If someone steals your gun and kills people with it. Who should be responsible for the murder?
The answer is obviously not you but the person who steals the gun.
However, in the case of Panama’s poisoned medicine, China’s role is more complicated.
A report by New York Time in early May said the counterfeit glycerin from China is responsible for the death of hundreds people from Panama.
But the investigation result by the Chinese government is: the Panama business man who sold it killed people by changing the name and the expiration date of the product.
As a reporter covering international trade, I like this kind of report linked to above. I read the report of The New York Time several weeks ago. I think it is a story with a fatal flaw.
That is: who changed the label of the product from industrial use to pharmaceutical use?
This should be the key to the story. Only when you get the details of the whole trail can you figure out what happened. If someone changed it from the beginning, the Chinese company should no doubt take responsibility. If not, the one who renamed it is the killer.
Unfortunately I cannot find the answer from the New York Times.
There is a paragraph about it but far less than enough:
“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.”
If the report can disclose the process of changing labels during its trip through three continents, it really exposes big problems behind international trade during this time of globalization.
That would be a fantastic story!
Instead of articulating the process of changing labels, The New York Times’ report then quickly turned to a case that happened in China last year and the big holes in China’s food and drug system which are astonishing but have nothing to do with the Panama case.
Another interesting thing: instead of reporting the results of the Chinese government’s investigation by itself, The Times uses Reuter’s news and emphasizes “China Blames Media For Food Safety Scaremongering” while Reuter’s version’s blames mislabeling for the drug deaths in Panama.
In my view, there are still a lot of questions to answer.
For example, is the trade involving the three traders just a one-time occurrence or is it more frequent? Is it a conspiracy? What about the Panama trader who sold the product? Does that firm always rename the goods or did it do this only this time? Why were there no tests on entering each of the three continents? What are these customs officials doing?
Also, the Chinese company should also take some responsibility for the death.
According to the investigation by the Chinese government, although the Chinese company did sell it as for industrial use and told the Spanish trader that, it gave the product a vague name _ TD GLICERINE _ and even changed its packing mark as GLICERINE.
It was cheating.
I am wondering how many Chinese companies are using these “tactics” when they sell goods at home and abroad.
I like the story by New York Time. It warns people of the danger behind a flawed international drug trade system; it tells Chinese government and companies they should take more responsibility while they enjoy huge export growth; it also warns the Chinese government of the importance of media and the public relations hit they will take if they don’t respond efficiently and sincerely to media!
