China milk scandal terms upheld

[Coventina]

Source: BBC

A court has upheld the sentences of five people convicted over a milk contamination scandal in China.

The ex-head of China's largest milk firm lost her appeal against a life sentence for selling hundreds of tonnes of milk laced with a toxic chemical.

Six babies died and more than 300,000 children were left ill after ingesting melamine, which was added to enhance the milk's apparent protein level.

Two people face the death penalty, one a life term and another eight years.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7965236.stm

---

I met some experts on China for happy hour a few days ago and they were talking about this issue and others like it.

They were pointing out that China's rise has been so fast that these industries just don't know anything about "rules". 10 years ago, there was no "dairy industry" in China. These heads of companies or even lower level employees have no body of knowledge to draw upon, so they just do what seems to make the most financial sense, regardless of consequences.

Doesn't make it right, but that's how it happens.

I found that point interesting, and thought I'd share....

[DS1]

1. So, they didn't know that putting toxic chemicals in milk was a bad idea?

What kind of bullshit excuse is that? Those people you had dinner with need a good slap

[Coventina]

4. Sorry if I didn't make the point clear - At this point China has no "Rules"

And so people looking to make money will do whatever they can to make products as cheaply as possible.

Same thing happened in our own industrial revolution. Except, with China it's almost worse, because they have more scientific knowledge and products (like melamine) at their disposal, and no regulations against using them.

[hobbit709]

2. One shouldn't need "Rules" to know that adding poison to food is wrong.

[KansDem]

3. Sorry, I don't buy it...

They were pointing out that China's rise has been so fast that these industries just don't know anything about "rules".

It doesn't take "rules" to know that when you put a toxic poison in an edible commodity, it's going to result in illness and death.

You can't legislate common sense...

[acmavm]

5. No shit. It's hard to justify endangering lives, if not ending them,

in order to make a profit because they have no 'rules'.

And it's even harder to believe that anyone would offer that crap as an excuse.

[Coventina]

6. They weren't condoning the behavior, just trying to explain why

it happened!

China has no regulatory system & no history of "business ethics".

Therefore, the businesses do unethical things!

You could compare it to our recent financial meltdown. Unethical financial "wizards" thought that mortgage-backed securities would bring untold wealth to themselves & others. Well, it did, but they were also little financial "time-bombs" that blew up in the whole world's face.

But there were no "rules" or "regulations" to stop them, & they certainly didn't care about consequences down the road as long as they could walk away with their loot.

[acmavm]

7. No rules does not excuse criminal activity. The 'explanation'

is an attempt to equivocate.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue about it. I mean, one would think that normally poisoning people wouldn't be part of a 'business plan' regardless of whether there were rules or not.

[hobbit709]

8. normally poisoning people wouldn't be part of a 'business plan'

Unless your family name was Borgia

[Coventina]

9. How was it an attempt to equivocate?

They aren't happy about the situation in China at all, in fact, one friend of mine experienced it first hand.

She's been studying the art scene in a particular Chinese city for some years now. She decided to hold an art show, here in the states, featuring about 5 of the artists from this city. She went and visited the artists in their galleries, gave them her proposal, which they all eagerly accepted. The agreement was as follows:

She would put on the show, publish the catalogue, fly them over for the show, ship their pieces over all at her expense. The only thing the artists had to pay for was to have professional photos taken of the pieces for the publication of the catalogue.

She and the artists together picked the pieces for the show, and signed the contract for the shipment and showing of each piece.

Several months later, she still had not received the images from any of the artists (the catalogue has to go for publication well in advance of the show).

After repeated requests to each of the artists for their images, they all admitted that the pieces agreed upon had been sold to collectors. She informed them that they needed to get the pieces back on loan from the collectors for the show, or they could not be in the show. The artists all insisted that they had other pieces for the show.

She explained to them, "We agreed upon pieces A, B, & C, not X, Y, & Z."
"But Americans will buy anything!" was the response.

She tried repeatedly to explain how a contract works, and that you cannot just change a contract on a whim, but she got nowhere, and had to cancel the show.

This all happened just in the last few months. She doesn't know if they really did sell all their pieces (it seems a little coincidental that every one sold!) or if they just didn't want to send their best pieces overseas (even though they were coming along as well). But my friend's position was that she was not going to host a show at her expense with mediocre work, even though the artists insisted "Americans will buy anything!"

So anyway, I'm relating this to show that they don't EXCUSE this behavior at all!

[Boudica the Lyoness]

10. Thanks so much for that insight

It's fascinating how they do business. A company I am involved with is considering doing business with a very large Chinese company and I will pass on this info because it's so insightful.