We
don't normally write about pet food, but the current hullabaloo in the
US over China's foot-dragging on the pet-food scandal should serve as a
warning -- and not just to pets.
For those who missed the story, US officials are investigating how wheat gluten used in pet food came to be adulterated with melamine, a mildly toxic chemical which is normally used to make plastic kitchen utensils and fertilisers.
Suspicion has fallen on the Chinese companies that exported the wheat gluten, which they may have labelled as intended for non-food use to avoid inspections.
The adulterated pet-food has killed or sickened an unknown number of dogs and cats in the west and led to the recall of more than 100 brands of pet food.
The incident has raised concerns about the safety of Chinese food imports into the US. The Food and Drug Administration gave its inspectors the power to detain without inspection all vegetable protein imports from China if they suspected they were not what they seemed.
Tensions rose further when China initially denied any responsibility, while US officials who wanted to investigate the source of the contamination in China complained of the delay getting visas. That's a problem EngagingChina can relate to -- see this story earlier today.
China then softened its stance and sought to soothe the troubled waters by promptly banning its food exporters from using melamine.
Meanwhile, articles in western media have exposed other incidents of adulterated ingredients from China destined for food or, more worryingly, pharmaceutical use.
Such cases give plenty of ammunition to scaremongers who argue China's lax attitudes to safety and and quality control could have potentially deadly consequences in products like pharmaceuticals or aircraft spare parts. Would you still be keen to fly in an second-hand Boeing knowing that the airline, to save money, had refurbished some of the parts from China?
You probably would if the airline had got a reputable third-party, preferably a western body, to certify that the quality and testing procedures used for the Chinese-made spare parts were identical to those used by Boeing for the original parts.
So, I suspect we will be hearing a lot more China-related announcements from organisations working in testing, certification and QA fields.
Of course, it is easy to condemn the Chinese businesses involved in the pet food and pharmaceutical incidents for putting pets' and people's lives at risk. It is also easy to argue that Chinese officials prefers not to throw up too many road-blocks to trade by asking their exporters difficult questions about the source and composition of the ingredients in every sack.
But we should remember that US is hardly a shining example when it comes to food safety. Anyone who has read Eric Schlosser's excellent Fast Food Nation will know about the mucky goings on behind US farm and factory gates.
It is thus ironic that US consumers seem to more alarmed about this apparently isolated pet-food incident and its effect on their pooches than they are about the countless examples of how, closer to home, lax food safety standards -- and the lack of effective enforcement by the FDA -- continue to put human health and lives at risk in the sake of cheaper food.
Ten years ago it was fast-food chain Jack In the Box that was in the dock for food poisoning. Last December, it was Taco Bell suffering from a "health-related incident" caused by contaminated ingredients which, needless to say, didn't come from China. Plus ça change.
