China Law Blog

The Wall Street Journal recently did an article entitled, "Beijing Scolds U.S. On Quality Control Items From GE, Deere Are on List of Imports China Deems Shoddy" on how China is trying to draw equivalencies between safety problems of Chinese products and China's rejections of U.S. products. Give me a friggin break.

The article is based on an interview with "Li Changjiang -- China's most senior quality control official and head of the government's 30,000-person inspection service, the General Administration for Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. (Aqsiq)" Li presented a list of "defects and dangers" found in products shipped by U.S. companies. Close inspection of the list shows not much is there.

For example, Mr. Li cited shipments Hummer models H2 and H3, manufactured by General Motors and imported into China by unknown third-party suppliers. Mr. Li says these vehicles did not meet Chinese safety requirements due to the shape of their front headlights. "These Hummers were not manufactured according to Chinese standards, so there are serious hidden dangers to use these automobiles on Chinese roads," according to a written statement provided by Mr. Li's agency. Does anyone even for a moment believe these Hummers are less safe than these Chinese cars? And if these cars fail to meet China's automobile regulations, should not responsibility for that lie with the non-GM company that imports them? General Motors justifiably defends itself as follows:

"Any vehicle imported by General Motors into China or any other country would meet the certification and licensing requirements," Mr. Laird says. "We certainly don't support third parties importing the vehicles because the sorts of issues the government is raising can and do occur."

Another example given by Mr. Li is also instructive. Chinese quality-control inspectors discovered a broken crankshaft on a cotton-picking machine made by Deere and Aqsiq blamed it on a design defect. Deere then replaced the parts on all 100 of the cotton-picking machines it sent to China. Deere's position:

Ken Golden, a spokesman for Deere, of Moline, Illinois, said the company recognized a "quality issue" in a particular engine model that had been used in the 100 cotton pickers delivered to China. The problem had the potential to affect the engine crankshaft, although Deere was told that only one machine had actually failed, he said. The company replaced the part on all the machines "even though the probability of engine failure was low," Mr. Golden said. "This was not a safety issue," he said, "and at no time could the defect have endangered the users of the equipment."

So what we have here is Mr. Li comparing small product problems in U.S. goods that do not appear to impact human health or safety with the spate of "active adulteration that has marked some of the Chinese export cases, in which factory owners have substituted chemicals in components of drugs and pet food to save money." We also have real American companies stepping in and explaining what occurred and seeking to make things right, as opposed to the many instances of Chinese companies all but disappearing after problems arose.

I am not for a moment putting all Chinese manufacturers/producers in the same heap as those who have been in the news of late for product problems, but I think it is a big mistake on the part of Mr. Li to essentially minimize what those companies did. I have frequently argued China's product safety problems need to be solved by both Chinese manufacturers and American importers, having a government essentially minimizing the problem can only put a damper on positive change. In addition to that, some of the Chinese adulteration rose to the level of criminality and government is required for that.

Mr. Li, you are not giving me a good feeling about Chinese products.