Do We Need Another Jungle?

One year after Albert Einstein's publication of E=MC2, an unknown writer named Upton Sinclair published an exposé of the horrid conditions within the Chicago meat packing industry.

The book, entitled The Jungle became a best seller that has stayed in print since its 1906 publication. But it's not Sinclair's impact on literature that has led me to ask the question: Do we need another Jungle? It's the recent influx of tainted goods from overseas that parallels the realization that led to public outcry following the publication of The Jungle which resulted in the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which then, in turn, helped to establish the Food and Drug Administration.

That's the same FDA that now inspects less than one percent of incoming goods, that gives bonuses budgeted to retain scientists to their administrators instead, that is faced with majority of U.S. toys being manufactured in China requiring inspection, a majority of all fish imported from China requiring inspection, the melamine in gluten that killed so many of our beloved pets that did not get inspected...

And it's not only China. The FDA is faced with growing imports from many countries, far more than they could ever inspect, even if they had the resources to do so.

The question then becomes: Do we need someone to write another exposé that will lead to a radical change in policy, a la Sinclair's The Jungle? This is an important question since these problems seem to have arisen out of a lack of oversight. With the increasing amount of products manufactured offshore, we're at the mercy of the quality, or lack thereof, adhered to by our trading partners.

Since we do not have the inspection regimen in place to stop all of the dangerous products at our border, nor do we provide the incentives for our global trading partners to improve the conditions for their own workforce, and/or to regulate their diverse supply chain, we are relying on the "good faith" of foreign nations who we have no ability to regulate. If we did, it might not solve the problem, as most don't inspect their own supply chains of smaller manufacturers, many of which were responsible for the tainted products that then were sent on to increasingly larger companies outside our borders. - layers of inspection needed in a proactive, rather than a reactive program, as has been the case since the growing scandal of tainted products came to light.

An author, Ted Fishman (China, Inc.) made the point recently that only China can change China. Considering its size and the size of our debt to China, that seems a logical conclusion. But who then is responsible for the protection of our citizens if neither China nor our government can do so? Does it fall on the individual states to enhance their own consumer departments? Is it the impact on the marketplace that will lead corporations to both be more careful and to pressure their foreign suppliers to clean up their own supply chains?

Or is it the consumers who will apply the pressure as more problems come to light?

It was the public outcry after the revelations of the The Jungle that led to the change in policy in 1906. But it was a simpler society then. Imported goods are now so pervasive, it may be impossible to avoid their use. Where did the ascorbic acid in your Vitamin C come from? Strong possibility it was imported from China. How about that gluten in your bread (and in your pet food)? The shrimp you ate last night at that restaurant? And, here's a surprising fact: Garlic. I seem to remember Gilroy, CA, calls itself (paraphrase) the nation's garlic capital.

Most garlic is imported from China.

It's the money, of course. The cheap labor, the competition (they're doing it, so we have to...). And that startling amount of our debt the current administration has entrusted to China. It seems that might make our bargaining position a bit weakened when they're holding our notes.

That being said, if someone ever really got inside the Chinese factories and their supply chain, and wrote about what really happens there, it begs the question: would it make for interesting story about a foreign land or will it be seen in the context of our need for cheap goods, of the impact on quality of life for those who make those goods, of the quality of those goods we are now required to consume, and, of course, the jobs lost here because manufacture has moved offshore?

Sadly, even with a major overhaul and a significant budget increase, it's unlikely the FDA will be able to monitor everything coming in to the United States. The FDA tried for ten years to track down the toxic Chinese compound used recently in toothpaste. Which leads me to believe that this issue should not become a condemnation of overworked FDA Inspectors vis-à-vis China. In the case of the tainted glycerin it was a European importer that had stored the compound in their supply warehouses without the necessary paperwork from China.

The answer then, I believe, lies with the consumer. If we can't rely on the FDA to inspect more the one percent of our imported goods. If we can't be assured that the corporations importing those goods will uncover their problems in a timely manner (many do, but not all). If we don't even know where the ingredients of a product we are about to consume comes from, how can we be certain what we're consuming is safe?

Carl R. Nielsen, former FDA Director of the Division of Import Operations and Policy: "The reality is, this is not a single-country issue at all, What we are experiencing is massive globalization.

This problem is further exacerbated by the squeeze on the American consumer. When the middle class can no longer afford the cheap Chinese goods that line Walmart's shelves, what incentive will there be for anyone to buy more expensive products?

My solution -- and it is only a partial solution, at best: Buy local wherever I can and reduce the amount of my consumption where possible to make up for the increase in cost. That means farmer's markets (list below) and goods that are made by local suppliers. This has the added benefit of fresher goods, supporting local business and reducing the carbon footprint required to come to market. For imported goods, I look to Fair Trade (list below), especially where it comes to products that could be used for conflicts, as has been reported recently with chocolate (yes, chocolate). Beyond that, I'm in the same predicament as everyone else: Crossing my fingers when I eat at a restaurant or down a vitamin or buy anything from a major corporate supplier that does not reveal a point of origin on their goods. Which is why there should be no wondering as to why I'm wondering if there's another Upton Sinclair who will save us from ourselves.

Here are useful links:

CPSC - Consumer Product Safety Commission (for recalled goods).
FDA - Food and Drug Administration (for recalled goods).

Farmer's Markets:

Farmer's Markets by U.S. State
Farmer's Markets in Canada
Farmer's Markets in Great Britain
Farmer's Markets in Australia

Fair Trade:

Fair Trade Labeling Organization International
Fair Trade Certified USA
Fair Trade Federation
Fair Trade Coffee (Global Exchange)
Fair Trade Chocolate (Global Exchange) [1]
Fair Trade Resource Network
Fair Trade Foundation, London
Fair Trade International Members

Chocolate products that are not produced by child slave labor [1]

The website from the Mandela Project about conflict products.

Apologies to any links I missed and empathy for the ~1,321,851,888 Chinese at risk of their own tainted supply chain -- of which we have seen just the terrifying tip of the iceberg.

 

Follow Janet Ritz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janetritz