China and the US: Whose Kettle Is Really Black?
It was beef and almonds. The whole time we were fussing about the Chinese government’s failure to impose strict standards on production of toys and Mattel was recalling toys because of lead paint and other manufacturing deficiencies, (some of which Mattel now acknowledges were design flaws) the Commission of the European Communities was quietly taking action against the United States because of almonds, and the South Koreans were banning some U.S. cows.
Although the almonds were, like some of the parts of the recalled toys, small enough to be swallowed by infants with the result that they might choke, they were not recalled because of their size. Nor were they coated with lead paint like the toys produced in China. Indeed, the almonds have not been recalled. They are still being sold in grocery stores all over the United States and will continue to be sold in those places for the foreseeable future. The trouble with almonds, as far as the Commission is concerned is the aflatoxin levels in their production and processing and the fact that there are inadequate controls in the United States to insure that the almonds that reach Europe meet Community standards. It was a bit of an embarrassment but then, much of what we do is. Not properly processing almonds is a much smaller problem than many of the others confronting the administration.
A regulation was promulgated on January 28,2002 by the European Parliament and the Council to deal with “the general principles and requirements of food law”. It created the European Food Safety Authority. In 2006 certain conditions were established “governing certain foodstuffs imported from certain third countries due to contamination risks of these products by aflatoxins.” In establishing the conditions the Scientific Committee for Food noted that “aflatoxin B-1 is a potent genotoxic carcinogen and . . . contributes to the risk of liver cancer.” Accordingly a regulation was issued setting maximum levels for aflatoxins in foodstuffs. In 2005 and 2006 the Committee observed that those maximum levels were regularly exceeded in almonds and derived products from the United States and constitute “a threat to public health in the Community.” Accordingly, said the Committee, special rules were needed to deal with almonds from the United States. And in some respects the procedures were similar to the United States procedures to check lead paint level on toys made in China.
The Commission Food and Veterinary Office sent representatives to the United States to “assess the control systems in place to prevent aflatoxin contamination levels in almonds intended for export to the Community . . .. That mission revealed the absence of any compulsory legal requirements to control aflatoxin levels in almond production and processing and the inadequacy of the current control system to offer guarantees concerning the compliance of exported products with Community standards.” The investigation also disclosed the “inadequacy of the laboratories visited to provide any guarantees for exports and demonstrated failures to comply with almost all . . . ‘General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories’.”
When the administration learned of this somewhat dismal report card the appropriate agency said it would take action to address the shortcomings which, is more or less, what the Chinese said about lead paint. The Commission, however, found the proposed steps wanting saying they failed to “provide guarantees for compliance of future shipments of almonds with Community legislation on aflatoxins. It is therefore appropriate to subject almonds and derived products originating in or consigned from the United States of America to strict conditions in order to provide a high level of protection to public health.”
On August 1, 2007, a new resolution was adopted that says that all almonds and derived products imported into the Community from the United states “should be subjected to sampling and analysis for aflatoxin levels by the competent authority of the importing Member State, prior to release onto the market insofar as they are not covered by the Voluntary Aflatoxin Sampling Plan set up by the Almond Board of California in May, 2006. (That suggests that with almonds, as with auto emissions, California is ahead of the rest of the country although the language of the Resolution itself seems to omit this exception.) As if the attack on our almonds weren’t bad enough, in September South Korea took out after our cows.
In December 2003 South Korea banned the import of beef from the United States because of its fear of mad cow disease. Imports resumed in April but part of the agreement entered into upon resumption of importing beef was that all beef imported from the United States would be boneless and come from cattle under 30 months old. During July and August bones were discovered in shipments received by South Korea and South Korea has revoked import approval for the two facilities that shipped the offending cows.
The question with which my readers are left is whose kettle is really black.
brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu
For Brauchli’s political commentary see http://humanraceandothersports.com
Ain,t world-wide capitalism grand?
Apparently thos ewho live in glass houses shouldn’t.
It would be nice to make public in the US the reasons that the Community bans so many US made products.
The Japanese used to claim quality issues with U.S. produce. It seemed that nothing would meet up to their standards. What they really were was export oriented and that was the way it was going to stay.
You need to understand who is responsible for ensuring a product meets the standards of the country the product will be sold in.
It is the importer of record. The importer of a product from overseas has reponsibility for that product, whether it be sold in Europe or the US. It is never the manufacturer unless the manufacturer also imports the product into that country.
The non-importer of record manufacturer may be aware of the regulations in the country that product is sold in, but this is not usually the case since there are so many countries and different regulations. The importer is the one who controls the quality verification and is responsible for ensuring the product meets his countries regulations. On the retail side, they are responsible to verify that the importer has brought in a safe product that they will sell. They may do this by reviewing certification from the importer or manufacturer showing the product has ben tested, and they may even arrange for their own testing and inspection. But if something goes wrong, the importer is on the hook and he is on his own in trying to get compenasation from the manufacturer.
This whole idea of blaming the Chinese government or the US government for manufacturers export product quality is about as undemocratic as anything I ever heard. Governments main job is to protect the quality of the product their people consume, not that of countries their manufacturers export to.
In the Mattel recalls, they were the importer of record. They had complete responsibility for the product they imported.
Europe and Japan have about the toughest regulations and product standards in the world to protect their consumers. The US was a very weak regulatory environment in comparison. It’s a don’t ask don’t tell environment. If the retailer does not find out a product is unsafe by testing (certification review is simply a CYA approach with a million holes), and he has no responsibility to test anything unless he imported the product, then the product defect is only found by customer complaint informing them a child has been injured, or people are sick.
The reason US manufacturers have problems in other markets is their biggest market, the US, has the weakest standards, since government has nothing but contempt for the working class consumers and protects the corporate critters.
Exactly MiMiCcS - which is WHY - MAttel issued a PUBLIC APaLOGY published in all the MAJOR NEWSPAPER.
WAKE UP PEOPLE -
MiMiCcs,
well written, but your comment regarding “Europe and Japan having the toughtest regulations” is something that requires more indepth comment in my opinion.
Anyone who has been to Europe or Japan knows the depth of knowledge regarding food quality and its preparation.
Theses areas have strict regulations because it reflects the general conscensus/knowledge base of the population. As a little example, if you tried to sell what most North American dairies label Buttermilk in Europe, it would be rejected by a significant portion of the public.
Europeans and Japanese understand quality when it comes to food - people who prepare food, sell the food, and buy the food, for the most part can spot crap.
So the restrictions in place to keep American agricultural products out of the European and Japanese markets are not just to prevent outside competition - its to maintain a quality base that the public expects.
In America, the threshold is very much lower.