The discussion centers on the ethical implications of corporate behavior during the melamine scandal, particularly how profit motives may have compromised safety standards in food production. Participants explore historical parallels, the role of government oversight, and the broader societal impacts of such corporate decisions.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the ethical implications of corporate behavior or the responsibility of governments. Multiple competing views remain regarding the motivations behind corporate actions and the adequacy of regulatory responses.
Discussions include references to specific incidents and historical contexts that may influence perspectives on corporate ethics and safety standards. The complexity of the issue is underscored by differing opinions on the role of government and the nature of corporate responsibility.
rootX said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7624498.stm
How could those people risk toddlers' lives for making profits?
Nearly 13,000 children in China have been hospitalised due to tainted Chinese milk powder, officials say.
China's health ministry said 104 out of 12,892 babies showed serious symptoms.
Four infants have died after drinking the milk of the Sanlu Group containing the industrial chemical melamine, which could cause urinary problems.
Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, a toddler has been diagnosed with a kidney stone after drinking the powder - the first such case outside mainland China.
A number of Asian and African countries have now banned Chinese dairy imports following the scandal.
Chinese police have arrested 18 people in connection with the scandal.
edward said:They must have had a lot of melamine left over after the poison dog food scandal.
They were putting the same stuff in wheat gluten that was sent to America a while back. It ended up in dog food.
China has been exporting lead painted toys for our toddlers as well.
rootX said:They never really considered the dog scandal seriously and now it killed infants (not Chinese infants but only *infants*)
lisab said:rootX, I'm confused by your post. What do you mean by killing "only *infants*" ?
Please clarify.
China has been exporting lead painted toys for our toddlers as well.
lisab said:rootX, I'm confused by your post. What do you mean by killing "only *infants*" ?
Please clarify.
rootX said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7624498.stm
How could those people risk toddlers' lives for making profits?
edward said:The lead in imported Chinese toy has been an ongoing issue for several years.
baywax said:And so and so fiddled while Rome burned.
LowlyPion said:
But that's just it: it wasn't cheaper to let the Pinto kill people than it was to fix it. The problem here isn't just greed, it is shortsighted greed. In the case of this tainted food, the odds of getting caught were probably pretty high, so the risk/reward calculus just isn't there.Topher925 said:When it comes to big business, no one has ethics. Many people can put a price on a human life. I think Ford actually published a document back in the 70s when it was producing the Pinto, stating that a human life to them was worth $7 million or something like that. It was cheaper to let their cars kill people then it was to fix their mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Safety_problemsHowever, a 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz[9] argued that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. Twenty-seven people died in Pinto fires. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was no worse than typical for the time. Schwartz argued that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs claimed showed Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
LowlyPion said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7629130.stmEarlier Prime Minister Wen Jiabao apologised for the contamination, which has made nearly 53,000 children ill.
Topher925 said:When it comes to big business, no one has ethics.
russ_watters said:But that's just it: it wasn't cheaper to let the Pinto kill people than it was to fix it. The problem here isn't just greed, it is shortsighted greed. In the case of this tainted food, the odds of getting caught were probably pretty high, so the risk/reward calculus just isn't there.
That said, there's a difference here: purposely selling food you know is poisonous is plain, ordinary murder. They are intentionally doing something they know or should know could cause deaths. The Pinto, on the other hand, was not purposely designed in a way that Ford knew would cause deaths. They found out later. There was certainly an ethical failure and an economic failure, but the conduct was not criminal. Indeed, in hindsight many years later, as the emotion of the issue fades, the issue actually gets less clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Safety_problems
Balancing safety and economics is not inherrently inethical. Indeed, such calculus is a critical part of good engineering.
Polycarbonate, a type of plastic, meets at least two of these three criteria for harm. It contains an ingredient, Bisphenol-A (BPA), which has garnered a lot of attention lately because of its use in baby bottles and its potential to damage developing humans and animals. Studies have found that BPA can migrate out of the plastic into foods and beverages, and then into you.
The bonds that hold BPA molecules together in a polycarbonate can disintegrate over time, when heated, or exposed to acidic or basic substances. Because of this, the BPA is never really safely locked away.* It’s that freewheeling, loose BPA that attaches to the food or beverage in a polycarbonate container and then leaches into your body.
In the body, BPA acts as an endocrine disruptor—masquerading as a sex hormone. This is a particular problem for sexual development, which is dependent on precise hormone signaling: Grow now! Develop hair! Don’t have breasts—you’re a boy! Studies have shown that BPA can harm developing rodents, even in small amounts.
A Chinese sweet maker has stopped domestic sales of one of its best-known brands after it was found to contain the industrial chemical melamine.
rootX said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7637001.stm
It seems like a really big scandal!
and, it's strange that so many different corporations were using the same melamine method.