great rhetoric and harsh discipline will not have done any good.
In the third world countries, I think most people are not even aware of the problem.
I am not a proponent of the death penalty so I do not agree with the sentence. I do however totally agree with sending a strong message to everyone about how serious a responsibility they have concerning the safety of our food supply. Life in prison would send shivers down my back and make me think twice before I would do anything that would compromise our food safety. My belief is that it would cause most of our executives to be much more careful in trying to make good decisions rather than risk this heavy of a penalty.
I doubt however that this will cause the average consumer to feel much safer about Chinese imports. Most people just don’t pay enough attention or get involved enough to really understand the situation. Readers and participants on this forum are much better informed that the average consumer and are not a good barometer of public opinion.
David Biernbaum’s comments are right on target…if the consumer knows the food is from China, she/he will be suspect of the food. However, if there is not another problem in the near future, the consumer will forget about the issue and just move on unless it was her/his pet or a loved one that was previously affected by the food contamination.
There is a deeper realization that can be concluded from the death sentence for Commissioner Zheng Xiaoyu. China understands its economic dependency on the World. That dependency is far more reaching and important to China than geo-politics. Even though China is not necessarily the West’s best friend or ally on many World problems and issues, it realizes its dependency on the West to absorb the output of its people and to raise them to a higher standard of living. This in the end is good news! The death sentence indicates that trade will over come geo-political issues in the long run.
I agree with Liz–this just makes China an even scarier place than it was before. As for changing consumer behavior as a result–consumers can barely keep up with the dizzying array of choices offered them. How would they ever factor ingredient sources into the equation–assuming they could even identify where the ingredients came from?
The death sentence for someone who was in charge of China’s FDA for 7 years just shows how ill equipped the Chinese are to reform their own systems in any proper fashion. Having said that, consumers won’t pay attention unless/until the next product contamination case. It is retailers and CPG companies that need to have greater oversight of their Chinese suppliers, to try and avoid/reduce the next set of problems.
Quick execution … hmmm.
It’s an awfully convenient way to prevent him from talking to anybody about the extent of the corruption, the real practices, etc. In America, after (or perhaps during) a short stint in an “country club” prison, he’d probably be the subject of tell-all interviews on “60 Minutes” or the like.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Well one thing’s for sure–no one will criticize the Chinese for being too soft on inept and crooked government officials! It’s hard not to wonder who of our own government, business and agency administrators would no longer be with us if they were sentenced to death for criminal and inept behavior leading to needless deaths and suffering. If I were in a role like that, this story would scare the heck out of me.
Certainly the death of the head of the agency helps preserve “face” for the government. Restoring confidence of buyers and/or consumers will be determined by whether or not the new rules actually stop the problem.
Given the willful disregard for public safety shown in this case, I am hesitant to say the penalty does not match the crime. I have to doubt that the criminal negligence in this case rests with only person and I would feel more confident if there was more thorough house cleaning. My basic feeling is, I don’t mind using hard goods from China, but it will be a long time before I even consider trusting their food supply.
The preceding comments pretty much cover the questions posed. So I’ll just add my vote on whether China’s deep-sixing its top food administrator and installing proposed new regulations will inspire global confidence in food products from China. My answer is NO.
This death sentence will only serve to reinforce the image that China is a brutal, out-of-control country. It will do nothing to assuage the concerns of consumers around the world that products from China are unsafe and potentially lethal.
Having traveled to China recently I can say with authority that the country is beautiful and the people are charming. But it is also easy to see that in a country of that size, with that much poverty, with that little understanding of farming sanitation, and that much regional corruption, it will be virtually impossible for the Chinese government to get control over their agricultural and pharmaceutical standards in order to assure safe exports. That leaves it to responsible importers and conglomerates in the West to take on additional testing and monitoring (adding significant additional costs) if they choose to import and sell Chinese foods and ingredients that are safe. The idea of certified “organic” labeled foods from there is almost unbelievable.
David’s comments about “petty scares” are exactly what the exporters and Chinese government hope will be the general understanding of this mess. But in the view of many, they are not petty and they are merely the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of dead pets from poisoned pet food ingredients, “mislabeled” human foods that are currently forbidden for US import but here anyway, tainted medicines from China that killed hospital patients in South America, fake formulas that starved babies to death in China, and large numbers of rejected shipments of various contaminated Chinese products at port of entry are well documented by responsible news media and require only the most basic Google search.
The death sentence in China may help send a message there but will have little impact on confidence of American consumers. In my view it will be the inevitable lawsuits in America and Canada to make a real difference in assuring safe imported food and drugs on grocery shelves, and will determine whether ultimately the benefits of Chinese food imports are worth the risk and cost to companies who care about their customers (and shareholders’) well-being.
In Japan, leaders who were responsible for grave errors used to commit Harakiri for public effect…they don’t do it now. In China they apparently still believe in taking a life when grave errors are committed…especially where such errors have caused the death of others.
Yes! it will certainly drive fear into people of responsibility. But the real question is whether these leaders have a proper system through which they are able to manage results. Quite often management and administrative systems in China, especially in the provinces, are bureaucratic and outmoded.
I fear that if those in responsible positions become fearful and see one way to really manage….the able ones would look for other jobs resulting in a drain of existing talents–hence creating a worse situation.
The less talented with less mobility would probably micro-manage and introduce a slew of ineffective checks which will also aggravate the situation.
Punishment certainly would not help the current situation…a realistic and objective evaluation of the system will. The recent agreement by China, resulting from these incidents, to work with international experts towards improving these areas is probably a far more important area to highlight than the brutal punishment.
I’m with David (though I would prefer a long-term lease/purchase option on Iraq, rather than an outright sale….)
Back on topic: China has serious, systematic problems with quality, safety, ethics, etc.–all those little niceties that get overlooked in the headlong rush to look at price alone. Are the problems pervasive and of longstanding(?): yes. Can they be “solved”(?): I don’t know…but reactionary moves like this inspire little confidence (in me, at least.)
I think we are responsible as much as the Chinese exporters. If we, as a country, did not put so much emphasis on pricing–always trying to get the cheapest deals, anywhere in the world–we would not have such problems. Of course, we also want best quality with the lowest price. Something has to give! Look at our own country, and why we export a lot of jobs to the third world…because we always want to have the lowest price, yet the highest quality.
We have become the slaves of Wall Street! A company has to show better financial results every quarter (which is a very short time) continuously, to infinity. Then, all the Wall Street wonder boys will make a lot of money and we get poor quality, over the long haul. Then, we will blame somebody else.
China’s poor quality starts with the U.S., always wanting the lowest price for similar things. Look at North Carolina now, with all the furniture manufacturing gone to China. Now, it’s the food ingredients’ turn and it will be something else down the line. However, we are always ready to cast the first stone!
The Chinese FDA appeared ineffective but who says the US FDA is all that it can be? China food exports are enormous. The melamine scandal attracted a lot of attention, but how often does anyone hear about China food scandals? And how often do we hear about American food scandals?
As far as consumer reaction in the U.S., I would look to the recent findings of the Food Marketing Institute. FMI’s Consumer Trends 2007 survey showed that the number of consumers “completely or somewhat confident” in the safety of supermarket food declined from 82% in 2006 to 66%–the lowest point since 1989 when the issue of pesticides in apples and contaminated grapes were widely reported. Consumer confidence in restaurant food is even lower at 43%. Of course a lot of the focus of consumers was on spinach and bagged salads which were front page stories during the time of the survey in early 2007. However, the recent incidents with pet food and ingredients from China can only add to consumer concerns.
Responsibility rests with manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, restaurants, food service, government and others to exercise due diligence and oversight of products from China and all areas, including the U.S. Only then will be begin to regain consumer confidence.
Two more stories about attitudes towards food in China cropped up in today’s papers. The first is a Reuters report about the wariness of Chinese consumers, the second about monkfish that contained pufferfish poison which has somehow been exported to and then “lost” in the US.
I really don’t believe that this death sentence is going to change much for anyone (except Mr. Scapegoat and his family, no matter how illegally and unethically he may have behaved). The world, including and especially the US and UK, are way too dependent on China for far more than food to be able to kick up much fuss and the Chinese know it. I suppose it’s mostly a matter of risk management–how many people (and animals) can they let get sick and/or die before it really matters to the powers that be. Personally, I have lost confidence in the ability of the individual to influence governments anywhere. Judging by voter turnout in my two countries, particularly, I would guess that an awful lot of other people feel the same way. And I really don’t believe, either, that enough people believe in anything other than “it can’t happen to me” to vote with their proverbial purses.
This is simply wrong. It’s window dressing and does not address the root of the problem–that the Chinese manufacturers cut corners to offer the cheapest price. The Chinese FDA, while corrupt and inefficient, did NOT add the melamine to the pet food, they just missed inspecting it. That makes them culpable, but not by death. The actual perpetrators are the manufacturers and to some extent, the US firms that subcontracted the manufacturing to them.
A good solution to prevent this from happening: make the US firms add a statement to the labels of food products: “The company XYZ takes complete ownership of the safety of this product until the expiration date and will be completely liable for any and all claims.”
Something like that should solve the issue….
If nothing else the disposition of the Zheng Xiaoyu case provides food for thought for all of those who feel government needs to be more accountable. Hard to imagine any politico anywhere that wouldn’t see life as the ultimate carrot and death as the ultimate stick. That aside, an execution alone won’t do much to bolster international confidence in Chinese exports. The proof is–and will remain–in the products. Still, back to their idea about discipling derelict regulators….
The death sentence for Zheng Xiaoyu, the commissioner of China’s Food and Drug Administration, certainly does show that China is passionate about the recent melamine scandals; however, I expect that consumers here will continue to be skeptical about quality and safety of food imports from China.
Ok–this is going to freak people out. At least consumers in western countries who are aware of it.
Will it actually change consumer behavior? No. Most of the time, consumers don’t know where a product is manufactured until they inspect an inner label. Even then, sub-contractors aren’t always listed.
Ultimate impact on average Joe: increased wariness of China. Ultimate impact on consumer behavior: none.
To effectively deal with China one must have a keen understanding of their culture and the importance of “face.” An example is the issue with Taiwan. To mainland China, Taiwan’s independence is a self perceived embarrassment to their nation and to maintain face they will do whatever it takes to re-unify their country and will not allow outside interdiction. In the case of the recent food/pet food poisoning scandals they have both real economic and reputation issues to deal with.
Does the execution of this bureaucrat show the earnestness of China in dealing with the core issues? The answer is no, this is a measure designed to address their own need to maintain face. This type of punishment has been effected in the past, especially during the WTO period when the US was making a lot of noise over IPR and piracy. A few manufacturing executives were found guilty and executed, a few factory raids were widely publicized to show their effort at cracking down on piracy, but it did not bring about lasting change, nor was it meant to.
China’s largest problem is one of ensuring compliance to national laws and regulations. The country still operates under significant regional authority and corruption and bribery are a way of life at the very lowest levels of government. Compliance by the tens of thousands of component manufacturing factories is all but impossible in today’s China.
China’s factory base is a pyramid where the base is made up of many thousands of small factories who are subcontractors to larger factories and suppliers at the top. Quality control is all but impossible due to this structure and will continue to be so until China begins to more closely regulate compliance to local, national and international quality and safety laws.
It is the lack of compliance to these laws (including pay, working conditions, environmental and safety issues) which keep China’s production priced so low. Production prices will have to rise to offset the additional costs business will incur to comply. These increases will impact China’s competitiveness in the world market and they are loathe to slow the engine.
China’s attempt to bolster confidence in the short term through face saving executions and factory raids will fall short the moment that another incident is brought to light, which it undoubtedly will. In my opinion, the deeper, core issues at play are not likely to be fixed anytime soon.
Death sentences in China are normal and I don’t think anyone in China will think much of it. This appears to be more window dressing than actual change. Just who is dependent on whom here? We depend on China for a lot more than food such as money from bond sales to run our country. I was hoping we would be able to solve our Middle East problems by selling Iraq to China. China would get oil and probably whip Iraqi citizens into obedient servants of the state. The USA would get their $200 billion plus investment back and perhaps a sweetheart deal on some oil. Even more important, more places to build Wal-Marts. If we are going to control the flow of oil to the USA and eliminate terrorist threats, we need a brutal friend such as China. Let’s not go overboard over some petty scares involving food and drugs. The two countries need to work together and certainly not take sides. We should work with China and defend them in the world market place.
This strong action by the Chinese will get a lot of attention but I don’t think that most people who are educated will feel that this will make the food supply any safer in the near future. This is something that is going to take the Chinese a long time to overcome. The next time this comes up–and I predict there will be a next time–all of the great rhetoric and harsh discipline will not have done any good.
In the third world countries, I think most people are not even aware of the problem.
I am not a proponent of the death penalty so I do not agree with the sentence. I do however totally agree with sending a strong message to everyone about how serious a responsibility they have concerning the safety of our food supply. Life in prison would send shivers down my back and make me think twice before I would do anything that would compromise our food safety. My belief is that it would cause most of our executives to be much more careful in trying to make good decisions rather than risk this heavy of a penalty.
I doubt however that this will cause the average consumer to feel much safer about Chinese imports. Most people just don’t pay enough attention or get involved enough to really understand the situation. Readers and participants on this forum are much better informed that the average consumer and are not a good barometer of public opinion.
David Biernbaum’s comments are right on target…if the consumer knows the food is from China, she/he will be suspect of the food. However, if there is not another problem in the near future, the consumer will forget about the issue and just move on unless it was her/his pet or a loved one that was previously affected by the food contamination.
There is a deeper realization that can be concluded from the death sentence for Commissioner Zheng Xiaoyu. China understands its economic dependency on the World. That dependency is far more reaching and important to China than geo-politics. Even though China is not necessarily the West’s best friend or ally on many World problems and issues, it realizes its dependency on the West to absorb the output of its people and to raise them to a higher standard of living. This in the end is good news! The death sentence indicates that trade will over come geo-political issues in the long run.
I agree with Liz–this just makes China an even scarier place than it was before. As for changing consumer behavior as a result–consumers can barely keep up with the dizzying array of choices offered them. How would they ever factor ingredient sources into the equation–assuming they could even identify where the ingredients came from?
The death sentence for someone who was in charge of China’s FDA for 7 years just shows how ill equipped the Chinese are to reform their own systems in any proper fashion. Having said that, consumers won’t pay attention unless/until the next product contamination case. It is retailers and CPG companies that need to have greater oversight of their Chinese suppliers, to try and avoid/reduce the next set of problems.
Quick execution … hmmm.
It’s an awfully convenient way to prevent him from talking to anybody about the extent of the corruption, the real practices, etc. In America, after (or perhaps during) a short stint in an “country club” prison, he’d probably be the subject of tell-all interviews on “60 Minutes” or the like.