The document discusses several food contamination incidents involving melamine in China and the United States between 2007 and 2008. It provides background on contaminated milk powder in China that sickened infants, contaminated pet food that caused illnesses and deaths, and contaminated fish and livestock feed. It raises questions about corporate and government responsibility, the need for ethics in food production, and whether companies knew about melamine risks. Students are assigned a group project to analyze the issues and propose solutions focusing on ethics at the personal, professional and corporate levels.

1. A Corporate Ethical Test
What’s Your Decision?
Professor Andrew B.C. H
P f A d B C Huang,
Doctor Max Chin
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Management School
M tS h l
huang.prof@gmail.com 2008 Winter

2. 2008 Sanlu Milk Powder Recalls
• In September 2008 Sanlu recalled all powdered milk in the north-west
China's Gansu province where melamine was reported to have been used
in 22 brands of infant formula, making more than 53,000 infants ill and
g
hospitalizing almost 12,900.Melamine has also been found in products
produced by Yili Industrial Group Co, and Mengniu Dairy Co. As of 18
September 2008 there had been four confirmed infant deaths from the
contamination of powdered milk with melamine with a number of survivors
p
diagnosed with acute kidney failure.
• Melamine may have been added to fool government quality tests after water
was added to fraudulently increase the milk's volume. The adulterant
melamine was added to the milk to allow the company to dilute the milk with
water and circumvent government regulations, since melamine will cause a
false increase in the measurement of protein by increasing the nitrogen
levels in the milk.
• Officials ti t th t b t
Offi i l estimate that about 20 percent of the dairy companies t t d i
t f th d i i tested in
China sell products tainted with melamine.
Further information: 2008 baby milk scandal

3. Incidents of Contaminated Milk
What Does These Recalls Mean to Government?
2007 Pet Food Recalls
• In 2007 a pet food recall was initiated by Menu Foods and other pet food
manufacturers who had found their products had been contaminated and caused
serious illnesses or deaths in some of the animals that had eaten them.
• On 30 March 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration reported finding white
granular melamine in the pet food, in samples of white granular wheat gluten
imported from a single source in China Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology as well
China, Technology,
as in crystalline form in the kidneys and in urine of affected animals. Further
vegetable protein imported from China was later implicated. See Chinese protein
export contamination.
• The practice of adding quot;melamine scrap to animal feed is reported to be widespread
melamine scrapquot;
in China in order to give the appearance of increased protein content in animal feed.
2007 Ohio Recalls
• Melamine has also been purposely added as a binder to fish and livestock feed
manufactured in the United States and traced to suppliers in Ohio and Colorado.

4. Regulation & Health
What Do These Regulations Mean to Government
• The Food S f t
Th F d Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U it d St t
dI ti S i f th United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a test method for analyzing
cyromazine and melamine in animal tissues in its Chemistry Laboratory
Guidebook which quot;contains test methods used by FSIS Laboratories to
contains
support the Agency's inspection program, ensuring that meat, poultry, dairy
and egg products are safe, wholesome and accurately labeled.quot;
• In 1999, in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register regarding
cyromazine residue, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed quot;removing melamine, a metabolite of cyromazine from the
tolerance expression since it is no longer considered a residue(殘留)of
concern.
concern ”
• Melamine, classified a controlled substance in China, has been illegally
used in the high profile 2008 baby milk scandal case which led to the
death of at least 4 infants.
• Melamine by itself is nontoxic(無毒)in low doses, but when combined with
cyanuric acid it can cause fatal kidney stones. Source: Google

5. Why Go e
y Government Always
e ays
The Last One To Know

6. Melamine Food Supply Chain
Who is loser and Who is Winner?
Economic Daily 2008/09/25

7. Pretending Innocence/Ignorance?
How About Law and Ethics?
• Not allow to sale, not the same mean of allowing manufacturers to adding some of
ingredients by pretend ignorance in production.
• If there were pretending innocence/or ignorance, the producers should take the
premeditated crime” (預謀 事先計劃)
responsibility of “substantial fault” in “premeditated crime (預謀、事先計劃)
substantial fault
• 社會大眾已體認到「三聚氰胺」本來就不該被添加到食物，食品製造過程中卻避不開
種種因素所可能導致食物含有三聚氰胺。但食品製程中各類加工物彼此複合所產生的化
學變化，因而生成有毒物。是以，食品安全標準依此訂立了一套數據規範，其規範目
的並非容許食品製造廠商可以在食品標準之下，故意添加「三聚氰胺」，而是避不開 」
種種因素作用時，做為食品「禁止販售與否」的標準。
• 以法律對行為的規範，廠商把三聚氰胺加入食品中，這是「故意」的行為，若廠商
「明知或可得而知」其所製造的食品，或加工過程中會複合產生三聚氰胺卻仍維持該
製程，則廠商必須負起「重大過失與過失」的行為責任。
• 若是廠商限於目前的科學技術而「不能得知」食品製程會產生三聚氰胺，這是要不要
廠商負起「無過失」的行為責任問題。因此，不管食品安全標準定在二點五ppm也好，
或者「未檢出」，甚至是ppb的標準，法律應該不允許食品廠商可以販售因「故意或過
失」製造產生並含有三聚氰胺的食品。
• 食品安全標準在均衡供應廠商與消費大眾的利益，確保食品廠商不致負有「絕對的」
食品安全標準在均衡供應廠商與消費大眾的利 確保食品廠商不致負有 絕對的
無過失責任而已，惟一旦廠商限於種種因素而無過失地製造大於標準的食品，法律就
當禁止其販售，此係「相對的」無過失責任，此時廠商仍須負起損害賠償責任。
Digest: 2008-10-02 中國時報 【許繼隆／北市（研究生)
2008 10 02

8. The Key Issues Are
Are—
There is a law, and ethics too
The Questions to you:
1. Premier Wen of China said that one of the key issues of contaminated milk is the
business ethics. We should to enforce our corporate ethics, professional ethics, and
contraction of social ethics as well, to eliminate this kinds of events happen again.
Do you agree his viewpoint?
2. If you have other opinions, what’s the real problems you see in this milk scandal?
How could you hit this series of unethical actions from personal, professional, to
corporate?
3. It seems that the melamine and its contaminated problem had happened years ago
3 ago,
and the U.S. government had also released the relevant information publicly in 2007.
Do you believe that most of the companies did not know this information yet?
4. According to the reports, the reason why most of the milk being intently added
melamine is for false increase in the measurement of protein in the milk. Why most
milk
of the company would rather do that false regardless the law and ethics?
Your Report & Brief:
1. Each group (6-7 members) are required to have a group discussion, propose a 12-15 minutes brief with power
points, and deliver it on next Monday (20th October) in class. You need not to answer question by one by, you
have full capacity to be your own innovation.
2. Each of you have a freedom to choose your own members, with one condition that you should have at least one
foreign fellows in your group.