The product safety issue has been one that I am consistently a bit sensitive to. If nothing else, it has continually proved itself to be a case where statistics can be used to show anything that an author needs to use them for.

While I am sure you all remember, the basic rundown of last summer’s highlights includes RC2, Mattel, FTS Import/ Export, and several Pet Brands whom imported goods that were dangerous (and potentially deadly) for one reason or another.

Through this time, it has always been my position that the brands themselves needed to invest in a process of ensuring their quality control, and in each case it is clear to me that each of the brands involved had either not invested in any china based QC, had failed to follow their own protocols, and in a couple of cases had not even visited the factories.

the result, again, as you know was a mess.

So, when reading through the BBC report EU warns over ‘risky’ China goods that covered the recently released Keeping European Consumers Safe Report (PDF Here) from the European Union Consumer Affairs (Rapid Alert System for non-food consumer products division), I was reminded of just how biased some reports could be when they fail to properly and completely cut the data.

Continue reading »

Last summer, one of my primary positions when it came to the product safety scandal was that importers had to ensure their supply lines were just as compliant in China as they were in the U.S.

It is a simple.. SIMPLE.. risk assessment really that some (maybe many) failed to fully understand, and as we all saw in the media over and over again, there were firms whose inability to follow simple risk assessments and make investments in quality assurance got caught.

Toxic tanks, lead paint Barbies, killer toothpaste… and so on… and while China as a country took the initial volley of blame, I continually pressed the point that these quality problems were a commercial issue and that firms needed to stop treating outsourcing like a trip through the local McDonald’s Drive-thru

Product quality, quality control, and risk assessment are not abstract concepts, and spending money on ensuring the strength in them is not an expense. It is an INVESTMENT.

Cleaning up the problem is the expense, and if the fact that Mattel had to spend millions to recall defective toys didn’t convince executives that the brands would ultimately pay for their failure to understand risk, perhaps this article (h/t Consumerist) will Charges Filed Against Importers Of Toxic Toothpaste

the key phrase (emphasis is mine) in the article is:

The companies are liable for distributing the tainted product even if they had no direct knowledge of the risk because they were negligent in not ensuring the toothpaste was safe, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Jerry Baik said

no sir.. actually buy no having any direct control of the process I thought it was perfectly safe.. Look Ma.  NO HANDS!

After reading the transcript of the press conference, I knew I had to get my hands on the report itself and read through it for myself (Action Plan can be downloaded here). I needed to see just what the findings were, and more than that, I needed to see what their recommendations were….

Now, given it is a 86 page and I am sure you all are not looking for the page by page, so first I will offer some thoughts on the points the government felt summed up their “plan”… and then I will offer a few comments

So first, the framework (as seen in the picture below)

The highlights of the findings as per the U.S. government fact sheet:

• The Action Plan proposes a strategy focused on a risk-based prevention with verification model that allocates import safety resources based on risk.
• The sheer magnitude of the import-export enterprise makes clear that our Nation cannot inspect its way to safety.
• The Action Plan presented today reflects the Administration’s commitment to continually strengthen and improve the import safety system

and their 14 recommendations:

Continue reading »

On Tuesday, an article came across my RSS that I just knew was going to lead to a post.. or series of posts. Bush’s Import-Safety Plan Is Detailed in the NY Times reported that the “plan” has been released

There is a lot of information that I am going to try and pack in here, so bear with me.

On November 6, the White House released its Fact Sheet while Michael Leavitt and Dana Perino were giving a press conference on “the Plan”, the process behind “the plan”, and what the plan in terms of “the plan” being rolled out.

So first some highlights from the press conference. Of course, over the last 6 months, there has been an increased effort to deal with this problem. There were toys from Mattel and RC2, tires, toothpaste, and other products that were being recalled during the summer, and Americans were scared of products from Communist China poisoning and killing Americans.

so, with that in mind, the Import Safety Commission set out on a mission to get down to the bottom of things:

I, personally, went to ports and border crossings and freight hubs and post offices and I saw drugs and vegetables and fish being processed. I went to retailers and wholesalers and fruit stands. I’ve inspected personally everything from imported tire irons to gingerbread houses.

and they asked questions….

They went deep. They asked questions like, “What are the current authorities that we have?” Asked questions like: “Do we need more authority?” “What are the changes that need to happen if we’re to be able to respond in a global economy?” “What are the limitations we have?” “Do we have enough resources?” Et cetera.

and they got answers…

And I think the thing that impresses you most when you see this is how much it takes to fill up and empty out the American pantry every day.

Continue reading »

One of my very first projects in China involved a study of 400 farmers in the Jiangsu province bringing agriculture to market. My team at the time went through town after town and interviewed farmers, wet market buyers, truckers, and food processors to understand the process as it stood .. .and we used that to develop our platform.

It was one of the most interesting projects that I worked on, and one that I wish had received the funding (we were 3 years too early).

So, while doing some research on trucking in China, I ran into a report online entitled The supply chain and management of fresh produce in China (PDF Report Here) by Huang Zu-hui, Song Yu and Liu Dong-ying of Zhejiang University that examined the process by which produce makes its way from the farm to the market (retail, wholesale, and export).. and it reminded me of many of the things we found in our earlier study.

While obviously a rough draft, and written by students who were ag. majors rather than logistics majors, they have done a pretty good job of mapping out the current situation in China, what it should look like, hurdles in way, and some of the catalysts that will drive change.

For anyone looking to understand the pain that big box retailers (Carrefour, WalMart, Tesco, Lianhua, etc) go through in China, I highly recommend taking the 10 minutes to run through it. It is an interesting read, and as a rough cut produced by students, it is without a sales pitch or spin.

for the last few months, there have been few China related topics discussed more than the 2007 lead tainted toys, and more generally, product safety. Fingers have been pointed, stones thrown, consumer rights in high gear, and Lou Dobbs has gained traction.

But thorough all this, many are wondering what the real impact will be. Will “Made in China” suffer, what will the impacts at the checkout counter be, and what does it all mean for those brands/ people in China who are manufacturing for export.

Well.. according to a NYT poll recently, it looks like cooler heads are prevailing (on the whole), and that the recent recalls have not damaged the “Made in China” brand - despite the efforts of some.

In fact, according to their study (full results can be downloaded here) that while a significant portion of the resppndants did think products made in China were more unsafe than those made in other areas

55 percent, said the recent wave of recalls just created a perception that Chinese imports are more harmful than imports from other countries.

and this “perception” of harm, while detouring some respondents (14%) from purchasing goods “Made in China”, has not detoured the majority (65% haven’t stopped).

Continue reading »

Just stumbled on a interesting collection of pictures on maZm (via China Digital Times) of men and women working in a toy painting factory. In total, there are 25 shots (I have a couple here).

As I said before, the average consumer is too disconnected from this process, and I hope readers will pass this around. There are no stone face killers in these pictures, just some shots of your average Mr. and Ms. Zhou (pronounced Joe) hard at work.