Most of you have heard about the tainted pet food, right? A simple Google search yields more than 7,800 stories about the Chinese rice and wheat gluten that contained melamine to increase the apparent protein content of the food. While American pets may have died, the risk to humans posed by this, even if used as feed for chickens or fish, is pretty low.
Contrast that with the tainted cough syrup that has probably killed thousands children in the Third World. What? You haven’t heard about this? Of course not. It’s not as sexy a story. There are over 40 times as many stories about the tainted pet food in America than about tainted cough syrup overseas.
Toxic syrup has figured in at least eight mass poisonings around the world … Researchers estimate that thousands have died… Beyond Panama and China, toxic syrup has caused mass poisonings in Haiti, Bangladesh, Argentina, Nigeria and twice in India. [Link]
<
p>The Bangladesh incident happened 15 years ago, yet this kind of mass poisoning continues to happen in different parts of the world, most recently in Panama:
In Bangladesh, investigators found poison in seven brands of fever medication in 1992, but only after countless children died. A Massachusetts laboratory detected the contamination after Dr. Michael L. Bennish, a pediatrician who works in developing countries, smuggled samples of the tainted syrup out of the country in a suitcase. Dr. Bennish … said that given the amount of medication distributed, deaths “must be in the thousands or tens of thousands…” [Link]
<
p>The bones of the story are the same in both cases. FDA issues recent warnings after a Chinese manufacturer cuts corners and substitutes a cheaper lethal ingredient for a more expensive one. With the cough syrup it was diethylene glycol for glycerine.
The counterfeit glycerin passed through three trading companies on three continents, yet not one of them tested the syrup to confirm what was on the label. Along the way, a certificate falsely attesting to the purity of the shipment was repeatedly altered, eliminating the name of the manufacturer and previous owner. As a result, traders bought the syrup without knowing where it came from, or who made it. With this information, the traders might have discovered — as The Times did — that the manufacturer was not certified to make pharmaceutical ingredients. [Link]
<
p>Those who consumed drugs made with diethylene glycol died a horrible death:
The kidneys fail first. Then the central nervous system begins to misfire. Paralysis spreads, making breathing difficult, then often impossible without assistance. In the end, most victims die. Many of them are children, poisoned at the hands of their unsuspecting parents. [Link]
<
p>Deaths due to diethylene glycol poisoning in the USA led to the creation of the FDA in 1938.
The sad thing is that manufacturers aren’t bothering to even do spot checks on the compounds they are using, even though they know they are being produced in countries (like China) with very poor domestic controls. Worse yet, they don’t maintain a chain of possession so that any incidents of poisoning that are detected can be traced back. To me, that’s both lazy and greedy. Sadly, without institutions in place to oblige companies to keep complete records and spot check their ingredients, the companies will not do so on their own.
@43
Patent infringement is not really that big a problem for biotech drugs (IIRC, Teva got shot down for a biogeneric). It’s more the organic small molecule drugs that get hit by this. Biotech drugs are way too hard to produce and are really hard to get FDA approval for.
Personally I’m with Big Pharma mostly because there’s little incentive to spend upwards of $700MM on a small molecule target to see your revenue streams pissed away in a few years. More of an issue when you are going through the blockbuster drought that pharma has right now, hard to justify any multiples when you’re losing 30-40% of your revenue in a few years.
This is what economists call a revealed preference. It shows what people truly value. It may not be a conscious deliberate decision, but it’s a consequential one. It’s what economists care most about.
More of an issue when you are going through the blockbuster drought that pharma has right now, hard to justify any multiples when you’re losing 30-40% of your revenue in a few years.
Exactly.
Ennis:
Ah, I didn’t know there was a name for the phenomenon, but I should have guessed the economists would have come up with something. Not being an econ wonk myself, I’ll let you win. This time. Heh. 😉
hema:
i don’t see how your description of a small biotech having to maneuver around the IP landscape changes the fact that their financiers need to make up for all the millions lost from failed ventures. tech start up is the riskiest end of the investment world, so the returns need to justify the risk, lest the invesors in the VC funds themselves will put their money elsewhere. after all, a risky dollar is worth less than a safe one.
i don’t see how your description of a small biotech having to maneuver around the IP landscape changes the fact that their financiers need to make up for all the millions lost from failed ventures
I’m saying that owning a patent doesn’t necessarily make up for the millions of lost dollars, especially if there has to be more money spent on cross-licensing, etc. This is especially true for small molecule chemical or biomimetics, which is where the little guy is most heavily involved. Patents don’t help the little guy stay afloat.
ok. i see what you mean. you’re right in the sense that the existing predatory IP landscape has scared away high risk investors. in fact the majority of venure capital firms do not even invest in start-ups! but you can’t solve this problem by loosening the patent protection small biotech already has.
But it seems like the Chinese are doing it to themselves with some regularity too. I am not suggesting that there isn’t a need for punishments. This chinese company, if they really did add melamine to boost nitrogen levels, should be shut down and the decision makers put in jail.
skepmod, if i went to an aunties house that spit in her husbands food before serving it to him, and she spit in my food before serving it to me, i would not excuse her on the logic that she treats me like family.
by the way moornam, major trolling right now.
moornam,
what i think you’re missing is that you have to create ideologies to preach about so that “most people” don’t break the law. the unethical 20% of people that don’t believe in your ideology find a way around it. this basically rewards the belief that ideologies are not to be followed.
it is easier to do this then to say “only 20% of you are getting around this and we will pick randomly”. and really, the reason we need the ‘cheaters’ in the first place is so that people won’t die.
in other words, we are taking money from merck and pfizer and giving it to the poor of India, Bangladesh, Africa, Haiti etc. this money, in turn, comes from us in the form of copays and healthcare plans, and the US government. and the stockholders of eli lilly, merck, pfizer, etc.
as i look at it, the average american, health care official, and pharmaceutical stockholder all have generally better lives than the average third world kid. if those three have to pay for it, i don’t really mind. if some acne covered teenager has to pay $20 for his co-pay so that merck and pfizer can recover their losses on anti-retrovirals with markups on acne medication, i don’t mind. if i have to pay an extra 5 bucks for my allergy medication, i consider that a donation. it’s better than the most realistic alternative.
if, say, the major pharmaceuticals go bankrupt because of third world generics, that is a loss and i hope they’re tough enough to survive it (lee iacocca, anyone?). but even if they go bankrupt, they’re still better off than my 3rd world nieces and nephews.
i can see how your argument could seem compelling in a rapid fire real world debate. but stepping back and looking at what you’re really saying in writing, unfortunately i think it boils down to a: “i’m first world, screw everyone else” attitude. i’m not sure if you’re eastern brown, but if you are, you owe it to yourself to look past that. and if you’re not, you still owe it to yourself.
The reason pets are pampered more than humans is not because people love their pets more. It’s because in many cases, people don’t feel ambivalent towards their pets. However, it’s impossible to love a human without some ambivalence. If my dog misbehaves, it’s my fault, because I didn’t train him right. You can’t reason with him, or expect him to be reasonable, and therefore, it’s much easier to treat him well constantly. On the other hand, if my husband behaves unreasonably, well, I expect him to know better, so I’m not going to pet him on the head 2 minutes after fighting with him.
I don’t believe that there is a dichotomous moral choice between animals and humans, or between giving to charity and having fancy cars. The case of the person you know in India is obviously an extreme, but by that argument, one should by the cheapest car that is practical and donate one’s excess income to charity. Humans created domesticated animals–they are not part of nature–and as something we created, we have a huge responsibility towards them. Caring for animals teaches patience and understanding, qualities that can be well used in interactions with humans.
In the dog whisperer example you gave, the woman isn’t putting her pet’s needs before her human family’s needs, she’s putting her own needs before her family’s needs. The dog does not need to be coddled when it bites a human, it needs to be taught not to do that. That’s not an example of someone valuing animals more than humans–it’s an example of someone being stupid.
I think that’s using a different meaning of valuing. You’re right, it’s not good for the dog. At the same time, if I spoil one child more than I spoil the other, it is legitimate to say that I am preferring one to the other, even if my actions are harmful to the spoiled child.
In this case she is choosing who to hug – hug the dog, not the child. She’s also choosing whose disapproval is less important – she’s choosing the disapproval of the child (less important) over that of the dog (more important).
It’s not just me – Cesar describes the situation by saying that the woman loves the dog more than the child, even if such love involves “spoiling” the dog.
Sometimes. And sometimes it just leads to more self-indulgence. Do you believe the opposite? That meat eaters are indifferent to the suffering of fellow humans?
That’s a bit unfair. I don’t argue that people have to drive the cheapest car or wear the crappiest clothing and give everything else to charity. But there are choices that people make about their money, and these do have moral consequences. Your argument goes the other way too – you can never call anybody selfish, even if they are encrusted in diamonds in the middle of starving children, because they can say “What, I should wear underwear and live under a tree?” I think we recognize a common-sense morality here.
The fact remains that we have limited resources, and how we spend them reveals what our priorities are.
Returning to this case – there are two stories that are very similar. One involves the death of a few US pets, the other involves the death of many more foreign children. That the few US pets receives 40 times the attention of the much larger number of foreign children is noteworthy. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t care about their pets at all, but I am saying that it is striking that the interest in their pets doesn’t actually translate into more compassion for others dying horrible deaths from a similar problem.
No, because I eat meat.
I’m beating a dead horse (perhaps a poor choice of words!) at this point, but I think the difference between the two cases stems not from a moral dichotomy but from the fact that people were upset about their own pets possibly getting sick. I don’t think all the attention had to do with a general American love for animals. If that were the case, shelters wouldn’t be full off thousands of unwanted and often abused cats and dogs.
My last response here, feel free to have the last word.
Imagine that I’m an American pet lover. I read about the danger to pets which concerns me. Afterwards do I say:
(a) OMG! This is sooo tragic! My having a pet has filled me with compassion for all living things and this other story here, about children dying in almost the same circumstances is freaking me out! If I feel this way about my pet getting poisoned, I can imagine how horrible people might feel about their kids dying from a similar problem!
or
(b) OMG! These dying American pets are so tragic! Hey, here’s some other article about kids, but I’m not really engaged since they’re far away and not mine.
The media responds to audience demand. I think the 39:1 ratio of stories argues for (b) rather than (a), i.e. that people care about “own pets possibly getting sick” and nothing else, even though the stories are so similar that you would think that concern from one would naturally flow into the other.
This also argues that concern with pets does not lead to a broader concern for all living things, or a greater sense of humanitarianism.
This is btw, foolish and short sighted on the part of consumers. If there is glycerin floating around with a false certificate and nobody is checking it, there is some risk here as well. And if not with this product, with another.
i just wanted to make sure to ask you this. maybe it’s the wrong time, but i don’t want to forget.
desishiksa, do you have shiksappeal?
Manju#43,
DNDN tanked yesterday and today as the approval for their cancer vaccine is contingent upon more data, to categorize it as a failure is shortsighted.
ok. didn’t mean to clasify dndn as a complete failure. i used them to show how so much time and money can still amount to very little. dndn missed their primary endpoint (killing the cancer) but prolonged the life of patients. they’ve been at this for almost a decade (i think) and they are in fact a late stage biotech close to market as opposed to a small biotech startup. if the waters are so treacherous for them, imangine how life is for the smaller guys.
I sure do.
I’m with Ennis, there’s something perverse about the lopsided coverage. I think at some level people can rationalize the deaths of 3rd world kids…”life’s cheap for them folks you know”. People should be alerted about threats to their pet’s safety, desishiksa is right that people have a responsibility to care for companion animals but I would think human deaths are newsworthy too.
I’m used to dogs in India as “working animals” on farms protecting livestock & homes. They are cherished members of the family with a job to do and those of us who are Hindu/Jain believe them to be ensouled. It’s not unusual to have a picture of your deceased farm dog in the shrine room. But ridiculous lap dogs, dog sweaters, doggie spas, and dog yoga…I just don’t get it. I doubt the dogs even enjoy that crap, it’s more about the owner feeling good about him/herself
i had a pet cockroach called gerald. he died this morning. i am so sad. i am also american.
in other news, there was a news article on yahoo that said that a fake disneyland was found in china. how about it?
Actually, don’t knock it, I have been to doggie yoga and my dog happens to enjoy it quite a bit. Plenty of American dogs, especially where I live, are working dogs on farms. And many urban Indians have pets that are lap dogs. I agree it’s silly to dress up your dog in an outfit and paint its nails pink, but what’s the harm in it? Most Americans I know are quite sensible about their dogs.
That is an interesting factoid about putting the family dog’s picture in a shrine room. I had no idea that was ever done. There is a touching story in the Mahabharata where a dog follows the Pandavas to the gates of heaven (I have variously heard it was their dog, or the dog befriends them along the way). When they arrive, the dog, being a dog, is turned away as unworthy. Yudhisthra refuses to enter heaven without the dog, and the dog is finally allowed to enter. (In one version, the dog turns out the be Dharma, and it’s all a test, but either way I think it is a story that would only have resonated with a population that loves dogs)
Dog’s are “in the moment” as long as they are well fed, that’s what humans find engaging about them. They don’t need us to teach them techniques for stress reduction. And they are limber enough to do things that embarass us when we have friends over…no need to encourage them in their gloriously unreflective debauchery. I’m pretty sure your dog would be just as close to nirvana getting his/her belly rubbed without bringing Patanjali into it. These types of questions used to be beyond science, but I am sure Razib can rig up some device to measure the neural correlates of “dog bliss” and then see whether yoga or belly rubs delivers a bigger response.
I don’t disagree with the amount of affection people show towards animals. But it’s not a zero sum game between dogs & humanity when it comes to journalists who are no longer constrained by limited space in a newspaper. I guess I am surprised/saddened that I didn’t know of this until Ennis brought it up.
I don’t really give a crap about the scientific evidence –not everything needs to be evidence driven. My dog doesn’t like yoga because he has “stress”, he likes it because it’s a bonding activity with his human, like obedience training or agility or herding competitions. Dogs need more than just being well fed. Many of them enjoy a challenge and also need to have a role in the family, whether it’s as a protector or a daily walker. They appreciate routine. And I rarely have time to spend an hour dedicated entirely to my dog without any distractions–he appreciates the hour of undivided attention. And it has no downside at all. And frankly, I don’t see why anyone else should have a problem with it. It’s my dog, my money, and my time.
Sorry to hear about Gerald, hippiefob.
hippiefob, May gerald’s soul rest in peace. I’m sure he must’ve been a good roach.