King Car Industrial Co, a reputable company in the food business, chose to purchase ingredients for its powdered instant beverages and soups from Duqing Inc in China’s Shandong Province as a means of diversifying sourcing and ensuring a constant supply of raw materials in the face of rising prices and commodity shortages.
When news came out about contaminated milk powder from China, King Car asked Duqing if melamine — an industrial chemical used to make plastics and fertilizers — was present in any of its products.
Duqing gave its word that there was none. Nevertheless, in the interests of consumer health and safety and acting on its own initiative, King Car sent samples of all its products to the Food Industry Research and Development Institute for testing.
The firm’s powdered instant beverages tested positive for melamine.
As soon as King Car received the results, the firm took a number of steps to resolve the issue.
It informed the Department of Health, recalled affected products, checked its remaining stock of possibly tainted items and kept them under lock and key.
The company also set up a hotline to deal with consumer inquiries and complaints and announced its willingness to accept responsibility for and pay compensation to any consumers who had suffered ill effects.
In contrast, at least until Thursday last week, Duqing covered up the facts by sending King Car a written guarantee that its products did not contain melamine.
There is a stark contrast between these two companies — one Taiwanese and the other Chinese — in their attitude to consumer protection and their willingness, or reluctance, to accept corporate responsibility for their actions.
I have a few suggestions on how to deal with this case and companies that behave like this.
We should encourage companies to take the initiative to send suspicious product samples for testing, and recall all products and take remedial measures whenever contamination is found.
At the same time, we should condemn companies that ignore the safety of customers and cover up the facts. In such cases, the Department of Health should promptly inform the World Health Organization, while consumers’ groups should report such incidents to the global consumer protection body Consumers International.
Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) should immediately protest to Beijing through existing channels of communication.
Second, the government should test all processed and unprocessed foodstuffs imported from China to safeguard consumer health.
In the spirit of corporate accountability, importers should test samples of their products or send them to qualified laboratories for testing before placing them on the market.
The SEF and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait should negotiate terms for testing foodstuffs traded in both directions and establish a procedure of mutual notification.
Duqing hid the truth and had no regard for the health of its customers. It knew that its products were contaminated with melamine but issued a document guaranteeing that they were melamine-free. This constitutes a criminal act.
Importers should file suit for compensation, because crimes like these should not be tolerated.
Lee Shen-yi is honorary chairman of the Consumers’ Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG AND EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS