Well, I had a good story I was going to write about a meeting, but I will save that to post later this week. I am saving it because I feel I should say something about the tainted milk scandals that have been in the news throughout China. As you have probably have heard, there is a milk scandal brewing in China. If you haven't heard, look it up in the news.
I was rather surprised about how many people are talking about the milk here. Over the past week or two, I have had almost more conversations about milk than I have about rice. People want to talk about it. And they are not happy about it. I am surprised because last summer when I was here, the US and international newspapers were filled with stories of tainted dog food and toothpaste from China. But not many people here knew much about it. Of course, the problem had been primarily in exported foods and not necessarily domestic products.
A little over a year later, people are upset about the milk case. They know this is not the only case, but it is the case that is getting publicized and receiving attention. I have had people tell me that there is no future for 'green foods' (China's organic and ecological agricultural products) because the entire regulatory system is corrupt. Products are labeled one way, but they may not necessarily reach those standards. The best food to eat, I have been told, is in the countryside at the homes of farmers who grow their own food. It sounds similar to alternative food movements in the US these days. Unfortunately, China has a lot more barriers to hurdle regarding industrial food production.
What I see is a sad but fascinating story unfolding. Consumer activism is taking place in China. Mothers are demanding investigations and higher quality standards. When I was in China in 2005 researching environmental activism for my master's thesis, I heard the same stories told over and over again about the beginnings of the environmental movement in China. These were stories where the government first acknowledged there was a large-scale pollution problem and encouraged local governments to come together to fix the problem. Environmental NGOs flourished. But, unfortunately, fixing the environment takes time, as we saw with the polluted skies in Beijing last month that the government desperately wanted to hide.
With the milk case, I think strict food safety regulations are beginning to get stronger. The government is publicizing this case, firing regulators responsible for the tainting, and discussing the problem of food safety openly. In years from now, this case will be talked about as a major starting point for strict control of food safety. But, if the environmental movement is any indication, people will get involved and incentives will be offered to companies, but it will continue to be a slow process to rid the industry of all corruption. Let's hope that lessons can be learned more quickly.
In the meantime, I am avoiding milk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
read this interesting article about a political dissident who was imprisoned for 5 years and was recently released. your last comment re: people demanding change and going against the gov't reminded me of this article
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/09/21/the_united_house_of_yang/?page=full
Hi Amy - There are two other parts to the milk scandal story that I have found interesting: the role played by New Zealand, and the fact that local officials prevented news of the scandal from getting out until after the Olympics. The government has officially apologized for that, which is really unusual and seems to be an acknowledgment (fear?) of how angry people are. But the really interesting thing is that Sanlu, the giant company most implicated in the scandal, is 43% owned by the New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra. So, the people's mistrust of food is being extended to New Zealand food products too, while Fonterra executives are doing some thinking about how they allowed things to go so wrong in a company they nearly half-own. A recent article in The Australian quoted Shanghai-based marketing outfit Access Asia's newsletter, which had this to say about the scandal:
"We'd suggest that one reason this situation got so bad was that many of the executives involved had read several of those dreadful China business books that always say something like: 'Never, ever, under any circumstances, embarrass or openly confront your Chinese business partners as they will suffer loss of face, and this is absolutely the worst thing that can happen.
"We beg to differ. The worst thing that can happen is that people die because executives read stupid business books and swallow them whole. (This) is exactly the kind of 'China is somehow different' excuse-mongering that creates an environment where foreign companies feel culturally obliged to turn a blind eye to corruption, nepotism and outright criminality."
Wow. The milk scandal - like the other food scares - reveals the deep networks of global capital that China is now linked into, and so it's not just local corruption that people have to fight against but the complicity of global capital too.
You make a good point. There does seem to be a very clear learning curve with relation to major health problems in China; SARS, the baby formula scandal, bad baijou, bad dog food, lead tainted toys, the list is long, but regulation seems to be improving and media attention seems to be increasing with each issue (at least that is the impression from abroad). I wonder how issues like this impact consumption. How have Chinese consumers reacted to this? Is anyone buying more local dairy products as a result?
To take a more critical perspective, however, I wonder if the reason that the government’s reaction to the milk issue is different than previous issues is more complicated than you suggest. I think the Chinese government deserves more credit. It is somewhat over optimistic to conclude that the government is reacting “better” to each successive scandal simply because of experience. While all of these issues (or “scandals”) are similar in tone –generally grim- they are each very nuanced in ways that make them almost impossible to compare.
Take for example the lead tainted toys. The impact of the lead tainted toys had very clear repercussions on foreign purchases of Chinese products. In this situation the government was very defensive. Chinese officials went as far as to demanded apologies from foreign media. Some of these demands were well grounded indeed, but in general the government did not take a very retrospective or “consumer friendly” perspective on the issue. They logically came to the defense of their manufacturers and turned a blind eye to broader health concerns.
The current milk scandal is different, because the producers and consumers are different. The reach of Chinese dairy products into foreign markets is not as far as lead tainted toys. Chinese consumers are not as aware of the dangers of lead and are less likely to organize than they would around tainted dairy products. Tainted milk has a far more immediate and painful impact on Chinese households than lead toys.
It is perhaps more logical to conclude that the government's reaction is dictated by a host of reasons. Experience, is only one part of a very large picture.
It's so good to see you on here! I didn't know you had a blog! I look forward to keeping up with your time in the field.
Excellently written, by the way
Post a Comment