View Full Version: U.S. gives consumers day to sound off on bad impor

Cyber Nations Forums > The Boiler Room > U.S. gives consumers day to sound off on bad impor


Title: U.S. gives consumers day to sound off on bad impor


Saniel - August 30, 2007 05:34 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
U.S. gives consumers day to sound off on bad imports
58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration will conduct a meeting this fall to hear Americans' advice on how to stem a wave of unsafe imports from China and other countries, officials said on Thursday.

The all-day meeting on October 1 at the Agriculture Department in Washington is designed to gather suggestions about how the government and companies can better ensure the safety of imported food and other products.

U.S. consumers have been jarred in recent months by a spate of recalls of unsafe children's toys, chemical-laced toothpaste, and dangerous additives in pet food and seafood.

Most of the goods under scrutiny come from China. Beijing is taking steps to crack down on unscrupulous exporters, but it also is seeking to fend off some of the blame.

Bush's panel, headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and including officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and other agencies, will present two reports this fall.

An Agriculture Department official said comments from October's meeting, made in person or teleconference, will contribute to the second report which will set out specific actions the government can take to safeguard against perilous products.

Comments can be submitted at http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or http://www.regulations.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070830/us_nm/usa_imports_dc

I suppose "start making corporations have some kind of responsibility" is way too "out there".

Alonick - August 30, 2007 05:40 PM (GMT)
They already do. Jiffy (was that the company?) has ecoli in it? Don't buy it, buy another brand instead. So, Jiffy, since they provided a poor product loses money. How much did their stock go down after that happened? My wife still won't buy whatever brand that was.

Basically what I'm saying, is that if we don't like something...we don't buy it. That is how those companies are held accountable. We don't need some F'd up government to do it.

Saniel - August 30, 2007 05:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 11:40 AM)
They already do. Jiffy (was that the company?) has ecoli in it? Don't buy it, buy another brand instead. So, Jiffy, since they provided a poor product loses money. How much did their stock go down after that happened? My wife still won't buy whatever brand that was.

Basically what I'm saying, is that if we don't like something...we don't buy it. That is how those companies are held accountable. We don't need some F'd up government to do it.

If I knowingly poison you, I would go to jail.
If a corporation does it, do not buy their crap (assuming you lived)?

Are you being serious?

Alonick - August 30, 2007 05:45 PM (GMT)
Yes, the company knowing added ecoli (or was it salmonella?) to their product because they decided they didn't want people buying it anymore.

Are you being serious?

Saniel - August 30, 2007 05:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 11:45 AM)
Yes, the company knowing added ecoli (or was it salmonella?) to their product because they decided they didn't want people buying it anymore.

Are you being serious?

Well, Jiffy was "you're idiotic" example, not mine. While it is a cute attempt of moving goalposts, it has nothing to do with what I said.

I am speaking of companies knowingly distrobuting bad products.

Xiao Weng - August 30, 2007 06:54 PM (GMT)
*eyebrow* If a company knowingly distributes a bad product, like the Jiffy example, they're going to get nailed with a hefty lawsuit.

Saniel - August 30, 2007 08:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Xiao Weng @ Aug 30 2007, 12:54 PM)
*eyebrow*  If a company knowingly distributes a bad product, like the Jiffy example, they're going to get nailed with a hefty lawsuit.

Which in most cases is less than the company saves by using third world slave labor.

Again, I have no clue why anyone is bringing up Jif as the last time I checked Lexington Kentucky was still part of the United States.

Alonick - August 30, 2007 08:54 PM (GMT)
So because it doesn't fit into the, "See, I'm right" then it's moving the goal posts?

Oh, sounds like you just don't like being proven wrong. Like Weng said, if they distribute a bad product knowingly they get sued but even worse than that...no one buys their crap. You know Saniel, you don't HAVE to buy the poisoned pet food, you can get other kinds. And that's exactly how they are held accountable.

Saniel - August 30, 2007 09:06 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 02:54 PM)
So because it doesn't fit into the, "See, I'm right" then it's moving the goal posts?

Oh, sounds like you just don't like being proven wrong. Like Weng said, if they distribute a bad product knowingly they get sued but even worse than that...no one buys their crap. You know Saniel, you don't HAVE to buy the poisoned pet food, you can get other kinds. And that's exactly how they are held accountable.

Well, since you obviously do not appear to know what the term "import" means, I will enlighten you:
QUOTE
1. to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services. 


But even worse than that, they do not get more money! Oh my! If they are really naughty, do the responsible parties get sent to bed without supper too?

Alonick - August 30, 2007 09:14 PM (GMT)
Well, you asked how companies are held responsible. I'm showing you how, we don't buy their crap and they lose money and that goes for products being produced anywhere that are brought into a market where the consumer decides how and where to spend their money. Being sarcastic and silly doesn't change that.

Saniel - August 30, 2007 09:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 03:14 PM)
Well, you asked how companies are held responsible. I'm showing you how, we don't buy their crap and they lose money and that goes for products being produced anywhere that are brought into a market where the consumer decides how and where to spend their money. Being sarcastic and silly doesn't change that.

And again, if I deliberately poison someone, I will be criminally charged. There is no reason that other people should be held to a lesser standard because they do it through a company.

Alonick - August 30, 2007 09:19 PM (GMT)
I see I made my point. Enjoyed the debate.

admin - August 30, 2007 09:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 12:40 PM)
They already do. Jiffy (was that the company?) has ecoli in it? Don't buy it, buy another brand instead. So, Jiffy, since they provided a poor product loses money. How much did their stock go down after that happened? My wife still won't buy whatever brand that was.

That was Peter Pan produced by Conagra Foods, not Jiffy.

Alonick - August 30, 2007 09:34 PM (GMT)
Not found, Admin.

But yes, that's the instance I was talking about.

Saniel - August 30, 2007 09:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 03:19 PM)
I see I made my point. Enjoyed the debate.

You had a point?
Other than that corporations have greatly reduced responsibilities, pretty much to the point of having none?
You are going to break your arm patting yourself on the back so hard.

Alonick - August 30, 2007 10:07 PM (GMT)
Companies are around for one reason, and one reason only.

To make money.

If they do something that causes people to not buy their product, whether it's on purpose, by accident, or another company comes a long and take their market share then they are done. Which is why the whole "purposely" example you bring up is so ridicules. No company will purposely do something to lose money...unless we're talking about Dr. Evil's.

If you want to call ceasing to exist at worst, or losing a tremendous amount of market share at best...not having responsibility or accountability then I don't really know what to say to make you change your mind.

lamuella - August 30, 2007 10:46 PM (GMT)
the problem is that sooner or later you end up with the anecdotal "ford pinto" situation, where it costs more to fix the problem than to simply let it happen and be sued. SOmetimes the negative publicity of this outweighs the benefit, but it usually ends up with people having the minimum safety and health standards that they can afford to have.

Heyman - August 31, 2007 12:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Alonick @ Aug 30 2007, 12:40 PM)
They already do. Jiffy (was that the company?) has ecoli in it? Don't buy it, buy another brand instead. So, Jiffy, since they provided a poor product loses money. How much did their stock go down after that happened? My wife still won't buy whatever brand that was.

It was Peter Pan Peanut Butter.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards