Date Rape Toys

[markalot]

Toy contaminated with 'date rape' drug pulled

* Story Highlights
* Children who swallow the beads can become comatose or have seizures
* Toys are sold as Aqua Dots in the U.S., as Bindeez in Australia
* Three children were hospitalized in Australia after swallowing large quantities
* U.S. safety commission says it's received two reports detailing severe effects

NEW YORK (CNN) -- U.S. safety officials have recalled about 4.2 million Chinese-made Aqua Dots bead toys that contain a chemical that has caused some children to vomit and become comatose after swallowing them.

Scientists have found the popular toy's coating contains a chemical that, once metabolized, converts into the toxic "date rape" drug GHB, or gamma-hydroxy butyrate, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesman Scott Wolfson told CNN.

"GHB is this drug that in low doses actually causes euphoria," said Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent. "In higher doses, it can cause people to go into a coma. It can cause seizures. It can cause something known as hypotonia, where all your muscles just become very flaccid.

"And it can cause people to become amnestic, meaning they forget everything that's about to happen to them, which is why it became a date-rape drug," Gupta said.

"So this is nasty stuff, and it appears that the chemical is actually converting into it in the body."

The arts and craft beads, aimed at children 4 years and older, have been selling since April at major U.S. retail stores as "Aqua Dots" and in Australia under the name "Bindeez Beads."

Anyone with Aqua Dots at home should throw them out, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said. The toy was named toy of the year in Australia and recently made Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s list of top 12 Christmas toys.

Wal-Mart on Thursday listed Aqua Dots on its Web site as "out of stock online" and had removed them from its top toy list.

Toronto-based toy distributor Spin Master Ltd. stopped shipping Aqua Dots and asked retailers to pull them off their shelves, where they had sold for $17 to $30. VideoWatch what's known about the beads »

Melbourne-based Moose Enterprise Pty. Ltd. recalled Bindeez Beads on Tuesday after three children in Australia swallowed large quantities of the beads and were hospitalized.

"I was so frightened because I thought she wasn't going to make it," Heather Lehane told CNN affiliate Network 7 of her 10-year-old daughter, Charlotte, who was sickened by the beads.

In the United States, the Washington-based safety commission said it has received two reports detailing the severe effects of the digested beads.

The CPSC said a boy nearly 2 years old "swallowed several dozen beads. He became dizzy and vomited several times before slipping into a comatose state." The toddler was hospitalized and has since fully recovered, the commission added.

In the second incident, a child vomited, fell into a coma and was hospitalized for five days. It was not immediately clear whether the child had made a full recovery.

The recall is the latest to target Chinese-made toys. Last month, U.S. government safety officials and retailers recalled at least 69,000 Chinese-made toys over concerns of excessive amounts of lead paint, which can cause lead poisoning.

CNN's Janine Brady, Jason Carroll, Laura Dolan, Julie O'Neill and Leslie Wiggins contributed to this report.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/toy.recall/index.html

[dannyboy]

I wonder if the toys will be disposed of in poo?

[wileE]

My wife wanted me to buy some of these for the kids. I declined. Sounds like a good choice.

[Hellburger]

Anyone with Aqua Dots at home should throw them out, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said.

Don't throw them out, take them back to the retailer and demand a refund, in blood.

[PeterABnny]

The toy was named toy of the year in Australia and recently made Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s list of top 12 Christmas toys.


Until April when the recall started, the glue used to hold the beads together was perfectly fine. I guess we know why the Chinese manufacturer switched glues to cheapen costs. Thank you, Wal Mart. :rolleyes:

[berzerker]

Until April when the recall started, the glue used to hold the beads together was perfectly fine. I guess we know why the Chinese manufacturer switched glues to cheapen costs. Thank you, Wal Mart. :rolleyes:

Wal Mart is the cause of so much corner-cutting when it comes to cost that you just know people are going to get hurt.

[markalot]

Yea, Walmart's at fault. :rolleyes:

[bestlaidplans]

My wife wanted me to buy some of these for ourselves. I declined. Sounds like a wasted opportunity.
FTFY :D

Seriously though, this news is like a pedophile's dream come true...

"I got candy toys!"

[AvatarOfVishnu]

just saw this on a news crawl...WTF!?!?!?

i think this country is gonna become so fed up w/ this kinda crap that a new era of federal govt regulation will be ushered in...the pendulum was way too far to the right, hopefully we won't swing it too far to the left - but don't count on it

[mizary]

just saw this on a news crawl...WTF!?!?!?

i think this country is gonna become so fed up w/ this kinda crap that a new era of federal govt regulation will be ushered in...the pendulum was way too far to the right, hopefully we won't swing it too far to the left - but don't count on it

Ok... the feds or someone sets up a regulatory commission to do extra testing on kids toys... If they pass they get a sticker. And now all your toys cost $5 extra.

I know I don't want to pay $5 for a hot wheels car that someone says is safe.

The kids ATE the toy.

You shouldn't eat any toys.

If you swallow a hot wheels car you are going to have problems.

My biggest concern is a toy that looks like candy. That's the problem. And these have been very small kids. The same ones that swallow leggos and light brite pegs by the dozen. If you don't watch your kids and keep stuff like that out of their reach - you are going to have lots of problems. making sure you can eat toys to me is a waste of time. Now GRANTED they should TRY to keep bad stuff out of toys... And I am sure the chineese company didn't know there was a potential problem. It could have happened to any company. And it could have been alot worse.

--mizary

[AvatarOfVishnu]

maybe if chinese toys cost $5 more then american companies could better compete in the toy market...just sayin...

yes, parents need to keep choking hazards away from young kids, but this is hardly the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd recall of this year alone...lately there seems to be minimal (if any) quality control when it comes to consumer products (toys, food & who knows what else?!?!?)...SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED - & if the corporations dont step up & rectify this trend, then the govt will eventually get involved - which is fine to an extent, but has the potential to be taken too far

[DaHood]

I heard this on the radio today. Now let's have some baby food from China. Lovely. :rolleyes:

[The_Deacon]

Cheap motherfuckers :mad:

[Angel30]

I think that this is just strange (and scary). What I want to know: why was a 10-yr-old eating the beads? A two-year-old, I can understand but 10? Shouldn't she know better? :confused:

Anyway, for once I am glad I don't have kids right now to worry about.

[Artpunchehorse]

Yea, Walmart's at fault. :rolleyes:

I LOVE Wal-Mart.

[DaHood]

Wal-mart is a twat.

[the happy prole]

Mom forgets about kid, kid burns up in car. Blame mom.
Mom forgets about kid, kid downs a dozen or so tiny plastic beads. Blame China.

[patio]

Mom forgets about kid, kid burns up in car. Blame mom.
Mom forgets about kid, kid downs a dozen or so tiny plastic beads. Blame China.

Kids don't go into comas from swallowing normal plastic beads. Your comparison is ludicrous.

[SheepNutz]

They are lucky to have caught this, as GHB can be difficult to detect by routine forensic analytical methods.

[ThomasC]

This quote is a month or two old, so the figure he quotes has probably doubled. :-/

"If you were surprised that the Chinese don't care about toy safety, then the child who needs protecting is you. Over the last couple of months, American consumers have been learning a shocking lesson about supply and demand: if you demand products that don't cost anything, people will make them out of poison, mud and shit. Now, since April, approximately 17 million toys in the United States, all of them made in China, have been recalled. Which is amazing considering that no one in the Department of Justice can recall a thing." - Bill Maher

[the happy prole]

Kids don't go into comas from swallowing normal plastic beads. Your comparison is ludicrous.

Yeah, I think responsible parents should just go ahead and let their two year olds scarf down "several dozen" plastic beads a day. I can't imagine how that could be in any way dangerous.

[patio]

Yeah, I think responsible parents should just go ahead and let their two year olds scarf down "several dozen" plastic beads a day. I can't imagine how that could be in any way dangerous.

True, they might get hemorrhoids from having to push a bit harder. :p

[DaHood]

This quote is a month or two old, so the figure he quotes has probably doubled. :-/

"If you were surprised that the Chinese don't care about toy safety, then the child who needs protecting is you. Over the last couple of months, American consumers have been learning a shocking lesson about supply and demand: if you demand products that don't cost anything, people will make them out of poison, mud and shit. Now, since April, approximately 17 million toys in the United States, all of them made in China, have been recalled. Which is amazing considering that no one in the Department of Justice can recall a thing." - Bill Maher
Exactly. Ultimately, I blame the American public for allowing themselves to be duped into believing that moving production of our products to third world countries is some sort of perfect panacea.

[patio]

Exactly. Ultimately, I blame the American public for allowing themselves to be duped into believing that moving production of our products to third world countries is some sort of perfect panacea.

The bourgeoisie will cause the downfall of modern society.

[markalot]

Yeah, I think responsible parents should just go ahead and let their two year olds scarf down "several dozen" plastic beads a day. I can't imagine how that could be in any way dangerous.

Let me give you a little hint. These kinds of things usually happen when a younger kids gets a hold of an older siblings toys. It might only happen once, but if the toys are laced with a date rape drug then once is all it takes and it can happen in an instant.

I suppose though that you're also an expert in parenting?

[classicgrrl]

wtf happened to beads you just poop out?



date rape
date rape
for fun, it's a wonderful toy

date rape
date rape
fun for a girl and a boy
fun for a girl and a boy

:rolleyes:

[Homsar]

Nah, I think it's more fun for the boy, really.

[Duh Neece]

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
http://www.bobcongdon.net/images/happyfunball.jpg

[the happy prole]

Let me give you a little hint. These kinds of things usually happen when a younger kids gets a hold of an older siblings toys. It might only happen once, but if the toys are laced with a date rape drug then once is all it takes and it can happen in an instant.

I suppose though that you're also an expert in parenting?

No, but I play one on TV. I'm also pretty good at reading comprehension.

The toys are not laced with GHB. They're treated with small amounts of glue that the body converts to GHB when swallowed. GHB is itself not inherently harmful and is produced by the body naturally. It's not poisonous or toxic in the sense that it directly kills organs or cells or anything like that. It's called the "date rape drug;" not "the poisonous killing pill."

But yeah, you can die from GHB. Too much of anything and your body can't process it. What's more likely to occur is that your reflexes and reactions are so slow that you choke on your vomit or your heart beats to slow. Pretty much it's like alcohol.

So obviously it's not entirely safe. But no, death does not happen in an instant. And in this case death did not happen at all. What happened is, this kid grabbed a fistful (maybe a couple fistfuls) of Aqua Dots and ate them. Those Aqua Dots then turned into GHB. The kid fell into a "comatose state," aka "was stoned out of his gourd" for about six hours. Then he recovered and is perfectly fine. Which is pretty much what happens with GHB.

Now, if he had swallowed a fistful of bleach or alcohol, that kid might actually be dead. Or if he could have easily choked-- and THAT would have happened in an instant. When a two-year old tries to swallow a fistful of anything he wasn't given as food, it's not a good thing. The parents in some ways ought to count themselves lucky that their kid getting stoned for six hours was all that happened.

This is product that is intentionally chemically reactive. That's why they bind to each other when sprayed with something as harmless as water. If you swallow it, something's going to happen because your body is wet. Possibly the beads glue themselves into a mass lump in your stomach, which can't be good.

Maybe, just maybe it was kind of a dumb idea to create a product with small, brightly colored beads that you *know* little kids are going to put in their mouths. Maybe it was kind of a dumb idea for the parents to let their toddler get access to the beads when everyone knows little kids are going to eat that shit. And yeah, it was a pretty dumb idea to substitute an industrial solvent to cut costs and not tell the toy company (if indeed they didn't know), even though that solvent is not of itself inherently dangerous.

But all those things happened. This is a unfortunate confluence of events where maybe everyone took their eye off the ball a little bit, resulting in a decidedly non-tragic accident. Now they will stop making the beads with that solvent, which closes one part of the chain.

But as far as I can tell, it's still a pretty stupid product. And as far as I can tell, kids can still swallow any number of stupid things and die if you aren't watching them or if the product is within their reach. It turns out, oddly enough, that preventing your kids from eating stupid shit will also prevent your kid from getting lead poisoning.

But let's all keep blaming China for "lacing a product with a date rape drug" and letting our kids eat everything they can get their hands on until it turns out that hey, eating nerf balls is pretty damn stupid as well. That's good parenting.

[markalot]

The Happy Troll speaks.

[patio]

The Happy Troll speaks.

Yea no kidding, and it says "mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa..."

[the happy prole]

Okay, yeah. You go ahead and post how these products were "laced with a date rape drug" when they weren't. And go ahead and make sure you mention parenting every time, just so you can get all faux-indignant about supposed personal attacks on your family.

[markalot]

"laced with a date rape drug"

Poor choice of words on my part, since it was an unauthorized ingredient in the glue and not technically 'laced'. The rest is all troll.

[the happy prole]

Considering the kid is alive and well don't you think "once is all it takes" and "it can happen in an instance" are a bit of hyperbole as well?

[markalot]

Considering the kid is alive and well don't you think "once is all it takes" and "it can happen in an instance" are a bit of hyperbole as well?

I think you misplaced the meaning of that. First off a kid putting anything in his or her mouth can happen in an instant (not death), second we have no idea if these kids will suffer any long term effects from the drug.


Mom forgets about kid, kid burns up in car. Blame mom.
Mom forgets about kid, kid downs a dozen or so tiny plastic beads. Blame China.


Yeah, I think responsible parents should just go ahead and let their two year olds scarf down "several dozen" plastic beads a day. I can't imagine how that could be in any way dangerous.


I'm considering an edit to add the above as classic examples of trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect kids toys to NOT contain a substance that will induce a coma. Hey, maybe my standards are higher than yours.

[Sushi]

I'll place half the blame on the manufacturer who used a chemical that is dangerous if ingested on toys that are targeted to kids because kids put their hands in their mouths all the time, eat with their hands, don't remember to wash their hands, etc. etc. That was irresponsible.

I'll place the other half of the blame on the parent who let her two-year-old place with little beads. They're designed for kids four and up for a reason: toddlers put things in their mouths. You'd have to be a freaking moron to put something that small anywhere near a two year old. If it belonged to an older sibling, then mom and dad should keep it on a high shelf when older sibling isn't playing with it so that toddler sibling can't get into it.

[the happy prole]

markalot, at which point in my trolling did I say that using industrial solvent in kids toys was a good idea? Of course it's stupid and those products should be recalled.

The kid ate several dozen Aqua Dots. They're small, but not that small. It didn't happen in an instant. He could, however, have choked on any one of those Aquadots and that would have happened in an instant. And then we wouldn't have China to blame.

And then everyone would have to be just as indignant over how shitty these parents are, or what a stupidly dangerous product it is. Because everyone likes it when there is one scapegoat to villify.

That way they can all say "I would never let that happen to my kids," or "My kids would be safe it weren't for the damn Chinese instead of actually thinking of ways to make their kids safer. Like checking your exit car routine and making sure that yes, you do check the child seat every time. Or thinking about toys a bit more before you buy them and keeping them in safer places.

Or perhaps most importantly, facing the sad truth that sometimes there's just a cosmic fuck up and kids die and it's never just one person's fault and even if it is, there was probably a shit load of bad luck involved as well.

[classicgrrl]

now now young'uns - let's play nice in the sand box.

if the beads didn't look like candy to begin with then children probably wouldn't be eating them.

However, if they didn't look like candy they wouldn't be top sellers.

I blame the designers and greed.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

is it just me? or have Markalot & Happy Prole kinda reversed ideologies over the past year?

seems like Markalot used to be the conservative all about personal responsibility & Happy Prole was the progressive power-to-the people type... i'm getting whiplash w/ all of these turnabouts :confused:

[Zane]

I'll place half the blame on the manufacturer who used a chemical that is dangerous if ingested on toys that are targeted to kids because kids put their hands in their mouths all the time, eat with their hands, don't remember to wash their hands, etc. etc. That was irresponsible.

I'll place the other half of the blame on the parent who let her two-year-old place with little beads. They're designed for kids four and up for a reason: toddlers put things in their mouths. You'd have to be a freaking moron to put something that small anywhere near a two year old. If it belonged to an older sibling, then mom and dad should keep it on a high shelf when older sibling isn't playing with it so that toddler sibling can't get into it.

What she said.
Oh and BUY AMERICAN.

[DaHood]

What she said.
Oh and BUY AMERICAN.Seconded.

and

Good Luck!

[purdueman_in]

How long will it be before we see something akin to the following:

"<NFL Player> suspended for violating league banned toy policy.
<NFL Player> cited for possession of aquadots"

[the happy prole]

Seconded.

and

Good Luck!

I'll take all four of your Apple boxes off your hands if you don't want 'em. :p

[DaHood]

I'll take all four of your Apple boxes off your hands if you don't want 'em. :pWhy? So you can take a sledgehammer to them?

[markalot]

is it just me? or have Markalot & Happy Prole kinda reversed ideologies over the past year?

seems like Markalot used to be the conservative all about personal responsibility & Happy Prole was the progressive power-to-the people type... i'm getting whiplash w/ all of these turnabouts :confused:

So I'm supposed to test my own toys? Don't listen to what Prole is saying and the conversation is much easier to understand. First off I think the government should be doing a better job testing toys but more importantly the free market should punish China for lax safety rules.

Instead what I see here is Prole suddenly rushing to blame everyone but those at fault. Kids didn't die, dumb parents, etc. It's an argument used to throw people off the subject, which is simply that a Chinese company used an unauthorized ingredient to make a toy. It's yet another example of the lack of safety controls (or caring) used by Chinese manufacturers.

So what can we do to convince them to stop it? What would be the conservative / free-market position? Stop buying their shit until they fix it. This should also be extended the the American companies that are importing this garbage. The more liberal / bigger government solution would be to do more testing. I think a little of both is the best solution.

Now, what's Prole's position?

[patio]

Why? So you can take a sledgehammer to them?

I hear that licking the screen of an apple is like doing 'shrooms...

[markalot]

Report: China halts export of bead toys tainted with toxic drug

* Story Highlights
* State-run news agency: China orders an investigation by quality control agencies
* Children who swallow the beads can become comatose or have seizures
* Toys are sold as Aqua Dots in the U.S., as Bindeez Beads in Australia
* Three children were hospitalized in Australia after swallowing large quantities

(CNN) -- China has suspended exports of the Aqua Dots toys contaminated with a chemical that can convert to a powerful "date rape" drug, the state-run Xinhua news agency reported Saturday. The toys have caused some children who swallowed the craft toys to vomit and lose consciousness.

The agency said that the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ) has ordered an investigation by quality control agencies and will release results as soon as they are available.

The AQSIQ did not reveal the name of the toys' producer, Xinhua said.

U.S. safety officials voluntarily recalled about 4.2 million of the Chinese-made toys Wednesday.

Scientists have found the highly popular holiday toy contains a chemical that, once metabolized, converts into the toxic "date rape" drug GHB (gamma-hydroxy butyrate), Scott Wolfson, a spokesman with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), told CNN.

"Children who swallow the beads can become comatose, develop respiratory depression or have seizures," a CPSC statement warned.

The arts-and-craft beads, which have been selling since April at major U.S. retail stores under the name "Aqua Dots," have also been distributed in Australia under the name "Bindeez Beads."

The Bindeez toys were recalled Tuesday by Melbourne-based Moose Enterprise Pty. Ltd. after three children in Australia swallowed large quantities of the beads and were hospitalized.

"I was so frightened because I thought she wasn't going to make it," Heather Lehane told CNN affiliate Network 7 of her 10-year-old daughter, Charlotte, who was hospitalized in Australia after ingesting some of the beads.

In the United States, the Washington-based safety commission said it has in recent days received two reports detailing the severe effects of the digested beads, which are part of a craft kit aimed at kids 4 years and older.

The CPSC said a boy nearly 2 years old "swallowed several dozen beads. He became dizzy and vomited several times before slipping into a comatose state for a period of time."

The commission said the toddler was hospitalized and has since "fully recovered."

The second incident involved a child who vomited, fell into a coma and was hospitalized for five days. It was not immediately clear whether the child had made a full recovery.

Toronto-based toy distributor Spin Master Ltd. stopped shipping the Aqua Dots toys and asked retailers to pull them off their shelves, where they were previously sold for $17 to $30.

Anyone with Aqua Dots at home should return the product to the company, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said.

The toy had been named toy of the year in Australia and recently crested Wal-Mart's list of top 12 Christmas toys.

Wal-Mart on Thursday listed the toys on its Web site as "out of stock online" and had removed them from their top toy list as well.

This latest recall is part of a larger batch of recalls of Chinese-made toys that have swept across the country.

Last month alone, U.S. government safety officials and retailers voluntarily recalled at least 69,000 Chinese-made toys over concerns of excessive amounts of lead paint, which can cause hazardous lead poisoning.

CNN's Janine Brady, Jason Carroll, Laura Dolan, Julie O'Neill and Leslie Wiggins contributed to this report.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/09/toy.recall/index.html

[the happy prole]

So what can we do to convince them to stop it? What would be the conservative / free-market position? Stop buying their shit until they fix it. This should also be extended the the American companies that are importing this garbage. The more liberal / bigger government solution would be to do more testing. I think a little of both is the best solution.

Now, what's Prole's position?

I don't have a problem with this at all. In fact, I'd love it. If you think Chinese shit sucks, by all means stop buying it. Absolutely buy American and see if it makes you or your kids any safer. The solvent they used isn't illegal in the US but hey, maybe consumer pressure will stop the companies from using it despite that.

I completely encourage people to actually follow through with what they're saying because it brings everything out into the light. If your kid chokes himself on a 100% US-made slinky or a peg from Battleship, well hey-- now that's on you. Everyone will know then if US-made products are actually safer and how much they're willing to pay for that safety.

Or maybe the US will decide to ban 1,4-butanediol in which case it'll be much easier to work it into one of those trade agreements people constantly bitch about and we can get it banned in other countries as well.

Whatever happens-- if US consumers actually put their money where their mouths are and think and act intelligently the shit will get fixed one way or another. I'm just warning you right now-- China makes a lot of shit. And US manufacturing is not exactly synonymous with quality and safety.

[DaHood]

I hear that licking the screen of an apple is like doing 'shrooms...
The only thing that ever touches my LCD screens:

http://www.desent-audio.com/images/MON126634.jpg

[AvatarOfVishnu]

So I'm supposed to test my own toys? Don't listen to what Prole is saying and the conversation is much easier to understand. First off I think the government should be doing a better job testing toys but more importantly the free market should punish China for lax safety rules.

Instead what I see here is Prole suddenly rushing to blame everyone but those at fault. Kids didn't die, dumb parents, etc. It's an argument used to throw people off the subject, which is simply that a Chinese company used an unauthorized ingredient to make a toy. It's yet another example of the lack of safety controls (or caring) used by Chinese manufacturers.

So what can we do to convince them to stop it? What would be the conservative / free-market position? Stop buying their shit until they fix it. This should also be extended the the American companies that are importing this garbage. The more liberal / bigger government solution would be to do more testing. I think a little of both is the best solution...

amazing, i am in agreement w/ Markalot over HP, wtf? - never thought the day would come

[kgray]

I wonder if it said "Non-Toxic" anywhere on the package.

[the happy prole]

Let me ask you something-- if two separate, private US manufacturing companies got nailed for product liability suits, would you stop buying ALL US products? Because it probably happens two or three times a month.

But anyway, I'm done arguing over it because that's not really my main point. Let's just say I personally don't think it's the answer, but I have absolutely no problem if you do.

My disdain is reserved for the average consumer who points their finger at China because blaming someone else absolves them from having to do anything. That Bill Maher quote Thomas C posted sums up my attitude.

If you're going to to boycott Chinese goods, that's seriously hardcore. It will be very, very hard. You'll have to spend a lot of time on the internet researching stuff. And more time shopping at different stores to get the brands you need. And you'll spend a lot more money than you usually do, at least twice as much. It will be even more difficult if you have kids.

So regardless of the fact that I disagree with the boycott, I would respect the hell out of anyone who does it, even for just 2-3 months. Because if you do this, you aren't just blaming China. You're understanding that you are part of the problem, or at least an enabler. And you're doing something to fix it. That's exercising "personal responsibility."

[markalot]

So it's the consumers fault? Astounding Prole, astounding.

[the happy prole]

I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, markalot. I thought it was obvious by now I could give a shit about that and that I think the whole finger pointing thing is a waste of time.

To me, it's a bit xenophobic to blame China and I think the much more efficient solution is to just look for QUALITY goods and not worry where they are from. That way DaHood can keep his Apple machines and everyone can keep their iPods and iPhones.

But I don't really care. Your way gets the job done, too. If you boycott every country that makes shitty products then sooner or later no one will be able to make shitty products. If no one buys Chinese toys this Christmas, I'm sure they and every other country and every toy maker will know why.

I don't care if you continue to buy crappy Chinese toys but you keep them away from your younger kids. If they can't eat the Aqua Dots, they can't die. That gets the job done, too.

I don't care if you decide that kids should only have books. Or if you decide that you just don't want to bring kids into a consumerist world that sucks their soul and teaches them to want the bright and shiny. And since I'm a such a fan of government, I don't care if people ask the US government to fix this, so long as they get out and vote and they understand it's gonna come out of taxes. Those things all work just fine.

See, the thing is-- no matter whose fault it is, the consumer at some point has to play a role in fixing it. And it seems to me a large portion of the populace has been complaining for at least fifteen years now that Chinese goods are crap and we need to buy American and yet we're still buying a ton of stuff from China.

So point your finger at whoever you want. If you're not going to do something about it, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is.

As far as I can tell, you plan to do something about it, so it doesn't apply to you. Honestly, I can't see why you keep attacking me over this. I would think you'd be quite a bit more annoyed by those people than I am.

[DaHood]

If you're going to to boycott Chinese goods, that's seriously hardcore.In effect, it can't be done unless you want to live the life of a hermit.
To me, it's a bit xenophobic to blame ChinaI don't see it that way at all. There is a difference between blaming China because the Chinese government sucks and blaming China because you believe that Asians are an inferior race.

[patio]

so the new street name for GHB is "aqua dots" or "Chinese beads"


i have thus declared

[monkey neck]

Anyone with Aquadots in their homes are instructed to contact Monkeyneck so he can test their effectiveness on his wife. You know...for science. ;)

[the happy prole]

I don't see it that way at all. There is a difference between blaming China because the Chinese government sucks and blaming China because you believe that Asians are an inferior race.

Actually, the Chinese government being dicks could end up being highly useful here.

If a private company in the US f'ed something like this up, I doubt the US government would take the same actions. I don't believe that what that factory did is illegal under US law (though I could be wrong about that). So the product gets banned, the toymaker and the citizens sue the crap out of the manufacturer, and that's how you solve the problem. At worst, the DOJ might file a suit for civil penalties but it'd take a long time to settle.

China has already suspended that company's export license. In the US, you don't even need an export license except in rare situations. And China has far more Draconian methods of assuring compliance. OTOH, all of the recalls in the US have been voluntary. No one's been forced to do anything, although the free press and CPSC certainly apply some pressure.

Even the lead paint thing-- it's illegal over here, it wasn't over there. And the CPSC does not have the jurisdiction to test toys before they come to the market. As long that situation exists, things like this will continue to happen.

This is why trade agreements can be really useful and in fact there's now something in place between US and China regarding lead paint. But whatever, everyone hates them. Which is cool, I guess. It just means it's up to the consumer to monitor and stop buying Chinese shit for their own perceived safety and to send a message via the free market.

[DaHood]

Even the lead paint thing-- it's illegal over here, it wasn't over there.
Exactly my point.

[DaHood]

It has very little to do with the Chinese government.Yes, it does. Because these deadly ingredients are regulated (or not) by the Chinese government. Even more so since it is a communist nation.

It has everything to do with the American corporate structure. All these toys are manufactured for US companies.And that is the biggest part of it. I certainly wouldn't let them off the hook either.

Quality IS quantity.Bullshit.

And the fact that it wasn't very good for us is probably beside the point, since that wrinkle has never seemed to deter us in the past. If it's cheap we buy it. Gotta have something for under the tree at Christmas, right?And this is the first component of blame: The American consumer who has turned a blind eye in favor of cheap prices. They wouldn't make this garbage if people had refused to buy it in the first place. Now, there are no choices so we're held hostage to the corporations who pad their bottom line, no, their EXECUTIVE BONUSES with the increased profits they make by selling crap.

[frizgolf]

I see simple market economics at work.
We overlook Communist ideologies while searching for cheap goods. Chinese gov't plays just nice enough to allow such goods smooth passage through the trade routes. American consumers, ever in search of saving a buck, realize the pitfalls of a blind quest for the almighty dollar, and boycott the products that ruined that perception of a quick savings. Chinese gov't must save face and fix stuff.
The Chinese government must face facts and regulate safety if they want to remain a rising economic power. If that means they must loosen their repressive reins on their citizens to involve them in the process, then so be it.

[markalot]

I love the way Walmart comes into every thread around here.

My tooth hurts

FUCKING WALMART

I bought some lead painted toys at Dollar General

FUCKING WALMART

The beads I bought at Toys R Us ...

FUCKING WALMART

Did I miss anything?

[classicgrrl]

Walmart gave the consumers precisely what they wanted.

low prices at all costs. just the public is now seeing what "at all costs" means doesn't mean Walmart is at fault.

but I still fucking hate them as a company and I still won't shop there. they are horrifically managed and the us was stupid as shit for letting them get so big. all of our eggs are in one basket - if Walmart falls, our economy falls and that is stupid.

we've got no one to blame but ourselves. Rome didn't burn in a day, neither will America. But it will burn none the less. Studying history is useless if you ignore its lessons.

[Sushi]

I love the way Walmart comes into every thread around here.

My tooth hurts

FUCKING WALMART

I bought some lead painted toys at Dollar General

FUCKING WALMART

The beads I bought at Toys R Us ...

FUCKING WALMART

Did I miss anything?
It's Bush's fault that Walmart sucks.

Now I think we've covered it. ;)

[Buzzstein]

My tooth hurts

Let me guess, you have a dentist appointment tomorrow at tooth hurty?

[the happy prole]

Yes, it does. Because these deadly ingredients are regulated (or not) by the Chinese government. Even more so since it is a communist nation.

You can say that about the lead paint, but the solvent in the Aqua Dots wasn't regulated by either government. It's not a deadly ingredient unless you weigh like 20 lbs and want to eat a bunch of it. Which outside the context of children's toys is not likely to happen. It's a pretty commonly used glue here in the US.

[the happy prole]

oh, and it doesn't matter how you blame. Like frizgolf said, it's basic economics. It requires supply and demand so it always takes two (or more) to tango.

If you blame cheap-quality, mass-produced products from China and stop buying them then Wal-mart, Dollar General, Toys R Us, etc. will be "punished" with poor sales and have to change or go under.

If you blame Wal-mart, et al. for fostering mass consumerism attitudes and stop shopping there, there will be fewer cheap Chinese products sold and China will have to change or loss a ton of trade.

It's a supply chain from the toy designer to the marketer to the manufacturer to the retailer to the consumer. You can't change one without affecting the others.

So point your finger at whoever you want. The end result will be the same, and one way or the other the consumers (and everyone else) will have to change their behavior.

[markalot]

I think just a small hiccup in sales will be enough for China and the American companies who import from them to reform. When you're dealing with the volume they are all it takes is a small trend to create a scare.

[Ambassador V3.0]

Walmart gave the consumers precisely what they wanted.

Rome didn't burn in a day, neither will America. But it will burn none the less. Studying history is useless if you ignore its lessons.

"...and the British Empire, and its Commonwealth, shall last for a thousand years." --Sir Winston Churchill :D

[Marlowe]

far from presaging the downfall of america, global trade enables greater levels of growth & prosperity around the world, and enhances our ties and lessens the probabilities of future armed conflict between us & china.

america became a great nation by being confident and open to the world. when it becomes defensive, nativist and closed to the world, well, that's when we really need to worry about decline.

[Marlowe]

That is as much of a generalization as protectionism. It does you no good if the benefits are relatively one sided.
how are the benefits relatively one-sided? there's a very strong argument that we get the better bargain out of our trading with china than they get. see "smile curve" theory if you're interested. i won't bother explaining it because something tells me your mind isn't open on this one.

[classicgrrl]

Which is what I was saying. If people had boycotted them 2-3 years ago, would things have turned out this way? Maybe, maybe not. But if you were cheering them on because you could get paper towels or white socks for 20 cents cheaper you have no recourse to bitch about where we are at this stage. Because there were plenty of people who saw it coming and no one paid attention.

well that is what I am saying.

on the other hand...this little guy is cute. glad they are not going into soup in China now...

http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is213/s04/projects/Manis/images/pangolin.jpg

[frizgolf]

well that is what I am saying.

on the other hand...this little guy is cute. glad they are not going into soup in China now...

http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is213/s04/projects/Manis/images/pangolin.jpg
What the hell is that, a ferret with scales?

[DaHood]

As the country’s land, air and rivers choke on pollution, only a change in culture can save it

Elizabeth Economy
November 11, 2007
*source here* (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article2846875.ece)
*full original article source here* (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86503/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great-leap-backward.html)

China’s environmental problems are mounting. Water pollution and water scarcity are burdening the economy, rising levels of air pollution are endangering the health of millions of Chinese, and much of the country’s land is rapidly turning into desert.

China has become a world leader in air and water pollution and land degradation, and a top contributor to some of the world’s most vexing global environmental problems, such as the illegal timber trade, marine pollution and climate change.

As China’s pollution woes increase, so, too, do the risks to its economy, public health, social stability and international reputation. As Pan Yue, vice-minister of China’s state environmental protection administration, warned in 2005, “The [economic] miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace.”

With the 2008 Olympics around the corner, China’s leaders have ratcheted up their rhetoric, setting ambitious environmental targets, announcing greater levels of environmental investment and exhorting business leaders and local officials to clean up their backyards.

The rest of the world seems to accept that Beijing has charted a new course: as China declares itself open for environmentally friendly business, officials in the United States, the European Union and Japan are asking not whether to invest but how much.

Much of this enthusiasm stems from the widespread but misguided belief that what Beijing says goes. In fact, local officials rarely heed Beijing’s environmental mandates, preferring to focus on economic growth.

The truth is that turning the environmental situation in China around will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reform. Without it, China will continue to have one of the world’s worst environmental records, and the Chinese people and the rest of the planet will pay the price.

Record growth necessarily requires the gargantuan consumption of resources, but in China energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences. The coal that has powered China’s economic growth, for example, is also choking its people. As much as 90% of sulphur dioxide emissions and 50% of particulate emissions are the result of coal use.

Yet coal use may soon be the least of China’s air-quality problems. The transportation boom poses a growing challenge to air quality. Some 14,000 new cars hit China’s roads each day. By 2020, the country is expected to have 130m.

Grand-scale urbanisation plans will aggravate matters. China’s leaders plan to relocate 400m people to newly developed urban centres between 2000 and 2030. In the process, they will erect half of all the buildings expected to be constructed in the world during that period.

This is a troubling prospect, considering that Chinese buildings are not energy efficient. Although China is one of the world’s largest producers of solar cells, compact fluorescent lights and energy-efficient windows, these are made mostly for export. Unless more of these energy-saving goods stay at home, the building boom will result in skyrocketing energy consumption and pollution.

China’s land has also suffered from unfettered development and environmental neglect. Centuries of deforestation, along with the overgrazing of grass-lands and overcultivation of crop-land, have left much of the north and northwest seriously degraded. Some reports say a quarter of the country is now desert.

Then there is the problem of access to clean water. Although China holds the fourth largest freshwater resources in the world, two-thirds of its approximately 660 cities have less water than they need and 110 suffer severe shortages.

More than 75% of the river water flowing through urban areas is unsuitable for drinking or fishing, and the Chinese government deems about 30% of the river water throughout the country to be unfit for use in agriculture or industry. As a result, nearly 700m people drink water contaminated with animal and human waste.

In early 2007, Chinese officials announced that over a third of the fish species native to the Yellow River had become extinct due to damming or pollution. And more than 80% of the East China Sea, one of the world’s largest fisheries, is now rated unsuitable for fishing.

China’s ministry of public health is sounding the alarm. In a survey of 30 cities and 78 counties released in the spring, the ministry blamed worsening air and water pollution for dramatic increases in the incidence of cancer throughout the country: a 19% rise in urban areas and a 23% rise in rural areas since 2005. All along China’s major rivers, villages report skyrocketing rates of diarrhoeal diseases, cancer, tumours, leukaemia and stunted growth.

Social unrest over these issues is rising. In the spring of 2006, China’s top environmental official announced there had been 51,000 pollution-related protests in 2005.

Citizens’ complaints about the environment, expressed on official hotlines and in letters to local officials, are increasing at a rate of 30% a year; they will likely top 450,000 in 2007. But few of them are resolved satisfac-torily, and so people are increasingly taking to the streets.

For several months in 2006, the residents of six villages in Gansu province held repeated protests against zinc and iron smelters that they believed were poisoning them. Fully half of the 4,000-5,000 villagers exhibited lead-related ill-nesses, ranging from vitamin D deficiency to neurological problems.

In the spring of 2005, after trying for two years to get redress by petitioning government officials over spoilt crops and poisoned air, 30,000-40,000 villagers from Zhejiang province swarmed into 13 chemical plants, broke windows and overturned buses, attacked officials and torched police cars.

In the face of such problems, China’s leaders have recently injected a new urgency into their rhetoric concerning the environment. Premier Wen Jia-bao issued a stern warning to local officials to shut down some of the plants in the most energy-intensive industries. But the six industries that were slated to slow down posted a 20.6% increase in output during the first quarter of 2007.

Even the Olympics are proving to be a challenge. Since Beijing promised to hold a “green Olympics” in 2001, the city is now ringed with rows of newly planted trees; hybrid taxis and buses are roaming its streets (some of which are to be lined with solar-powered lamps); the most heavily polluting factories have been pushed outside the city limits, and the Olympic dormitories are models of energy efficiency. Yet in key respects, Beijing has failed to deliver.

City officials are backtracking from their pledge to provide safe tap water to all of Beijing for the Olympics; they now say that they will provide it only for residents of the Olympic Village. They have announced drastic stopgap measures for the duration of the Games, such as banning 1m of the city’s 3m cars from the streets and halting production at factories in and around Beijing (some of them are resisting).

Preparing for the Olympics has come to symbolise the intractability of China’s environmental challenges and the limits of Beijing’s approach to addressing them.

Clearly, something has got to give. The costs of inaction to China’s economy, public health and international reputation are growing. And the government is well aware of the increasing potential for environmental protest to ignite broader social unrest.

One event this spring particularly alarmed China’s leaders. For several days in May in the coastal city of Xiamen, after months of mounting opposition to the planned construction of a $1.4 billion petrochemical plant nearby, students and professors at Xiamen University, among others, are said to have sent out 1m text messages calling on their fellow citizens to take to the streets on June 1.

That day, and the following, protesters reportedly numbering between 7,000 and 20,000 marched peacefully through the city, some defying threats of expulsion from school or from the Communist party. The protest was captured on video and uploaded to YouTube.

One video referred to the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. The Xiamen march, the narrator said, was perhaps “the first genuine parade since Tiananmen”.

In response, city authorities did stay the construction of the plant, but they also launched an all-out campaign to discredit the protesters and their videos. Still, more comments about the protest and calls not to forget Tiananmen appeared on various websites.

Such messages, posted openly and accessible to all Chinese, represent the Chinese leadership’s greatest fear – namely, that its failure to protect the environment may someday serve as the catalyst for broad-based demands for political change.

Effective environmental protection requires transparent information, official accountability and an independent legal system. But these features are the building blocks of a political system fundamentally different from that of China today, and so far there is little indication that China’s leaders will risk the authority of the Communist party on charting a new environmental course.

Until the party is willing to open the door to such reform, it will not have the wherewithal to meet its ambitious environmental targets and lead a growing economy with manageable environmental problems.

Elizabeth C Economy is C V Starr senior fellow and director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

[DaHood]

So yeah. China sounds just fucking lovely.

:rolleyes:

[Marlowe]

every country that has modernized has experienced environmental degradation until it got rich enough to re-prioritize and clean up the environment. london during the dickens era was a cess-pool, the US was significantly dirtier and less healthy to eat, breath and drink than it is today, etc.

china DOES have significant environmental issues. no question about it. but, they are making a rational choice as a society, just as the US, england, continental europe, etc., made during their development-phase. china has already begun to re-prioritize toward environmental concerns in the last few years (in some places, but not all). that trend will continue.

it's totally a double-standard to point at china as a 'bad-guy' for doing the very same thing we did. china right now is in the midst of the most remarkable economic transformation in the history of mankind on this earth. they're going to make some mistakes, but we shouldn't be xenophobic, ugly americans and stand in hypocritical judgment of them.

[Marlowe]

You obviously have a financial stake in these policies continuing, so I'm not sure you are any more objective in this area than I. Cheerleader ain't any different than heckler in this - just a question of the which side of the field you are sitting on,
uh, what are you talking about? unless you can back up your allegations, you really better stfu instead of talking shit about me personally.

edited to add: and what country was your sister-in-law a VP of, pray tell? bolivia? estonia?

[Marlowe]

so by your logic, only rich people can argue that the minimum wage should be increased, because poor people are too biased to be able to speak on the subject since they may stand to gain from it personally? similarly, black people aren't allowed to express their belief that affirmative action is appropriate, because they may stand to gain from it?

i live in singapore, and yes my company does a lot of business in china. but i'll continue to do just fine whether the US continues to trade with china or not, and so will my company, as china business accounts for approximately 2% of its revenue stream. so your argument is wrong factually and worse, it's also wrong in its underlying assumption that anyone with any connection to the subject at hand is somehow tainted and unworthy of making comment.

[the happy prole]

it's totally a double-standard to point at china as a 'bad-guy' for doing the very same thing we did. china right now is in the midst of the most remarkable economic transformation in the history of mankind on this earth. they're going to make some mistakes, but we shouldn't be xenophobic, ugly americans and stand in hypocritical judgment of them.

I guess that's about my attitude as well. I'm not quite as optimistic about things as you are, though.

For one, the whole "Smile Theory" thing is a bit hot-potato. Someone has to be in the middle of the production chain. Chinese companies can re-image themselves into the BMW's of technology, but all that means is that someone else is selling Yugo's.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Chinese government at some level is fully aware that their current business methods are unsustainable. They are burning through way too many resources at too low a profit margin. They're selling 10 million units of X at a profit of $.02 a unit and destroying their environment when they could be selling 2 million at $.10 a unit and keeping resources available for the long term.

And yet, to undergo the massive change you're talking about the political environment will have to change as well. And obviously there's going to be people in power who don't want to see that happen.

It's not a given that China will turn this thing around. But we can play our role by giving them some nudges in the right direction. Not buying from China will help. I don't view that as "punishing" them. It's always your right to buy what you like. Consumers should use the freemarket to dictate their preferences, whether it's with an eye towards helping China get to the end of the smile or just the raw selfishness of "Get this crap out of my face."

You could sort of grease the skids a little via political pressure and a free trade agreement, but everyone thinks that sucks.

It's the attitude of "Fuck China, we'll just keep buying their cheap shit and let them screw themselves over" that's going to bite us in the ass. Which is kind of what the whole toy thing illustrates. We're too tied to China to think what happens over there won't affect us. Thinking we can isolate ourselves economically is going to be our downfall.

[frizgolf]

As the country’s land, air and rivers choke on pollution, only a change in culture can save it

Elizabeth Economy
November 11, 2007

...Such messages, posted openly and accessible to all Chinese, represent the Chinese leadership’s greatest fear – namely, that its failure to protect the environment may someday serve as the catalyst for broad-based demands for political change.

Effective environmental protection requires transparent information, official accountability and an independent legal system. But these features are the building blocks of a political system fundamentally different from that of China today, and so far there is little indication that China’s leaders will risk the authority of the Communist party on charting a new environmental course.

Until the party is willing to open the door to such reform, it will not have the wherewithal to meet its ambitious environmental targets and lead a growing economy with manageable environmental problems.

Hit 'em in the pocketbook, then they'll change.
It's a different world out there in Consumerland today. Where we once blindly bought the cheapest things, ignorant of environment, we now are more educated about what goes into our products, albeit a little slow to change our own sale-hunting habits. A boycott of Chinese products would be a shock to their system.

[patio]

So anyone wanna go play with some aqua dots?

[PeterABnny]

I heard somewhere that it would only cost the consumer an additional dollar or two for these Chinese-made toys to be made here. Unfortunately, for a country that wants everything as cheap as possible (and on the manufacturing side, paying their workers as cheap as possible), to pay an extra dollar or two for anything is an anathema.

[purple_octopus]

So anyone wanna go play with some aqua dots?
There you go trying to get me to eat your date rape toys again... Creepy.

[berzerker]

I heard somewhere that it would only cost the consumer an additional dollar or two for these Chinese-made toys to be made here. Unfortunately, for a country that wants everything as cheap as possible (and on the manufacturing side, paying their workers as cheap as possible), to pay an extra dollar or two for anything is an anathema.

I work for a company that imports a lot of goods from China, and as such, sells a lot of product at Wal Mart. Wal Mart is considered a blessing and a curse - we have to bend over backwards cutting pennies out of the production process, chosing materials that are perhaps lower quality, or more frequently less labor-intensive construction processes, so we don't raise the price over last year. But if we make them happy, we sell millions of units.

If it weren't for Wal Mart, we could make better products that last longer and be an overall better value for our consumers, but would cost more.
If it weren't for the people who can't afford to NOT shop at Wal Mart (saving money at any cost) people would expect to get what they pay for.
If it weren't for a national trend of moving production overseas, we would have workers in America that make higher wages, and can afford to NOT shop at Wal Mart...


There's many symptoms to this problem. Unfortunately, most people would rather try to figure out who to blame than fix things. Personally, I won't shop at Wal Mart. I can financially afford this economic "statement," but ironically my job is solidly tied to Wal Mart's (and China's) economic well being.

[miami2112]

my in-laws are solid republicans who bemoan the loss of jobs to other nations, think auto industry in detroit, and shop almost exclusively at walmart.

[markalot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071113/bs_nm/china_safety_toys_study_dc_1

Focus of toy recalls misdirected at China: survey

By Naomi Kim (a ha!!!, obviously a commie plant :p )

While China may be getting most of the attention -- and the blame -- for a rash of recent toy recalls, the majority of problematic toys in fact come from other countries, according to a new Canadian study.

Toys made in countries other than China had a higher rate of recalls, on a proportional basis, according to the study by Paul Beamish, a professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ontario, and Hari Bapuji and Andre Laplume with the Asper School of Business in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

So while Chinese-made toys dominate the global marketplace, accounting for 86 percent of those imported by the United States in 2006, the study found they were no more a danger than toys made elsewhere.

Another surprising finding of the study was that design-related problems, such as the use of detachable parts, outpaced defects attributed to manufacturing issues such as the use of lead paint or toxic chemicals.

"It's astounding to us this disconnect between the general perception that most of the problems are manufacturing and most of the problems are lead," said Beamish. "People have got to get lead paint off the mind."

Manufacturing problems are actually the easier of the two to fix, he added. For manufacturing flaws, companies can tell suppliers to do more testing and not to use products such as lead paint.

On the design side, however, quality improvement requires the investment of additional resources, Beamish said.

One reason that quality of design can be compromised is due to a product being rushed to market, such as in the case of fad items, Beamish said, adding he's found that design engineers as well as the Consumer Safety Association are not surprised by the finding.

As well, there is just a greater volume of inexpensive toys available on the market than in previous years.

"With just so much volume of stuff coming out of China now, it really is the world's workshop for many manufactured goods, and people started equating recall equals China," Beamish said.

"Some of the recalls are absolutely China's fault, but not all the problems."

(Reporting by Naomi Kim; Editing by Rob Wilson)

[berzerker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071113/bs_nm/china_safety_toys_study_dc_1


Manufacturing problems are actually the easier of the two to fix, he added. For manufacturing flaws, companies can tell suppliers to do more testing and not to use products such as lead paint.

On the design side, however, quality improvement requires the investment of additional resources, Beamish said.

(Reporting by Naomi Kim; Editing by Rob Wilson)

Yes, but... testing costs money, which the average consumer (Wal Mart consumers, anyway...) are NOT willing to do. Ever.

Which leads to better quality improvement, which again, the average Wal Mart customer is NOT willing to do. Otherwise, they wouldn't shop there.

[drougan]

Yes, but... testing costs money, which the average consumer (Wal Mart consumers, anyway...) are NOT willing to do. Ever.

Which leads to better quality improvement, which again, the average Wal Mart customer is NOT willing to do. Otherwise, they wouldn't shop there.

I take issue with your assessment of what the Walmart consumer is and is not willing to. Walmart consumers shop at Walmart because they believe it's the cheapest, which in some (but not all) cases it is. If the (artificially low, IMO) baseline of Walmarts lower prices were a few cents on the dollar higher, I doubt the consumer will avoid it.

I guess what I want to say is that if the cheapest is better/safer and not quite as cheap, as long as it's still the cheapest it still owns that market niche.

[DaHood]

I think the problem is more blindness than unwillingness. In the US, we've made it the company's responsibility to test their products as a part of the manufacturing process. Now, these companies have moved to China (as well as many other third world countries) in part to avoid the costs of being environmentally responsible. Then, when a problem arises China is given a free pass because it's a developing country and we went through the same issues during our own industrial revolution. But there are a lot of holes in that argument. Just to name a few:

1. It is in fact foreign (to China) companies doing the investment for the developing and not China on their own.

2. We've already made all the mistakes. Why are we allowing China to make them all over again?

3. If you dump shit in the water and the air, it doesn't stay in one place. China doesn't live in a vacuum.

It seems a bit ironic to me that many of the same people who will criticize Bush for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol will defend China for it's gross negligence to the environment especially when this negligence is in fact financed by the US and other foreign investors.

Want to save a buck by not living up to your environmental responsibilities? No problem. Move production to China.

[berzerker]

I take issue with your assessment of what the Walmart consumer is and is not willing to. Walmart consumers shop at Walmart because they believe it's the cheapest, which in some (but not all) cases it is. If the (artificially low, IMO) baseline of Walmarts lower prices were a few cents on the dollar higher, I doubt the consumer will avoid it.

I guess what I want to say is that if the cheapest is better/safer and not quite as cheap, as long as it's still the cheapest it still owns that market niche.

It was a blanket statement, and unreasonably inflammatory... I apologize. But year after year, I hear people go in there and say "I shouldn't be here, I hate how they do business, and there's gotta be a catch... but the prices are so low!"

Well, there's the (latest) catch.
-Safety. And, as it turns out, Wal Mart does do inspections of it's overseas factories. And some of them (8 % in 2004) are even unannounced... so that the factory doesn't have a chance to clean up their act (which they often fail to do, anyway)
-People didn't seem too concerned when it was revealed that Wal Mart purposefully schedules at least a third of the workforce into 28 hour shifts, making employees ineligible for benefits. Their benefits, for those who do qualify, cost nearly twice that of comparable companies.
-Also, (as much as I dislike organized labor) Wal mart is staunchly anti-union, while a large number of the shoppers are union, and ordinarally wouldn't shop at a non-union store, but can't afford to shop elsewhere.
-Another catch is the fact that women at the same position and level of experience get paid less than men.
-Their "Made in the USA" campaign? Wrong. 85% of product on the shelves isn't.

Sources...
PBS (http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html)
Fast Company (http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2006/03/08/the_walmart_blog_is_walmarts_factory_inspections_p rogram_a_fraud.html)
Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi20060811_696579.htm)
The Institute for Policy Studies, whatever the hell that is... (http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/walmart_pay_gap.htm)

[markalot]

Walmart, at last count, had 1.6 million employees. Apparently some of you believe that 1.6 million employees determine the fate of a nation?

Imagine if you looked around and saw that people were having trouble paying for food and other items you thought they should be able to afford. Imagine if you opened a store designed to bring down those prices and you succeeded. Imagine that now people were blaming YOU for the very problems you were trying to solve.

The Walmart effect is a fantasy dreamed up by people who want to destroy Walmart. If the Walmart effect was real then every other store in the nation would be going out of business, yet they survive and even thrive. Why go to target when you can go to Walmart. Radio Shack, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. etc.

At Wal-Mart, ''everyday low prices'' is more than a slogan; it is the fundamental tenet of a cult masquerading as a company. Over the years, Wal-Mart has relentlessly wrung tens of billions of dollars in cost efficiencies out of the retail supply chain, passing the larger part of the savings along to shoppers as bargain prices.

For some reason passing the savings along to the consumer is now a bad thing?

[berzerker]

Walmart, at last count, had 1.6 million employees. Apparently some of you believe that 1.6 million employees determine the fate of a nation?

Imagine if you looked around and saw that people were having trouble paying for food and other items you thought they should be able to afford. Imagine if you opened a store designed to bring down those prices and you succeeded. Imagine that now people were blaming YOU for the very problems you were trying to solve.

The Walmart effect is a fantasy dreamed up by people who want to destroy Walmart. If the Walmart effect was real then every other store in the nation would be going out of business, yet they survive and even thrive. Why go to target when you can go to Walmart. Radio Shack, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. etc.

At Wal-Mart, ''everyday low prices'' is more than a slogan; it is the fundamental tenet of a cult masquerading as a company. Over the years, Wal-Mart has relentlessly wrung tens of billions of dollars in cost efficiencies out of the retail supply chain, passing the larger part of the savings along to shoppers as bargain prices.

For some reason passing the savings along to the consumer is now a bad thing?

At what cost? Safety? Hundreds of thousands (at least) of jobs moved overseas? Lowered salaries and benefits for employees?

[the happy prole]

It seems a bit ironic to me that many of the same people who will criticize Bush for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol will defend China for it's gross negligence to the environment especially when this negligence is in fact financed by the US and other foreign investors.

Are you actually under the impression that Bush didn't support the Kyoto Protocol because he wanted tougher environmental standards?

[markalot]

At what cost? Safety? Hundreds of thousands (at least) of jobs moved overseas? Lowered salaries and benefits for employees?

You don't think these problems existed before walmart? Did anyone even pay attention to the hundreds of different discount stores? Walmart helps people focus on a single store.

Walmart does not have unique safety issues and in many cases they catch the problems first. Toys R Us, Dollar General, Target, all of them sold the tainted goods. As far as I know the only recall unique to walmart was a bag of plastic animals.

[DaHood]

Are you actually under the impression that Bush didn't support the Kyoto Protocol because he wanted tougher environmental standards?HA yeah seriously...

Don't wrongly read into my intent. It's about the attitudes toward both. The attitudes are 120 degrees apart.

[Marlowe]

It seems a bit ironic to me that many of the same people who will criticize Bush for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol will defend China for it's gross negligence to the environment especially when this negligence is in fact financed by the US and other foreign investors.
yeah, it certainly WOULD be interesting if that were true. but it's not. the same people who criticize bush for not supporting kyoto, are the same ones who criticize china. not sure where you got that one from, but i'd be hard-pressed to find more than a couple of people who fit the category you're describing.