There's a lot of interest in this in various place so I thought I'd start a new thread with more information.

As Imports Increase, a Tense Dependence on China (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10410111)
The FDA lists on its Web site food imports its inspectors have refused at U.S. ports. Last month, FDA inspectors blocked 257 food shipments from China, according to the list.

"That's by far the most of all the countries of the world," says William Hubbard.

Q&A: Why China Tops the FDA Import Refusal List (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10409726)

And other FDA import food topics (http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=FDA+food+inspections)

From the FDA web site:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Import Refusal Reports for OASIS (http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.html)

China essentially does our slave labor for us now.

We get to tell the slavers how the slaves are going to produce.

/shrug

More like, China is essentially our industrial sector now. And our dependence on China is increasing every day.

They make the pots and pans and machines(also our slaves) that our poor people buy.

When our poor buy their products because of how cheap they are, that makes them the our slave sector.

Remember those kids who were putting flowers in the barrels of those Commie tanks in Tiananmen Square, if they did not get run over and squished, they were placed in slave camps and now make your pet food(as we all know now) and tons of your **** for you.

It isn't just the poor buying from China. The last vit. C plant in the US closed 2 years ago, so if you're taking Vit. C you're probably getting it from China.

Check this out: http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/4/ora_oasis_cntry_lst.html
or this: http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/4/ora_oasis_prod_lst.html
Look at the reasons things are getting rejected: http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/4/ora_oasis_i_16.html

Drug residues in imported meats, pesticides on foods.

And only a very tiny % of imports are being tested or even visually inspected.

A new one on the front page of the FDA web site
FDA Warning on Mislabeled Monkfish
Fish Believed to be Puffer Fish; Contains Deadly Toxin

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to buy or eat imported fish labeled as monkfish, which actually may be puffer fish, containing a potentially deadly toxin called tetrodotoxin. Eating puffer fish that contain this potent toxin can result in serious illness or death.

Tetrodotoxin is not destroyed by common food preparation or storage, such as cooking or freezing. Monkfish do not contain tetrodotoxin.

The product was imported and distributed by Hong Chang Corp., Santa Fe Springs, Calif.

so if you're taking Vit. C you're probably getting it from China.Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is also a very commonly used food preservative, so it goes beyond just those taking vitamins.

I know it's not just the poor.

y point is that our poor are paying for those 'lower' than themselves, ie slaves.

And when I say slaves, I don't mean like Kunta Kinte like slaves. Slaves like in Code of Hammurabi or Roman slaves, who were more like servants.

You know, like we treat the workers at WalMart, and such. Those kinda slaves. But our WalMart workers and shoppers have their own slaves, they just live in China.

But oddly enough, the rural chinese are flocking to the city to become "slaves". Hey, it's a step up for them. All part of the process of developing I think. Not all that different from our own Industrial revolution.

Ya, people in ancient times stepped up to be slaves too.

Sure beats starving to death.

When someone could feed and clothe you and your children, just for doing the dishes and laundry. It was almost always a good trade off.

Well that's interesting as when I called my vitamin company to ask if any base ingredients came from China they said everything was sourced from the US, I suppose I need to make another call to see if their sources source from China....grrrrrr.

Well that's interesting as when I called my vitamin company to ask if any base ingredients came from China they said everything was sourced from the US,They were probably just trying to get rid of you by telling you what you want to hear (common customer service tactic). I bet they don't even know where many of their ingredients come from originally, they just buy it from supplier X who got it from Y who got it from Z who got it from a factory run by some Chinese tailor who does the pharmaceutical equivalent of watering down the drinks.

They were probably just trying to get rid of you by telling you what you want to hear (common customer service tactic). I bet they don't even know where many of their ingredients come from originally, they just buy it from supplier X who got it from Y who got it from Z who got it from a factory run by some Chinese tailor who does the pharmaceutical equivalent of watering down the drinks.

I'm sure you are right Tuda, so wth do we do? It's frustrating that it's so integrated that we can't even choose to buy products with no ties to a country with such poor protections in place.

edited to repair a typo

so wth do we do? Vote with your dollars, and stop buying products from companies that can't vouch for their sources. If enough people do this, in the long term new markets will open up for China-free drugs.

That basically means no one will be taking vitamins or a lot of drugs because the ingredients come from places we don't know where.

Lauran, I think it makes more sense to get in touch with your reps and senators and tell them you're concerned and ask what they're going to do. I plan on doing that too.

The things I intend to ask is that the FDA get plenty of money to do the jobs it has been tasked with to insure imports are safe and to also make sure that consumers can find out what the sources are on products. Right now we're helpless in this.

Thanks guys, yes I do need to contact our Reps. As for knowing which companies can vouch, how can we ever tell? The company I spoke with is a prime example. I emailed them and got a response that my questions could be better answered over the phone. I called and left a return number and a couple of days later got a call to tell me they had been receiving lots of concerned calls and everything in their vitamins was sourced in the US, but if we produce no vitamin C that is of course not true. They can say they source it here but as Tuda said if you can't get all the way to the base product you just can't know. I do wish they would have to disclose where their ingredients source from but until that is in place we're basically screwed :(.

With harmful ingredients showing up in such a variety of products from China you would think we would be making some major changes a to what we allow into the country from them. I hope companies who are buying ingredients from China to include into their final product will take extra steps to protect themselves, if not the general public with all of this becoming known.

Once the lawsuits start up, I think we'll see them scrambling to change things a bit.

That basically means no one will be taking vitamins or a lot of drugs because the ingredients come from places we don't know where.Those "vitamins" are present in most processed foods. Ascorbic acid is a common preservative, and refined flour is fortified with vitamins (in a lame attempt to return a small portion of the nutrition that was removed). Many processed foods are also fortified in an attempt to market crap as something nutritious (e.g., boxed cereals). And of course all those animals you eat are fed diets that are loaded with the stuff.The things I intend to ask is that the FDA get plenty of money to do the jobs it has been tasked with to insure imports are safe and to also make sure that consumers can find out what the sources are on products. Right now we're helpless in this.The FDA is not your friend, and not looking out for your best interests. They are really the puppets of big industry. Just look at the whole GMO fiasco.Lauran, I think it makes more sense to get in touch with your reps and senators and tell them you're concerned and ask what they're going to do. I plan on doing that too.On the subject of puppets... Good luck with that.

Once the lawsuits start up, I think we'll see them scrambling to change things a bit.Hardly, the cost saved by using slave labor in China will probably more than outweigh the occasional judgment here and there.

From Panamah's link: Wendt-Chemie Vertriebsges Mbh & Co.
Hamburg , DE 22041 FLA-DO M21-0735324-7/1/1
56AAA10 PENICILLIN FOR EXPORT ONLY (PLEASE, REFUSE MERCHANDISE)
03-APR-2007 UNAPPROVED (http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_viol.html#75)


I found that very interesting - the whole site - but the fact that it looked as if the shipper was requesting refusal - seemed odd.

I got a friend who managers a Vitamin Shoppe store, she's real big on the whole organic/holistic/anti-science-drug thing, if you want Lauran I can inquire about a specific company if you've got one you want to research. Granted, she may just get the PR slop that corporate hands down, but still.

Thank you Stormy :). The vitamins we use come from Nature's Plus. If she happens to have an opinion on them that would be great but please don't either of you go to any trouble. I'm annoyed that it didn't occur to me while I had that woman on the phone to ask about their sources sources, bleh, I just took what she said at face value.

Part of the horror of this, Lauran, is that even these companies are ignorant of the actual source of the stuff they're buying.

All this talk of drugs and vitamins reminds me of an engineer I shared an office with a number of decades ago. He was a vitamin fanatic. He'd bore me for hours talking about the benefits of vitamins. He certainly practiced what he preached by swallowing a mess of vitamins including mega-doses of Vitamin C.

Funny thing though. He was routinely sick. At one point, I didn't have one sick day in over 25 years despite the lack of vitamins.

You're right Pan, they need to be much more involved in finding out though. Especially if we are going to buy from a country that allows suppliers to sell with no more concern for safety than has been shown.

Thicket, we take one multi-vitamin & mineral supplement a day, it's the childrens formula in fact because I don't want the mega doses some of the vitamins offer. With the produce having to be picked before ripe, cooled and shipped we lose a lot of the value so I'm trying to cover the bases :). There's barely any scent to the fruits once they arrive here, of course some of the states do have faster access to fresh fruits which is nice. I don't know if we would see any difference in our health if we stopped taking the supplement, it's just been a matter of course forever around here :).

I think frozen fruits/veggies sometimes have better nutrition than "fresh". It's been frozen shortly after leaving the field and the freezing doesn't really damage it, unlike it sitting in a hot truck or grocery store for 3 weeks.

With the produce having to be picked before ripe, cooled and shipped we lose a lot of the value so I'm trying to cover the bases :)If you eat a proper diet, you should need no, or at most very limited, vitamin supplementation. For most people, it's just a placebo, and expensive urine. Also, many processed foods (such as cereals and cereal products) contain vitamin supplements already, so you may be getting more than you think.

Before you take a supplement, think about why you are taking it. For example, the B12-producing bacteria is generally washed off produce, so if you don't eat any animal products, you should consider an occasional B12 supplement.

If the produce you buy sucks, consider looking for a better market. Even if you don't live near agricultural areas, food can still be delivered reasonably fresh to the 48 states. Look around for farmer's markets too, you may be surprised at what's available.

If you're desperate, you can always buy frozen. Though frozen vegetables lose some of their flavor and texture, and nutrients by being blanched, the upshot is that they are usually picked at peak season when they're best and frozen immediately.

I think frozen fruits/veggies sometimes have better nutrition than "fresh". It's been frozen shortly after leaving the field and the freezing doesn't really damage it, unlike it sitting in a hot truck or grocery store for 3 weeks.Heh, in California there's no excuse for produce to be sitting around 3 days, let alone 3 weeks. Avoid chain supermarkets and their terrible distribution systems, and patronize local and farmer's market that deliver fresh produce.

Fresh produce, in peak season, that has been transported and stored in the proper condition, is more nutritious than frozen, because it hasn't been blanched (boiled). It also tastes much better, of course.

Hah, that's funny, I just happened to ask for some more Sleep Assure and it's made by Nature's Plus. I'll ask when I see her.

Before you take a supplement, think about why you are taking it. For example, the B12-producing bacteria is generally washed off produce, so if you don't eat any animal products, you should consider an occasional B12 supplement.
Oh yeah... if you're vegan you'll definitely need to supplement that. I'm not vegan but I think all the damage caused in my intestines due to my gluten intolerance made it hard for me to absorb that. I had some strange neurological/neuropathy sorts of things happening and supplementing B12 seemed to help.

Oh yeah... if you're vegan you'll definitely need to supplement that. I'm not vegan but I think all the damage caused in my intestines due to my gluten intolerance made it hard for me to absorb that. I had some strange neurological/neuropathy sorts of things happening and supplementing B12 seemed to help.Unless you have a specific condition (e.g., pernicious anemia) or other diagnosed digestive problems, it's very difficult for anyone who eats even a small amount of animal products to be deficient in B12.

Your body only needs a tiny amount (RDA is 6µg), and your liver can store years' worth of doses, possibly even decades' worth.

Plant products can contain B12 too, but in today's ultra-clean society it's harder to find than it would have ordinarily been in the wild.

I've heard most of the B12 you get off plants is from insects riding along. But then, that's not exactly vegan is it? Such cruelty to aphids!

I think your pro-vegan doctrine underestimates the amount of B12 people need. There are lots of folks that I've talked to that have had symptoms of B12 deficiency while having "normal" blood levels. They were low in the blood levels however. It's something a well informed neurologist might be aware of but most generalists aren't.

I've heard most of the B12 you get off plants is from insects riding along.Not insects, bacteria. That's how B12 is present in both plants and animals. You can even increase the B12 in your diet by not washing your hands.

We live in the suburbs of Dallas, TX so I should't make it sound as if it's horrid here. I just remember years ago eating fresh fruits and veggies out of gardens that some of our family members had and you could actually smell those wonderful scents. It seems to me that we lose something in the early picking and the delivery time, that may only be a perception though. This time of year we do enjoy the farmer's markets a lot. I've been craving peaches and nectarines but it's still a little early for them I guess because everything is as hard as a rock ;). Thank goodness for paper bag ripening! You guys in California are fortunate in your produce as well as the weather....and the wine :). Hmmm I'll have to give some thought to the vitamin situation, I've read several things that say it doesn't hurt to supplement and that it's good to be sure you get your B vitamins, but we may well be doing something that isn't needed.

Thank you Stormy, funny it was the same company!

If you like grapefruits you should count your blessings you live in TX, Lauran. We really did give the rest of the country the crappy left overs. The "best" ones I can get up here in New York are about the size of a softball.

We grow our own enormous grapefruits in CA. I'd imagine the inland valleys are probaby as hot and miserable as the parts of texas where they grow grapefruits.

Lauran, I have an apricot tree in my backyard. :D I'd never eat apricots if I had to have the ones in the grocery store, they're horrible.

Now I think I want a macadamia nut tree too. The hard part about living in San Diego, where I am with my wonderful microclimate, is deciding WHICH fruit trees to plant in my limited space. We can grow almost anything here.

Fresh citrus fruit in Texas is certainly much better than what you get in Canadian stores. The difference in taste is huge. The only time I've had grapefruit in Canada which got close in taste was when I ordered a case from a local charity (fundraiser) who brought a truckload of ripe fruit directly from Texas for immediate distribution.

Ah Pan, you're making me jealous :). Now if I could only increase our income by...well a lot to keep things the same, we could consider making your state a bit more overcrowded ;). How lovely to walk outside and have fresh fruit!

Stormy, we do have wonderful grapefruit, that is so true! My husband and our daughter love them and though I don't have as many they are yummy. Last weekend we drove an hour and a half to this fruit farm which advertised the peaches were in, picked daily and wonderful. Got there and they were small, refigerated and not nearly as good as the ones I bought from Whole Foods so fool me once! I'll stick to the farmer's markets here and down in Dallas.

Thicket, some of our friends ship the grapefruit to family members in other areas every year because they say they can't get any that compare to them at home :).

Well, there are a few things I can't grow... like regular cherries. I can only grow those yellow Ranier cherries that don't need so many "chill hours", but they're just not as good. But most fruits have varieties that are adapted to our low-chill hours here.

I bet you can get really good produce where you're at, Lauran. :)

I'll have to start hitting the farmer's market for peaches and nectarines, my nectarine trees aren't producing yet.

Ok, back on topic: When Fakery Turns Fatal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/business/worldbusiness/05fakes.html?ex=1338696000&en=8b35898e31f700ad&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss)

We grow our own enormous grapefruits in CA. I'd imagine the inland valleys are probaby as hot and miserable as the parts of texas where they grow grapefruits.California grapefruits kind of suck compared to Texas and Florida ones (thick rind, less juicy, blander flavor). But I've never had a problem finding good fresh red ones from Texas here in the winter. Grapefruits store easily so I can't imagine a problem shipping them further.

You live north so perhaps you don't the great stuff they grow in El Centro. :) I think they're extremely tasty.

You live north so perhaps you don't the great stuff they grow in El Centro. :) I think they're extremely tasty.Yes, I'm talking about the ones from southern California, that are available year round. They're OK, but certainly not as good as Texas or Florida grapefruit. California just doesn't have the ideal climate for grapefruit.

Ok, now they are selling counterfeit Colgate toothpaste....shopping is quickly becoming a whole new ballgame, I better always take my reading glasses to the store, bleh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070614/bs_nm/colgate_fake_dc

Ok, now they are selling counterfeit Colgate toothpaste....shopping is quickly becoming a whole new ballgame, I better always take my reading glasses to the store, bleh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070614/bs_nm/colgate_fake_dc

And hope that the origin of all the ingredients is properly noted on the package.
And that the importer knew where it came from, and that -that- source did not outright lie about the origin of the product.
And that all of the dozens of ingredients are what they are supposed to be and came from where they were supposed to.
And that no slaves were used in the production of it, nor people who are paid just enough not to starve to death -if- they work 20 hours a day.

At least these products are cheap, right?


Eri

I use the "Natural" toothpaste (what's natural about paste for teeth, anyway?) from Trader Joe's... I hope no one decides to fake it.

And hope that the origin of all the ingredients is properly noted on the package.Yep, I don't think I've ever seen the countries of origin listed on any medicine or household item.

I use the "Natural" toothpaste (what's natural about paste for teeth, anyway?) from Trader Joe's... I hope no one decides to fake it.It really makes no difference; "natural" products can be imported from China, too.

Well, I'm thinking it'd be a less likely target since it's a brand few people hear of.

Well, I'm thinking it'd be a less likely target since it's a brand few people hear of.Generic brands are at least as likely to have ingredients from China.

It isn't generic. *sigh*

Generic, store brand, whatever you want to call it.

This is pointless.

Just as much so as "talking" to your senator I'd say pan.

If anyone is seriously that concerned, (After all, imports from china have been killing people left and right since we've taken their imports right?) they should go ahead and grow everything they consume. I do agree that their should be more measures taken on both ends about food safety in general, but I don't think its the world_ending_crisis07.

And by talking I mean sending your little letter to one of their many aides who may or may not open before putting it in the shredder.

Counterfeit Colgate toothpaste has turned up in Canadian discount stores. There are concerns that it's tainted.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/19/4273277-cp.html

I don't think it is pointless, Drake. It's just a LOT of people need to agitate before anything is done. Look at us, as an example. They were going to shred our dearl OT forum and we yelled and they put it back. But if you don't yell then you're like the sound of one hand clapping... or one gum flapping.

But if you don't yell then you're like the sound of one hand clapping... or one gum flapping.
Not to be confused with one hand typing which has entirely different implications.

Sticky or slippery keyboards?

Well this is a start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/washington/23fda.html<b>F.D.A. Approves Vitamin Rules</b>

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) — Makers of vitamins, herbs and other dietary supplements taken by millions of Americans must meet new government standards to show the products are free of contamination and contain exactly what the label says, United States health officials said Friday.

Under the Food and Drug Administration rules, companies in the $18-billion-a-year industry must test the purity, strength and composition of all of their supplements.

“This rule helps to ensure the quality of dietary supplements so that consumers can be confident that the products they purchase contain what is on the label,” Andrew von Eschenbach, the commissioner of food and drugs, said in a statement.

Congress gave the agency power to set manufacturing standards for dietary supplements in a 1994 law. The final requirements announced on Friday will not apply to all makers until 2010.

In addition to product testing, the new standards address design and construction of manufacturing plants, record-keeping and handling of consumer complaints.

Inspectors will check manufacturing plants for compliance, F.D.A. officials said. For less serious violations, the agency may ask a company to fix a problem. Bigger problems could lead to product seizures or other action, said Robert Brackett, head of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the agency.

Some supplements have been recalled in the past because they were contaminated with microbes, pesticides or metal, or because they did not contain the ingredients listed.

The drug agency has also warned companies that sold supplements with undeclared drug ingredients for impotence, and others with less-than-advertised levels of vitamins A and C and folic acid.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said the manufacturing rule was “better late than never,” but he added that “the requirements do not appear to go as far as they could have.”

Supplements do not have to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold, as medicines do, and the new rules will not change that.

Glad to see them taking some steps in the right direction.

Natural has no legal definition for food, hence it does't mean anything, (as opposed to organic which has legal requirements and definitions)

Asbestos, mercury, and rattlesnake venom are natural ingredients.

I bet you could make organic rattlesnake venom too

Natural has no legal definition for food, hence it does't mean anything,Although "natural" doesn't have an official, regulatory definition, it means it's not synthetic, and you could probably sue a food manufacturer if it included synthetic ingredients in a product labeled "all natural."

What your comment has to do with the recent posts in this thread, I'm not certain.

I bet you could make organic rattlesnake venom tooYou could not, because only specific types of foods can be certified organic by the U.S. government.

What your comment has to do with the recent posts in this thread, I'm not certain.

Well, it takes a bit of inference, of course.

But going back to post 46 or so...

Gels something like this...


American consumers are a gullible and stupid lot. They don't have minds of their own to think. And they are exploited by manufacturers and advertisers, easily, by placing a label of "Natural" on a product to make them make a buying decision. All the time thinking that the product is more wholesome and good than otherwise. When that is not really the case, in any case.

And they are exploited by manufacturers and advertisers, easily, by placing a label of "Natural" on a product to make them make a buying decision. All the time thinking that the product is more wholesome and good than otherwise. When that is not really the case, in any case.That's an overstatement. Assuming the label is truthful, "natural" means that the product does not contain a host of commonly used synthetic and harmful or potentially harmful ingredients (e.g., synthetic preservatives). That doesn't mean the product is absolutely safe of course, but it does mean it's potentially safer than a product that cannot make that claim.

You could not, because only specific types of foods can be certified organic by the U.S. government.

I bet there is a pharmaceutical use for the chemical.

I bet there is a pharmaceutical use for the chemical.That doesn't matter. Only certain categories of food and agricultural products (i.e., not all food, let alone all non-food items) can be USDA certified organic.

It's not just a generic definition either; for each category that can be certified there are specific standards as to how it may be grown/raised. Thus, while both beef and broccoli can be certified organic, the certification obviously means something different in each case.

That's an overstatement. Assuming the label is truthful, "natural" means that the product does not contain a host of commonly used synthetic and harmful or potentially harmful ingredients (e.g., synthetic preservatives). That doesn't mean the product is absolutely safe of course, but it does mean it's potentially safer than a product that cannot make that claim.

All ingredients are potentially harmful. It always will come down to dose.

I could easily kill you with water or oxygen. Or salt, which is Nature's natural preservative(acid being the another one).

Your last sentence belies that you have bought the sales pitch.

Only certain categories of food and agricultural products (i.e., not all food, let alone all non-food items) can be USDA certified organic.
That doesn't matter.

Does non-certification mean that something is NOT, or can not be, organic(to you)?

I could easily kill you with water or oxygen.Using the space and low pressure requirements of a typical product container, how could you easily kill me with pure water or oxygen?Your last sentence belies that you have bought the sales pitch.Hardly. I'm stating an obvious fact: if a product does not contain a set of known harmful chemicals that are ordinarily found in other products, it is potentially safer.

Safer, not safe. Surely you understand the difference between the two.

Does non-certification mean that something is NOT, or can not be, organic(to you)?What? We're talking about organic certification, which has nothing to do with the chemical meaning of organic.

Using the space and low pressure requirements of a typical product container, how could you easily kill me with pure water or oxygen?
Depends on the product, of course.

You can overdose on either.

I have had a couple clients already who have overdosed on water(gatorade in one case, soda in the other). I know of two cases recently where people have done so fatally. Hyponatremia, low salt.

I don't know of a single human who has died of aspartame poisoning.

Hardly. I'm stating an obvious fact: if a product does not contain a set of known harmful chemicals that are ordinarily found in other products, it is potentially safer.
All chemicals are harmful. Depends on the dose.

Safer, not safe. Surely you understand the difference between the two.
The dose is what makes something safe or unsafe. Many natural nutritional trace elements are very very toxic in 'unsafe' high doses.

The dose is what makes something safe or unsafe. Many natural nutritional trace elements are very very toxic in 'unsafe' high doses.Perhaps in doses that defy any measure of common sense, like drinking gallons of water to win some stupid game system. But that is not the debate here, because if you're a moron, then you'll find a way to kill yourself no matter how the product is labeled.I don't know of a single human who has died of aspartame poisoning.You mean, you don't know of a single human whose cause of death was definitively found to be aspartame poisoning.

Acute water toxicity is pretty obvious. Long-term toxicity by a chemical that is poorly understood and studied is not. If a guy dies of brain cancer, you know the cancer killed him, but you don't really know what caused the cancer. How many millions of smokers died before the medical community recognized the tobacco smoke was causing the cancer?

After all, you guys are really just mechanics, if the procedure isn't in the manual, you have no clue.

I remember the last aspartame study, the one from Italy, the rats on aspartame died with lots of tumors (they were genetically programmed to develop tumors), more than the no-aspartame rats. But... they lived longer.

I don't know of a single human who has died of aspartame poisoning.Slight derail, but aspartame is again in the literature, and not in a good way:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287123,00.html<b>Aspartame Linked to Three Types of Cancer</b>

A new study links small doses of the popular artificial sweetener aspartame to leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it will review the data, but will not rush to judgment on the sweetener, which can be found in the sugar substitutes Equal and NutraSweet, as well as in diet sodas and food.

The study followed a group of 4,000 rats who were given low daily doses of aspartame (comparable to what a dedicated human diet soda drinker might consume) beginning during "prenatal" life, according to a report in the Consumerist.com. The rats were dissected after natural death and the effects of the aspartame calculated.

The results, published this month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, linked regular intake of the sweetener with increased risk of leukemia, lymphomas and breast cancer. It also reported that when exposure to the sweetener starts during fetal life, the potential carcinogenic effects are increased.

The study was the second conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences (ERF) in Italy. Consumer groups are calling on the FDA to immediately review the findings.

The safety of aspartame was first called into question in 2005 when ERF published its first study on the sweetener's link to cancer. After reviewing the data, the FDA concluded last year that the findings did not provide sufficient evidence to call into question their classification of aspartame as safe for human consumption.

In an e-mail to FoodNavigator-USA.com, the FDA said it is, "interested in reviewing the recently published study; however, to date FDA has not been provided the data from this new study. Until FDA conducts an evaluation of the study, it cannot comment on the findings."

The FDA also said in its e-mail that "the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies. Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."

The authors of the study claim that current research on the effects of aspartame are based on studies that did not use a large enough sample of animals and did not allow the animals to live out their natural lifespan.

The authors also took issue with a study conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Retired Persons, in which a number of Americans responded to self-administered questionnaires about what they ate and the results compared to their rate of brain cancer.Link to the study: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10271/10271.pdf

The FDA is in bed with Monsanto, so their position is not surprising. Yet another reason not to put your health in the FDA's hands.

And no Panamah, there was no conclusive evidence they lived longer, in this study, or the previous one (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10271/10271.pdf). Read the studies, you are wrong about this.

Wrong study, I was talking about this one: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf
A third problem with this study is that the statistical significance of the numbers of rats developing cancers were given as p values that, although showing statistical significance, were not accompanied by CI (confidence interval) limits. If the CI were only 90% CI values, then the p values are meaningless. Scientists typically use 95% CI values and list them—since these authors didn’t see fit publish their CI values along with their p values my suspicions are raised that they lowered the CI to get the p they wanted. This might seem a persnickety observation on my part, but it really isn’t because if the p values aren’t valid, then there is no statistical significance in the study. (If anyone is interested I’ll be happy to post on p values and confidence intervals and what they all mean in simplified terms. Just let me know.)

Second, Sprague-Dawley rats, the ones used in this study, are a strain of rats that are extremely prone to develop cancer. Just because something causes a Sprague-Dawley rat to develop cancer does not mean that the same thing will cause a human to do so. Far from it, in fact. The authors as much as acknowledge this fact when they point out in their criticism of an earlier rat study in which Wistar rats showed no propensity to develop cancer due to aspartame consumption that

"it cannot be disregarded that this strain is more resistant than Sprague-Dawley rats to developing cancer."

In other words, if we want to find cancer, let’s use animals that develop it at the drop of a hat.

...

The last couple of issues I have with the study are the most problematic as far as “urging a reevaluation of the current guidelines” goes. Although the animals consuming the aspartame had much higher rates of tumor formation as shown by autopsy than did those consuming no aspartame, they lived just as long. Buried deep within the paper is this sentence:

"No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups."
[Pg. 3]

Hmmm. Must not have been very malignant cancers.

Looking at the mortality curves (located on the next to last page of the study) one can see that there is a shift to the right with increasing consumption of aspartame, which means that the rats consuming the most aspartame actually lived the longest.

Of course the authors don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on these findings because they detract from their fairly shrill conclusions.

But what does that have to do with Chinese imports?

Now the chinese fish are on the bad list.

What gets me, and I think I said it somewhere, is the excuse for the antifreeze in the toothpaste was "it was cheaper".

Wrong study, I was talking about this one: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdfIt's the same study I was talking about, I just accidentally copied the first link twice. Let's just call them Italian Study I and II.

In Italian Study I they said outright: "No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups." (Page 382 of your link.) How much clearer can it get?

Now you have two other quotes from unknown sources, sounding like some Atkins pundit, one saying "Looking at the mortality curves (located on the next to last page of the study) one can see that there is a shift to the right with increasing consumption of aspartame."

However, this statement is useless, because it does not show that whatever tiny variation you see was statistically significant. Also, in Study II, the curves are nearly identical.

You are wrong about this, Panamah.

Results
The study proceeded smoothly without unexpected
occurrences. We observed no differences
in water consumption between the
treated and the untreated groups, whereas a
dose-related difference in feed consumption
was observed between the various treated
groups and the control group in both males
and females (Figure 1A,B). No substantial
differences in mean body weight were
observed between the treated and control
groups, apart from a slight decrease in females
treated at 100,000 ppm APM (Figure 1C).
No substantial difference in survival was
observed among the groups (Figure 1D,E).
No evident behavioral changes were
observed among treated animals compared
with controls. In animals exposed to the highest
dose of APM, yellowing of the coat was
observed; this change had previously been
observed in our laboratory in rats exposed to
formaldehyde administered with drinking
water (Soffritti et al. 2002b).

I'd print the page out and hold it up to your eyeballs myself but I'm sure you can do it too.

Page 4, Paragraph heading is Results

The point the doctor was making was that the life span increased amongst the rats given aspartame in that the ones fed the most had the longest life span, which wasn't really any different from the life span of the ones that weren't fed aspartame.

If you look at the graph [D] it looks like the controls lived to 120 weeks and the aspartame rats lived beyond that but it gets hard to tell with the symbols getting a bit smooshed together. Same for [E] but the controls lasted a little longer.

Now, you'd think that in rats specifically bred to get a lot of cancer that something like this would shorten their life span, wouldn't you?

I have no problem with them doing further studies but they should at least use rats that aren't mutated to have loads of cancers (like they have in the past) and let them live out their natural lives. Even better, feed the non-aspartame rats an amount of sugar equivalent to the sweetness of the aspartame and publish those results.

I'd print the page out and hold it up to your eyeballs myself but I'm sure you can do it too.Yeah, and it says: "No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups." Cut and paste right from your quote.

<b>No substantial difference.</b> Which is shorthand for saying, no statistically significant difference.

I assume you're familiar with basic concepts in statistics, p value, and so on. And you're aware that you can't just look at a graph like that and come to the conclusions you're coming to.The point the doctor was making was that the life span increased amongst the rats given aspartame in that the ones fed the most had the longest life span, which wasn't really any different from the life span of the ones that weren't fed aspartame.What doctor? Where's the evidence that there was a statistically significant increase in life span (there isn't any, the study authors say that outright).

The last part of your sentence, after the comma, contradicts the first part, by the way.If you look at the graph [D] it looks like the controls lived to 120 weeks and the aspartame rats lived beyond that but it gets hard to tell with the symbols getting a bit smooshed together. Same for [E] but the controls lasted a little longer.The curves are virtually identical. There's like, a pixel or two or difference between each line. How do you conclude that that's statistically significant?Now, you'd think that in rats specifically bred to get a lot of cancer that something like this would shorten their life span, wouldn't you?Why would I think that? It takes time for cancer to spread and kill, and these rats don't live very long.I have no problem with them doing further studies but they should at least use rats that aren't mutated to have loads of cancers (like they have in the past) and let them live out their natural lives.That was the problem in the earlier studies, that the authors pointed out. The rats weren't allowed to "live out their natural lives," but were prematurely killed in middle age.

This is the first study where they were allowed to live until death, to simulate the prime cancer years in humans. That's what makes this study groundbreaking.

As for your complaint about using Sprague Dawley rats, I am baffled. These are commonly used in the laboratory. Use of any other type of rat would make the study worse, because the results couldn't be easily referenced to other studies employing the same rats.

Panamah, you are wrong about this. I don't know what Atkins zealot site you read, but if you read the actual study, you'll see it, plain as day.

Interesting you should harp about statistical differences since they didn't even publish one of the values you'd need to figure that out:
A third problem with this study is that the statistical significance of the numbers of rats developing cancers were given as p values that, although showing statistical significance, were not accompanied by CI (confidence interval) limits. If the CI were only 90% CI values, then the p values are meaningless. Scientists typically use 95% CI values and list them—since these authors didn’t see fit publish their CI values along with their p values my suspicions are raised that they lowered the CI to get the p they wanted. This might seem a persnickety observation on my part, but it really isn’t because if the p values aren’t valid, then there is no statistical significance in the study. (If anyone is interested I’ll be happy to post on p values and confidence intervals and what they all mean in simplified terms. Just let me know.)

Even though they say their wasn't a significant difference you'd think if aspartame was such a deadly killer there would be some statistical difference. But in reality we won't really know if there is or not because they didn't publish their Confidence Interval.

But statistics fudging or not, the aspartame fed rats lived longer. Oh noes!
As for your complaint about using Sprague Dawley rats, I am baffled. These are commonly used in the laboratory. Use of any other type of rat would make the study worse, because the results couldn't be easily referenced to other studies employing the same rats.
They're mutated so they'll develop cancer at the drop of the hat, that doesn't reflect the rat population at large. Or humans either. We're exposed to carcinogens all the time, even ones in your vegan food, and we're able to handle it, unless we've got random mutations to tumor suppressor genes (of which there are many to mutate).

Its not a bad idea to use SD rats but I think you've got to also do a trial using more normal rats. I think what this study does is tell us that if you've got a certain sort of gene mutation, you shouldn't use aspartame, even if it might make you live longer. :p

Even though they say their wasn't a significant difference you'd think if aspartame was such a deadly killer there would be some statistical difference.Panamah, you don't know what you're talking about. Neither does that Atkins zealot you keep quoting.

P values are a test of significance. Confidence intervals are ranges where you expect the actual value to fall with a certain level of certainty.

I suggest some basic background reading on p values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_value).But statistics fudging or not, the aspartame fed rats lived longer. Oh noes!No, they didn't.They're mutated so they'll develop cancer at the drop of the hat, that doesn't reflect the rat population at large.Panamah, Sprague Dawley rats are commonly used in lab experiments because of their temperament, not because of any specific mutation. They're used widely in such studies and are considered a "normal" lab rat.

I'll bet even your Atkins-funded "cholesterol is your savior" studies used them.

Look at the sodding charts. You can quite clearly see in all cases the aspartame fed rats lived longer. It's the strain of SD rat they used, not the SD type.

As for your complaint about using Sprague Dawley rats, I am baffled. These are commonly used in the laboratory. Use of any other type of rat would make the study worse, because the results couldn't be easily referenced to other studies employing the same rats.

Is that really the purpose of these studies?

To determine what chemicals cause cancer in rats.


I thought the purpose was to find the chemicals(or dose of chemicals) which cause cancer in HUMANS.

If, you are using rats which get cancer faster than other rats, then the results can only conclude that the dosages will cause cancer in rats who get cancer faster than other rats.

These animals are used only as models which can then be interpolated to humans. If you are argueing that they don't even interpolate to other rats, then the model is fundamentally flawed.


I don't care if rats get cancer, and hope that they do.

Look at the sodding charts. You can quite clearly see in all cases the aspartame fed rats lived longer.No, you can't.It's the strain of SD rat they used, not the SD type.They used the generic rats at their research center. To quote the authors: "This colony of rats has been employed for various experiments in the laboratory for nearly 30 years, and extensive historical data are available on the tumor incidence among untreated rats."

Would you have preferred it if they had used rats that had not been used in other studies?

If, you are using rats which get cancer faster than other rats, then the results can only conclude that the dosages will cause cancer in rats who get cancer faster than other rats.Read my reply to Panamah. They are using the same rats they have used for their experiments for 30 years, from the colony at their research center. By using the same rats, they can cross-reference the results to many other studies, particularly the baseline tumor rate.

What did you want them to do, pick up random rats from under your floor boards and reinvent the wheel? I don't get it.

These animals are used only as models which can then be interpolated to humans.I see what you're saying. Perhaps they should've forced the rats to live out their lives watching TV, to eat McDonald's and Krispy Kreme, and to drink beer. That would have been a more accurate model for the adult American human.

Read my reply to Panamah. They are using the same rats they have used for their experiments for 30 years, from the colony at their research center. By using the same rats, they can cross-reference the results to many other studies, particularly the baseline tumor rate.

What did you want them to do, pick up random rats from under your floor boards and reinvent the wheel? I don't get it.

I only want rats that get cancer like humans do.

What is so hard to get about that?

If you test the chemicals and doses on animals which get cancer differently than other subjects in their same species; why could you infer that they get cancer like humans?

I see what you're saying. Perhaps they should've forced the rats to live out their lives watching TV, to eat McDonald's and Krispy Kreme, and to drink beer. That would have been a more accurate model for the adult American human.

Ya, get me some Templeton rats.

I would buy them over some line of genetically-inbred-for-30-years-white rats any day.

Plain ol' sewer rats. Or dumpster rats, from back alleys, crawling along power line rats. Farm rats.

They would seem better models than these get-cancer-if-they-stub a toe rats.

Otherwise, just use crayfish. Or lemurs as your subjects.

I only want rats that get cancer like humans do.No rats get cancer EXACTLY as humans do. And there is no reason to believe that random rats would ultimately give you results that are more useful than laboratory rats. On the contrary, the scientific community believes exactly the opposite.Plain ol' sewer rats. Or dumpster rats, from back alleys, crawling along power line rats. Farm rats.Yep, let's use rats that have already ingested countless toxins and carcinogens, in random and varying amounts, as test subjects. That will make for a well-controlled study. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>Otherwise, just use crayfish. Or lemurs as your subjects.Or maybe just use human test subjects. Humans are the best model for humans. Just look, stupid people and Atkins zealots are lining up to defend Monsanto's chemical soup without even understanding what it is, and what it does. They will not only voluntarily take the stuff, but will pay for the privilege. The only problem is that it will be a long wait to see the results.

No rats get cancer EXACTLY as humans do.

You have already acknowledged that these rats get cancer DIFFERENTLY than other rats do.

How can you then claim that they get cancer the same as humans?


You already bowled down lane one, you can't tell me your ball hits the pins in lane 10.

You have already acknowledged that these rats get cancer DIFFERENTLY than other rats do.No, I didn't. Panamah said that, but never backed it up.

I'd be surprised if Panamah were correct about this. Here (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/11/2768.pdf) is an American study on tumor incidence in Sprague Dawley rats. It found a 46% incidence of tumors. That's actually higher than the incidence in the control group in Study I.

Also, the overall incidence in the rats in the study (30-40%) roughly corresponds to the lifetime incidence in humans (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2007ProbDevelInvCancer.pdf) (38% for females, 45% for males), though these numbers are, as I mentioned, not directly comparable due to differences in life span, metabolism, and so on.

I think Panamah is just copying some diatribe from an Atkins zealot blog, not any credible source.

I think I missed something here.

What's the connection between aspartame and Atkins?

I think I missed something here.

What's the connection between aspartame and Atkins?Without artificial sweeteners, the Atkins zealots would be unable to eat virtually anything that tastes sweet.

I hope the media can keep them squirming enough to bring about some real change and regulation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_re_as/china_tainted_products

"I think it would be better if the media would stop playing up this issue," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said at a regular news briefing. He warned the widespread media coverage would "lead to panic among consumers."
I bet their really uneasy about the fact they can't control the media off their shores. :p

But really... isn't China the result of the ultimate that Fyyr could wish for? Total lack of regulation. A libertarian's paradise, at least in this one respect.

Heheh.

What are you talkin about?

China is a totalitarian commie state.


If a rational government has ANY role at all, that is the justification for the invention of social force in the first place, it is that it should protect people from harming other people in that social group.

The only rational justification for a state is to prevent you from hitting me in the nose with your fist. Or putting radiator fluid in the toothpaste you sell to me, at the very least it should force you to tell me that you are putting radiator fluid in the toothpaste.

Product labeling is less intrusive, less forceful, than out-and-out preventing. Some toxic chemicals have very beneficial uses, and thus banning is a horrible use of force in most cases. For example, there are many in the FDA who wish to ban the drug Accutane, which is a miracle drug, in addition to being very toxic. If you assume the risks, then you should be allowed the drug unhindered by government or social force.

For all I know, the combination of radiator fluid and toothpaste may be the best aluminum rim cleaner on the planet. For the time being, a product which is designed to remove water spots from glass is the best aluminum rim cleaner on the planet(completely off label use).

They are communist but with a free enterprise twist. They've been very hands off on regulating exports and even anything to do with their booming economy. Now that pressure is mounting and that their reputation with the safety of their exports is in danger, they're starting to hop like toads on a skillet to begin to regulate it, but until now the goverment been largely absent in that function.

If a rational government has ANY role at all, that is the justification for the invention of social force in the first place, it is that it should protect people from harming other people in that social group.

The only rational justification for a state is to prevent you from hitting me in the nose with your fist. Or putting radiator fluid in the toothpaste you sell to me, at the very least it should force you to tell me that you are putting radiator fluid in the toothpaste.
Ok. So you'd like the state to do that for you. Gotcha. Now... you're totally against paying taxes right? So how would you fund this?

Why would you say that I am totally against taxes?

Where did that come from?

I bet their really uneasy about the fact they can't control the media off their shores. :p

But really... isn't China the result of the ultimate that Fyyr could wish for? Total lack of regulation. A libertarian's paradise, at least in this one respect.

I think their solution isn't to regulate offshore media but to regulate inshore viewing of such media.

I think their solution isn't to regulate offshore media but to regulate inshore viewing of such media.
Exactly!

You know, in an odd way, that's sort of what the Bush administration does too. I suppose every regime wants to be immune from criticism while acting with impunity.

More investigations, if they are gone after enough hopefully they will get serious about their product safety.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_he_me/panama_deadly_medicine;_ylt=AiAaOoOc84GyQ7ug.uk6aZ S9j7AB

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/china.execution.reut/index.html

That was fast. :ohwell:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/china.execution.reut/index.html

That was fast. :ohwell:Yep, he was quick to take the bribes, but forgot to bribe his superiors, so he got the axe. That's China for you.

I must say I was utterly shocked that they executed the man. I mean... I totally agree with punishing him for all the tampering and looking the other way and stuff... but death? That just seems very severe. Death for taking bribes and not doing your job properly. Hrmmmm....

Well, if you think about it, the bribes he took resulted in the ill-health and possibly deaths of many of his countrymen. It isn't much different than being a mass murderer really.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3369294&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Cardboard instead of pork. :(

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3369294&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Cardboard instead of pork. :(


It seems to have no end :(.

I like seeing corrupt and negligent officials getting punished severely. Maybe not that severely though.

The sad thing is they're doing this in their own country on a scale far worse than we see probably. I'm having a flashback to some book I read about practices in the US in the late 19th century... uh... Upton Sinclair I think. What's that book called? Oh yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

China is just 100 or so years behind us in social development mixed with free enterprise I think. I think they're going to make a HUGE effort to catch up.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3369294&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Cardboard instead of pork. :(Well, if you want to talk about their domestically consumed items, you've got baby food that's just sugar and starch; fake tofu made from gypsum, paint, and starch; whiskey with methanol; noodles with formaldehyde; lard mixed with hog slop, sewage, pesticides and recycled industrial oil; ice cream and candy with industrial dyes; fruit dipped in herbicide so it shines; meat preserved with borax and laced with banned pesticides; and the list goes on.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/06/17/tainted_foods_are_daily_problem_in_asia/

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20070706/twl-as-gen-china-unsafe-food-29d5209.html

The tainted stuff we get is actually the cream of the crop.

I like seeing corrupt and negligent officials getting punished severely. Maybe not that severely though.

I do too.

It think it is cool that China is killing their ministers like this.

Well, if you want to talk about their domestically consumed items, you've got baby food that's just sugar and starch; fake tofu made from gypsum, paint, and starch; whiskey with methanol; noodles with formaldehyde; lard mixed with hog slop, sewage, pesticides and recycled industrial oil; ice cream and candy with industrial dyes; fruit dipped in herbicide so it shines; meat preserved with borax and laced with banned pesticides; and the list goes on.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/06/17/tainted_foods_are_daily_problem_in_asia/

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20070706/twl-as-gen-china-unsafe-food-29d5209.html

The tainted stuff we get is actually the cream of the crop.

This is just horrible :(.

Chinese salmonella in our snack foods, now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_he_me/snack_recall_1<b>FDA confirms salmonella in snacks</b>

WASHINGTON, AP) — Tests have confirmed that a strain of salmonella found in Veggie Booty snack food was responsible for an outbreak of the disease last spring that sickened 61 people, the Food and Drug Administration said Friday.

The agency's findings supported earlier testing by the Minnesota Agricultural Lab, the FDA said in a statement.

Veggie Booty is marketed by Robert's American Gourmet Inc. of Sea Cliff, N.Y. <b>The company says that seasoning, believed made with Chinese ingredients, contained the salmonella</b> and that it had purchased the seasoning from Atlantic Quality Spice & Seasonings of Edison, N.J.

The FDA advised consumers not to eat any Veggie Booty and Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks because of concerns of contamination. A recall was ordered by Robert's American Gourmet on June 28.

People in 19 states, nearly all of them children 3 and younger, became sick after eating the tainted snacks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Six children were hospitalized, and at least one lawsuit has been filed in connection with the outbreak.

The CDC said states reporting cases of illness were California, seven; Colorado, five; Connecticut, two; Georgia, one; Illinois, two; Indiana, one; Massachusetts, four; Minnesota, two; New Hampshire, two; New Jersey, two; New York, 15; Oregon, one; Pennsylvania, four; Tennessee, one; Texas, two; Virginia, one; Vermont, three; Washington, four; and Wisconsin, two.

Symptoms of salmonella include fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections, especially in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.

The horrors abound!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6897844.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_re_us/toy_recall

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070804/hl_nm/china_safety_dc

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/14/national/a065743D61.DTL<b>Mattel Recalling More Chinese-Made Toys</b>

(08-14) 11:26 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

attel recalled 9 million Chinese-made toys Tuesday, including Polly Pocket play sets and Batman action figures, because of dangers to children from lead paint or tiny magnets that could be swallowed.

The new recall includes about 9.3 million play sets that contain small, powerful magnets, including Polly Pocket dolls and Batman action figures, and 253,000 die cast cars that contain lead paint. Many of the magnetic toys are older and may have been purchased as early as 2003.

In a conference call with reporters, Mattel chief executive Bob Eckert said the company is stepping up its oversight and testing in its production processes. As a result, he noted, more recalls may occur.

"There is no guarantee that we will not be here again and have more recalls," Eckert said, adding "we are testing at a very high level here."

The recall was the latest blow to the toy industry, which has had a string of recalled products from China. With about 80 percent of toys sold worldwide made in China, toy sellers are worried shoppers will shy away from their products.

It was also the second recall involving lead paint for Mattel in two weeks. Earlier this month, consumers were warned about 1.5 million Chinese-made Fisher-Price toys that contain lead paint.

Lead is toxic if ingested by young children, and under current regulations, children's products found to have more than .06 percent lead accessible to users are subject to a recall.

In the newspaper ads, Eckert said "nothing is more important than the safety of our children."I think they mean to say, "nothing is more important than the safety of our children -- except the money lining our pockets."

Why do I get the sense that we're going to see another flurry of recalls from an industry that has been asleep at the wheel and ignoring the risks of Chinese goods?

*edit* I found the link, I'm a tard. I blame the pain medication for me not seeing it the first time through.
Thanks,
Clearbrooke

Chinese flip-flops: http://www.lamanaphotography.com/walmart2.htm

Yipes. Chem burns do take a while to fix. I put my hand in concrete once and that took a long time to heal.

If only she knew it was a chemical problem and she could have washed her feet off immediately. Then again, one isn't supposed to worry about getting chem burns from your shoes.

I've never heard of concrete causing a chemical burn. I've gotten small amounts on me before without ill effects. Was this some kind of special concrete?

(This is a rare "just curious" post, btw, not an argument :) )

I knew of someone that got concrete in his eyes and he had to be rushed to the ER for chemical burns.

Concrete cures through a chemical process. I didn't just have some get on me. I was pulling up rebar with my hand in the wet concrete. It dried out the skin on my hand and put little black burns all over it. I could barely move it for a few weeks after that.

Always wear gloves. Even if the foreman is in a hurry because the concrete begins the curing process as soon as the water is mixed in.

http://www.thegrant-group.com/portland-cement.php

Protect Your Skin

When working with fresh concrete, care should be taken to avoid skin irritation or chemical burns. Prolonged contact between fresh concrete and skin surfaces, eyes, and clothing may result in burns that are quite severe, including third-degree burns. If irritation persists consult a physician. For deep burns or large affected skin areas, seek medical attention immediately.