Heard this morning on KJZZ that local charities (like Toys for Tots) is having problems sifting through donated toys because the likelihood that some of the donations are recalled products with lead in them. Seems like an impossible task. Remember, its not just what the toy looks like, because the recalls are specific to particular batches. They probably have to throw out any toy that resembles a recalled one.
The Salvation Army has even stopped accepting toy donations due to the enormity of this task.
Very sad.
After studying economics for 6 years, which availed me of the merits of free markets, I have circled back to the conclusion that, overall, Democrats will benefit most people in the long run far more than Republicans. I chronicle my observations in this blog.
Learn Econ on Wikipedia|Blog Archive
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
In China, Punishment Would Be Capital: CPSC
Two Heads of Product Safety Agency Accepted Trips From Manufacturer Groups
For background:
Republicans Kill the Consumer Safety Product Commission
Also, previously on this blog:
Thoughts on the FDA
The agency's travel patterns during the Bush administration, detailed in internal agency documents, differ from those of the Clinton era. Ann Brown, who served as chairman from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls, according to the documents provided.
For background:
Republicans Kill the Consumer Safety Product Commission
Also, previously on this blog:
Thoughts on the FDA
Labels:
Bush Administration,
china,
CPSC,
FDA,
food and drug administration
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Thoughts on the FDA
China executes the former head of its food and drug agency
This reminds me of the common academic economist's stance on the FDA. The idea is that the FDA is unnecessary, because food and pharmaceutical companies have enough incentive to produce quality goods due to their reputation. This idea is so mainstream in academic economics, that in 1994 while sitting in on a graduate Economics class at Emory University, taught by the chairman (Emory's term) of the department, the uselessness of the FDA was a foregone conclusion.
While I do see the value in "name brands", I think the practicality of reliance on "brand reputation" falls apart when you consider the huge amount of sub-contracting, mergers and acquisitions, short time horizons of corporations (one or two fiscal quarters), and bankruptcy that is prevalent in industry. On top of that, in a global economy, the value of reputation can be even more elusive.
See NPR story on global food supply:
Then, there is the question of equity. Poor people who buy cheap stuff from dollar stores won't be able to afford protection from bad food and medicine. How does abolishing the FDA solve that issue?
Also from Adam Davidson's NPR story linked to above:
This reminds me of the common academic economist's stance on the FDA. The idea is that the FDA is unnecessary, because food and pharmaceutical companies have enough incentive to produce quality goods due to their reputation. This idea is so mainstream in academic economics, that in 1994 while sitting in on a graduate Economics class at Emory University, taught by the chairman (Emory's term) of the department, the uselessness of the FDA was a foregone conclusion.
While I do see the value in "name brands", I think the practicality of reliance on "brand reputation" falls apart when you consider the huge amount of sub-contracting, mergers and acquisitions, short time horizons of corporations (one or two fiscal quarters), and bankruptcy that is prevalent in industry. On top of that, in a global economy, the value of reputation can be even more elusive.
See NPR story on global food supply:
Heinz makes this meal by combining more than 50 industrial food ingredients. Each ingredient has probably changed hands a dozen times on its way from the farm or the sea. Each one is sold and then resold to a chain of distributors, exporters, importers, and wholesalers before finally reaching Heinz. The 50 ingredients in this one tiny meal could easily have gone through 500 different suppliers, spread all over the globe.
Then, there is the question of equity. Poor people who buy cheap stuff from dollar stores won't be able to afford protection from bad food and medicine. How does abolishing the FDA solve that issue?
Also from Adam Davidson's NPR story linked to above:
As a rule, experts say, such suspicious products go to cut-rate restaurants and deep discount stores. They rarely go to established brand-name companies. And that means the food in any brand-name supermarket is very likely safe to eat — at least in the short run. Of course, shoppers still have to worry about all that sodium and fat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)