Talk:Protein adulteration in China/Archives/2013

Youtube reports that this was known in august
Please Note that is was supposed reported in August. Please confirm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsIn6iTgL3Q

2 Aug 2008 China Sanlu Milk Powder Cause infant kidney failure - News banned during Olympic Period. (Melamine) can also found in Pet Food 中國黑心食品大陸毒奶粉 賺黑錢毒害同胞 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.50.68.217 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Bias Against China is Obvious
Are there any convincing stats that show products from China are unsafer than products from other sources? For example, OFF COURSE most problematic toys will be from China, since almost every toy in the market is Chinese made. Can we say, if all those toys were made in Mexico, India, or by Americans themselves, any such kind of problems would never happen (en, Ford trucks, E-Coli, Non-stick pans, thank god they were not made in China)? For food safety, there are also plenty of incidences such as those with beef and spinach which has nothing to do with China. The bottom line is, considering the high percentage of Chinese products in the Western markets, it is really not a surprise that most cases of problems will fall into the "Chinese territory". It is just statistically hard to miss. However, any educated person (I assume most people in, for example, North America, are educated) should think whether it's a significant stat before claiming "Chinese products are less safe". And remember (especially for those dumb CNN hosts who continue referring China as a "communist country"), China today is pretty much as free as US economically, and you are doing business with individual Chinese companies instead of Chinese central government. Just like American companies some of those Chinese companies are good, some of them are bad, and some are illegal. It's the Importing company's responsibility to make sure your Chinese partners are reliable and legally operated. Finally, for the gluten thing, obviously there was no laws in China to regulate the use of melamine, and knowing that, shouldn't it be the US importing company's responsibility to take the necessary test measures before putting them on US market? Sweeper77 07:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that if you read the article in its entirety that you will see many of these issues have already been addressed, including a lengthy section on the legitimate uses of melamine in China and the rest of the world. At no point does the article claim that "Chinese products are less safer [sic]".  However, if you feel that there are specific statements that could be reworded in a more neutral manner, please feel welcome to do so -- other users, including myself, have done this many times before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfwambaugh (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also believe that most of the issues cited have been addressed in the article and have made repeated attempts to achieve NPOV, and would welcome efforts from others. In particular, the sections on NPN and protein testing in the food industry attempt to point out the vital role of quality control testing by purchasers in ensuring food safety. In further attempt to achieve NPOV, I just made some small changes to the lead paragraph (btw, Does the Chinese government "continue" to deny that the contamination could have harmed animals? I added need for a citation for this statement). I also added brief mention in the lead of the use of melamine in animal feed in North America (which has been covered in several places in this article and not just in the timeline) as I think it is important to recognize that potentially harmful melamine interaction with cyanuric acid might not be limited to China, e.g. potential of melamine binder in animal feed interacting with cyanuric acid in NPN fed to ruminants. Abby Kelleyite 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Tha last thing we should do in Wikipedia is to turn it into something political. Otherwise, it will be rejected by intellectual readers very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.19.114 (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias Against China?
I read on MSNBC that the Chinese government shut down the factories responsible for the contamination and that they were arresting the company executives. That definitely conflicts with what the intro to this Wiki article says. although it mentions it later. Also, has anyone mentioned that they discovered a U.S. company putting the same ingredient in its products?


 * In my opinion the second paragraph of the introduction (which summarizes the Chinese response) reflects the facts and maintains WP:POV. The arrests of the executives are mentioned in that paragraph.
 * As for the destruction of the factories, I think that is being viewed more as a cover-up than an action to help anyone.
 * The U.S. company that was using melamine in food is mentioned in the Timeline of the 2007 Pet Food Recalls article. If you think that it is relevant to this article please feel free to add it in.  However, in the case of the U.S. company, the melamine was being used as a binding plastic, and not for manipulating apparent protein content. Jfwambaugh 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Government Treatment of Pets
User:Yrralaidepikiw has twice added the following material: Lastly, it is worth noting that in 2006, China enacted the policy of culling pets to control an epidemic of rabies instead of programs supporting regular vaccination of dogs that would benefit both pet owners and the general public. The culls have sparked outrage from animal rights groups. One group, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), called for a boycott of Chinese products (back in 2006). Correspondents say China has a poor record of animal protection and there are no laws to prevent cruelty to pets. The previous cull, in Mouding county in Yunnan, was prompted by the deaths of three people from rabies, including a four-year-old girl. In a five-day cull, dogs were clubbed to death in the street as their owners watched. Other dog owners took matters into their own hands, poisoning or electrocuting their pets. China's final resolve was to adopt a "One Dog Policy", mirroring its long-standing "One Child Policy".

I reverted it once because I felt it was a little off-topic and might come off more as dumping on China rather than explaining the protein export scandal. What does everyone else think? Jfwambaugh 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt it was pertinent information, as reported by BBC News in 2006. In order to understand why pet food was intentionally contaminated (with little or no fear of its dire consequences), one has to understand the "back story" (three very brief passages which I have not adulterated or embellished or departed from the context of the news references whatsoever). Besides selfishness and greed as motivations, there is this general apathy to the feelings of pet owners (apathy as motivation). It would be very helpful to understand the historical and social context where this apathy came from. It helps to understand the man on the street. After all, this is what encyclopedias are all about. It would be up to the Internet reader to decide for himself/herself if all the motivations are valid or invalid. But at the very least, lay out all the facts that pertain to this international tragedy. Allow them to be the fair judge of the matter as a service to your fellow man/woman. Anything less would be a disservice. Yrralaidepikiw 23:54, 18 June 2007 (EST)


 * It is my understanding that since melamine is an approved feed addititive for ruminants, the adulterators (I can't see calling them "adulterers") may have thought that it was perfectly safe to add to the pet food. I don't think it is fair to claim that indifference to pet owners was a cause, or even a context, here since we don't know the attitudes of the adulterers themselves. Jfwambaugh 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at rewriting the comment to provide context without injecting POV. Let me know what you think. Jfwambaugh 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! I couldn't have written it any better. Thank you for including my contribution. It helps a lot to understand the "social/political climate" that surrounds this event so future generations may put this incident in its proper perspective. Since everyone from the bottom to the top of Chinese government has agreed that animal rights is a non-issue, the adulterators reaffirmed to themselves that there would be no ill repercussion if they were to make a quick buck as long as they don't get caught. And if the adulterators do get caught, they can rest their minds that the Chinese government will always turn a blind eye to pet deaths. Yrralaidepikiw 23:03, 24 June 2007 (EST)


 * I think that this still has a heavy POV to it, though it is copied directly from the BBC article. The problem is the statement that China "has a poor record of animal protection" is meant as a condemnation of their attitude.  I am more inclined to think that the West must have a poor record of valuing the life of underprivileged people, given that commentators were more concerned about the lives of 50,000 dogs than of 16 people with rabies.  Of course, since America holds the one true path to enlightenment we should not ask why people should kill hundreds of pigs and cows to feed a person or thousands of chickens to prevent bird flu but not dogs to prevent rabies,  because the American chain of creation that places dogs above poor little girls above pigs is clearly the only rational view of the world.  Instead, we should interject a statement that they do this instead of vaccination, because we all know how much money people in rural China have lying around to spend getting their dogs vaccination shots... the funniest part is that I suppose that the fact you can be sent to prison for killing your dog yourself instead of paying a veterinarian to do it is taken as an example of the superior human rights enjoyed by people living in Western countries. 70.15.116.59 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is not the place to debate the pro's and con's of Western food industry or access to health care. However, if I understand you correctly, you object to the statement that "China has a poor record of animal protection".  What do you think of "China places little or no value on protecting animals"? Jfwambaugh 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a great fan of the "little or no" phrase, because the truth will be either "little" or "no" but not both. I wonder if it's on the official list of weasel words yet.  If the phrase is simply deleted we have the sentence "China has no laws to prevent cruelty to pets" which seems more than sufficient to make the point.  But the other thing that I object to is the phrase "Rather than to promote the regular vaccination of dogs..." which doesn't come from the sources and so (as I suggest above) has not been evaluated for feasibility. 70.15.116.59 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(redented for readability). While the lack of animal protection laws in China is regrettable, I don't see how officials ordering animal killing to fight a rabies outbreak is logically related to the suspicion that private companies in China added melamine to pet food for economic benefit. Sadly, some manufacturers have shown just as much callousness to humans. Food safety in the People's Republic of China. We added the "further" link to the beginning of the suspicions section to help readers find such background info, but I don't think the rabies dog culling stories should be included in the text. Abby Kelleyite 20:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Split from original article
I notice that editor Jfwambaugh's split into this article from the original article did not retain all of the text that was in the original sections of the article. Why is that? Badagnani 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, and thanks for checking through so thoroughly. I believe that most of that text is the old "history" section that I rewrote to make the  timeline.  In my opinion it had become pretty rambling since various editors (myself included) had added a sentence or two ever time something new had occured.  When we split the articles, I essentially went through and parsed it into day-by-day information.  As with the other article, it would really help if you propagate any important information from the timeline to the main article in a more coherent manner.Jfwambaugh 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "missing" text is as follows:



On March 23, amidst conflicting reports of the source of the contamination (see below), Menu Foods said they will take financial responsibility for pet deaths caused by their tainted products. - At that point the company's stock had fallen 47% since the announcement of the recall a week earlier. -   - Initially there were concerns that the imported gluten may have been used in products intended for human consumption, however, the FDA has assured consumers that all of the suspect gluten was used exclusively in pet foods and there is "no evidence to suggest that any of the imported Wheat Gluten from the suspect firm has entered the human food supply." -   - Over the next week, Menu Foods expanded the recall to include dozens of more cat and dog food products, including all varieties of 'cuts and gravy' type wet pet food in cans and pouches, not just specific UPCs, as before, in order to ensure pet stores removed any chance of contaminated batches reaching consumers. On March 30, the FDA announced a possible source of the sicknesses, through the presence of melamine, an industrial chemical, in wheat gluten imported from China. The FDA prohibited the import of wheat gluten from a specific Chinese company, Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company (徐州安营生物技术开发有限公司),website based in Xuzhou, a city in China's Jiangsu Province, and said that the contamination may be in dry pet foods as well. Late on March 30, after the FDA's announcement, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Del Monte, and Nestlé Purina voluntarily recalled several brands of wet and dry pet foods. -   - On April 10, news broke that scientists at a University of California, Davis animal health laboratory confirmed that a "popular brand of pet food" submitted for testing by area veterinarians was contaminated with melamine, even though it is not on the list of recalled cat and dog foods. -   - Again on April 10, it was announced that the recall would be expanded to include foods manufactured at Menu Foods' Streetsville, Ontario plant. Menu Foods officials had believed that the plant did not have the same problems as their New Jersey and Kansas plants, but tests revealed that contaminated wheat gluten had made it into Canada. -   - The contaminated wheat gluten came directly from China or through the Netherlands to the U.S. through ChemNutra, a Las Vegas-based supply company for pet food manufacturers. On April 4, ChemNutra ordered a recall of all of the suspected wheat gluten batches. According to the Associated Press, chemical scares and mass poisonings in China are common because of poor food and industry control. -   - As of April 11 there are more than 130 brands of dog and cat foods from five companies recalled. Most of the foods are wet, though there are some dry foods and dog biscuits as part of the recall as a precautionary measure even though no cases of poisoning from dry foods have yet been reported. -   - On April 12, in a hearing in front of the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, FDA officials admitted that contaminated food was likely still on store shelves throughout the country, and urged consumers to re-check the food they have in their possession. Also on the 12th, Menu Foods admitted that a "clerical error" allowed more tainted product to be released to the public after the recall had begun. -   - Also on April 12, Royal Canin dog food was recalled in South Africa after 19 dogs were confirmed to be suffering "acute renal failure" related to eating recalled dog food. That week Hill's Pet Nutrition also recalled a batch of food for diabetic cats in South Africa. -   - On April 17 a product not containing wheat-gluten was recalled due to the presence of melamine in pet food. Natural Balance Pet Foods found melamine in two products containing rice protein from an unnamed company in the United States. 11 dogs and "three or four" cats were suffering kidney problems as a result of eating the food. The rice protein was identified as having come from industrial and agricultural material distributor Wilbur-Ellis, who had distributed the contaminated protein to five different pet food manufacturers in Utah, New York, Kansas and Missouri. Since pet food recalls are voluntary, the FDA refused to name the companies involved. The protein has been imported from Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd. in China. -   - On April 19 2007 researchers identified three additional chemicals in the melamine-contaminated rice protein and animals that had consumed it, including cyanuric acid, a chemical used in chlorinated pools. All three chemicals are derivatives of melamine. Also on the 19th, Royal Canin issued a recall of 8 varieties of their pet foods. -   - On April 20 2007 the South African pet food industry announced that they would no longer import gluten products from China after the presence of melamine was confirmed in Chinese corn gluten. At least 30 dogs have died of renal failure related to contaminated food in South Africa. -   - Also on the 20th, pet food company SmartPak issued a late night recall of two dog food products related to contaminated rice protein. SmartPak was one of the two remaining companies supplied by Wilbur-Ellis, leaving only one company refusing to recall its contaminated products. -   - On April 24 2007, the FDA announced that melamine had been found in the urine of hogs in North Carolina, California and South Carolina, that farms in Utah, New York and possibly Ohio had received contaminated feed. They had not yet determined if, beyond a small amount in California, any contaminated meat had reached the human food supply. The FDA also announced that it was now testing six common food ingredients -- -- wheat gluten, corn gluten, cornmeal, soy protein, rice bran and rice protein concentrate -- as a precaution. -   - On April 26 2007 the final Wilbur-Ellis-related recall was issued by Chenango Valley Pet Foods, nine days after Wilbur-Ellis had announced its rice protein was contaminated with melamine, Diamond Pet Foods issued a new recall, Costco's Kirkland Signature brand issued a new recall, and Natural Balance expanded its recall for the second time. Also on the 26th, Blue Buffalo expanded its recall, Harmony Farms annouced a recall, and American Nutrition, Inc. (ANI) issued a voluntary recall of 28 different pet food products that they manufacture which are sold under other labels. ANI states that pet foods that they manufacture under their own label are not affected by the current recall. .   -    - On April 27 2007 Natural Balance Inc. issued another voluntary recall, recalling three of their varieties of dog food and one variety of cat food, and Canine Caviar issued a voluntary recall of 3 varieties of pet food. -   - The April 26 and April 27 recalls by Blue Buffalo, Canine Caviar, Diamond, Harmony Farms, and Natural Balance are claimed by all 5 brands to be due to unauthorized inclusion of rice protein by American Nutrition, Inc. (ANI), their manufacturer. This adds a new potential source of contamination and distrust, namely non-compliant contract manufacturers, beyond the original problematic Chinese ingredient suppliers. Diamond and Natural Balance refer to this as a "manufacturing deviation" by ANI. Blue Buffalo and Harmony Farms characterize this as "product tampering" by ANI. Blue Buffalo has announced plans to change manufacturers while Canine Caviar and Natural Balance both announced that they will avoid future problems due to incorrect manufacturing by demanding more paperwork from their manufacturers. ANI has issued a press release denying any deliberate or intentionally wrongful conduct. Badagnani 18:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments: Chinese protein contamination would also be fine, but adulteration seems more to the point. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just some more thoughts. Reading more of the recent literature, in particular the WHO report, it appears that there is both a problem with worldwide contamination of melamine and its analogues at low levels and several incidents of adulteration at much higher levels so far limited to China. Perhaps a title like "Protein contamination and adulteration" might be best to capture both problems? The bigger problem so far has been the adulterations but the contamination is also a potential problem. I'm interested in what anybody else thinks.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the new page name is really better or worse, but lacking any objection to the move, and being unable to find any reason to object to the move myself, I went ahead and moved the page. — V = I * R  (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.