The Whys On China's Food Safety Blame Game
Yesterday, I ran a very short "recommended reading" post linking over to an ImageThief post comprehensively setting forth the situation in China surrounding food and product safety, and going after China for handling the matter poorly from a public relations standpoint. I said I was running the post as a sop for the "big one" we are working on that will set forth the things foreign companies must do to seek to avoid importing dangerous products into their home countries and to lessen the likelihood and extent of their own liability if such products do get through.
The Peking Review Blog just did an excellent follow-up post, entitled, "Why China Might Be Playing the Blame Game," seeking to explain why China may be handling its food and product safety issues so poorly. I posted on the ImageThief post because it made for such a great primer on international PR and I am posting on Peking Review's post because it is a brilliant exposition on how business is so often done in China.
Peking Review's post begins by discussing ImageThief's "superb post" on how "China's entire PR strategy around the recent food and drug export tainting scandals has been abysmal - or worse." That strategy has been to "basically do... everything but take responsibility," which to outside eyes "is the government of one of the most powerful nations on earth abjectly refusing to take responsibility for something that, conceivably, it could have had a hand in preventing."
Rather "than lash out or go postal," Peking Review chose to "reflect on some of the reasons this could be happening" and then concludes that this "spate of denials and blamestorming that is going on are probably driven by some deeper issues:"
- First, it is entirely possible that Zheng Xiaoyou's [the head of China's FDA (Food and Drug Administration] recent death sentence for his dereliction of duty is having the perverse effect of scaring the living hell out of everybody in the food and drug inspection business, and thus causing them to play the blame game out of sheer fear for their own lives, facing the possibility that they may be next, rather than having them come clean with any issues they are already finding.
- Second, there is the very real possibility that out in the provinces there is some horribly deep rot in the inspection system. As good as things might be on top, it is entirely possible to imagine that a number of individual government inspectors have been turned, that the concerned bureaus know or suspect that, and they're worried it will wind up on their plates.
- Third, let's remember for a moment the enforcement challenges China faces on everything from traffic laws to intellectual property protection. It is quite easy to see how local political pressure to go easy on hometown enterprises could make real enforcement impossible, even for the most intrepid and honest inspector. Even in this case, the blame for failing to enforce would land on the enforcer.
Peking Review then goes on to say that "to stop all of this is an enlightened approach at the highest levels of the Chinese government. Somebody very senior has to say "I'm not out for somebody's head - I'm out to solve this problem. People will be evaluated in this process by the vigor with which they help us find and implement workable solutions."
Bad news, people: that is not the sort of thing that happens quickly and if you are a business importing product (be it food or otherwise) from China with the potential to harm people, you must start taking things into your own hands because relying on China's own safety monitoring is not going to cut it. It is not going to work to prevent injury or death to your customers nor will it prevent or lessen your liability when you get sued for those injuries or deaths. A skilled plaintiff's lawyer should have no trouble convincing a jury you were negligent for doing nothing more than relying on the Chinese government to protect the dead 11 year old whose parents are before them in the courtroom seeking massive damages. I know this sounds rather blunt, but for those of you who have been a defendant in a United States courtroom, you know exactly what I mean.
Stay tuned.

Comments (14)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endLaw Office of Todd L. Platek - June 5, 2007 11:45 AM
Dan, Good points and the message needs to be that blunt. For all those who would like to rely on government standards/requirements, remember that in the myriad asbestosis and mesothelioma cases around the USA for the last two decades, shipyards, steamship lines and their insurers and P&I Clubs could not argue as a defense that during WW2, the US Government required asbestos fireproofing. The corporate defendants were/are left to defend on other theories more expensive and painful to prove.
nanheyangrouchuan - June 5, 2007 4:54 PM
Market forces certainly won't enforce safety standards because that is unprofitable. Enforced gov't regs and crushing liability lawsuits are the best double-edged sword to enforce consumer quality.
Brad Luo - June 5, 2007 5:40 PM
Mr. Harris:
I completely agree with you with respect to food importers taking things into their own hands for quality assurance. In one of my recent blog posts, I did some reckoning on the same topic, where I suggested that importers need to REALLY perform their due diligence rather than relying on the impact death of a FDA chief. Due diligence might include:
--investigate Chinese exporters with the U.S.FDA, which blacklists those exporters whose products were rejected;
--on-site inspection of food production in Chinese exporters' facility (although most inconvenient, probably most effective);
--indemnification of importers in contract (but the effect might be limited by strict liability law in the U.S.)
Your last sentence is right on point,and I would like to remind importers of the "poisonous baby formula" reports in China in 2006. Importation of something like that would mean a "death sentence" to the business of a U.S. importer.
Great post and waiting for more.
Phil - June 5, 2007 7:33 PM
"As good as things might be on top..."
Grrrrrrrrrr!
I've commented on this before, and I know you disagree, Dan, but I hope you don't mind if I keep making the point.
What possible evidence is there that things are "good" on top? As this post notes, China is now executing the head of the drug administration. This does not suggest that the drug administration is good at the top. As the Imagethief post points out, when problems arise, those at the top do not (appear to) swing into action and sort it out. They prevaricate and pass the buck.
Things are not good at the top. Things are rotten at the top. It is precisely because of the contradictory messages sent out by those at the top that those at the bottom get involved in corruption.
China Law Blog - June 6, 2007 1:09 AM
Todd Platek --
Great example. Thanks.
China Law Blog - June 6, 2007 11:02 PM
NH --
You have weird views on capitalism. Try reading "All Marketeers Are Liars," by Seth Godin. I am of the view that capitalism is exactly what makes companies strive for safety. Do you think someone like Kraft Foods or Nabisco isn't careful as hell so as to protect their own reputation and profits?
China Law Blog - June 6, 2007 11:03 PM
Brad Luo --
I like your post and I completely agree with it. Earlier today, I did a similar post, which is now the lead post on the blog.
China Law Blog - June 6, 2007 11:05 PM
Phil --
I do not mind one bit that you keep making the point. Truly.
I still think things are good on top because the top realizes that being good is the key to being respected and being respected is the key to staying in power.
nanheyangrouchuan - June 7, 2007 8:20 AM
"Do you think someone like Kraft Foods or Nabisco isn't careful as hell so as to protect their own reputation and profits?"
And you assume "pure capitalism" where companies don't lobby to bend liability regs or protect themselves from negative publicity.
Just like "pure capitalism" that allows big companies to recieve gov't aid/protection from their bad business decisions.
Law Office of Todd L. Platek - June 10, 2007 5:28 PM
NH, I have to agree with ChinaLawBlog. The fact that big companies may lobby for relief is not limited solely to them. Consumer groups have equal lobbying rights and the "system" has its doors open to both camps. An educated and empowered public can wield awesome power in an open, capitalistic society, and that power goes hand-in-hand with gov't regulation and corrective litigation to influence corporations to internalize and emphasize safety needs of the public so as to avoid the crushing costs of non-compliance.
China Law Blog - June 11, 2007 6:47 AM
nh --
See Todd Platek's commnet, to which I join.
China Law Blog - June 11, 2007 6:48 AM
Todd Platek --
Nicely said. I concur.
Law Office of Todd L. Platek - June 11, 2007 10:35 AM
Thank you, counselor.
China Law Blog - June 12, 2007 12:05 AM
Tood Platek --
The only time I am called counselor is when I have really pissed someone off in a deposition and they are trying to act as though they are not pissed off. I've always thought calling a lawyer counselor is the equivalent of a parent calling a kid by their full name.
But, since I have no reason to believe I have pissed you off, I will respond with a you are very welcom.