In response, the Chinese government reacted at first with defiance and denial. It charged that U.S. authorities were exaggerating the risks, even suggesting that American authorities may be playing up the dangers to fan a backlash against China's imports because of trade disputes between the two nations.

But this week China shifted course by acknowledging problems and cracking down on errant factories, 180 of which were shuttered. At the same time, the Chinese government began to push back in more-sophisticated and nuanced ways, both in Beijing and in Washington.

In Washington, China's team of diplomats -- bulked up in recent years -- has been making almost daily trips to Capitol Hill to try to tamp down growing food-safety concerns and to push back against proposed legislation to pressure Beijing over its trade surplus with the U.S. Chinese diplomats also have begun briefing reporters and distributing fact sheets to try to argue that tainted Chinese products represent only a tiny portion of the country's sales to the U.S., and that the risks shouldn't be overblown.

"In certain quarters, people are trying to create a panic about Chinese products," a senior Chinese official said Thursday, during an unusual discussion with a small group of reporters.

Chinese officials used the occasion to pass around a three-page fact sheet, entitled "Chinese Food Exports Are Safe." The paper stated that last year, the Food and Drug Administration turned away less than 1% of the food shipments sent to the U.S. from China, a figure it said was slightly less than the Chinese refusal rate last year of food shipments from the U.S. "The quality rate of Chinese food exports are above 99%," the report said.

Just 1.3% of imported fish, vegetables, fruit and other foods are inspected — yet those government inspections regularly reveal food unfit for human consumption.

...

With only a minuscule percentage of shipments inspected, they say the nation is vulnerable to harm from abroad, where rules and regulations governing food production are often more lax than they are at home.

"FDA doesn't have enough resources or control over this situation presently," said Mike Doyle, director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety, which works with industry to improve safety.

Last month alone, FDA detained nearly 850 shipments of grains, fish, vegetables, nuts, spice, oils and other imported foods for issues ranging from filth to unsafe food coloring to contamination with pesticides to salmonella.

And that's with just 1.3% of the imports inspected. As for the other 98.7%, it's not inspected, much less detained, and goes to feed the nation's growing appetite for imported foods.

...

FDA inspections focus on foods known to be at risk for contamination, including fish, shellfish, fruit and vegetables. Food from countries or producers previously shown to be problematic also are flagged for a closer look.

Last year, inspectors sampled just 20,662 shipments out of more than 8.9 million that arrived at American ports. China, which in one decade has become the third-largest exporter of food, by value, to the United States, sent 199,000 shipments, of which less than 2 percent were sampled, former officials with the agency said.

Do you check the country origin when making everyday purchases? Share your thoughts.

Meat packers and other agribusinesses have formed a new lobbying coalition to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from requiring meat to be packaged with a country-of-origin label.

The group — the Meat Promotion Coalition — has hired a lobbying firm that specializes in agricultural issues to make the case on Capitol Hill that country-of-origin labeling is too costly to implement.

Cargill, Tyson Food, the National Cattlemen’s Association and the National Pork Producers Council are among the nine members of the new coalition, which hired the firm Lesher & Russell.

In a twist, the American Farm Bureau Federation, which had supported mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, is now part of the coalition.

Critics already succeeded in delaying the implementation of the labeling rule — which would enable consumers to see whether their meat was 100 percent homegrown — by attaching an amendment to an omnibus appropriations measure in 2003.

...

Meat packers and large agribusinesses oppose the rule because they want continued access to imported meat, which is often cheaper, without facing any potential penalty in the marketplace from consumers who may think American meat is safer, said Tom Buis, the chief lobbyist for the National Farmers Union, a group of 300,000 farm and ranch families that wants mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

Unless the law is changed, or eliminated, country-of-origin labeling (COOL) will be enforced on beef and pork sometime this fall. The law has been on the books since the implementation of the 2002 farm bill. Forces that fear its implications have managed to delay it and are now making a last push to kill the program and have Congress start over. No one is going to get out of this unscathed, from producer to packer, as we are witnessing another "good idea" in concept that ends up in a "regulatory quagmire" that may not really benefit anyone.

Nostalgia Just Ain't What It Used to Be

Of course Clinton will beg to differ saying that his administration was actively trying to pork Monica, er, kill, Vince - er, Ron Brown…..hang on I’m thinking.

Well anyway during his administration they were killing a lot of things, just not Al Qaeda.

Whiner of the Day: Ann Coulter

She walks around calling people "fags," mocking their dead children, wishing that they were murdered, then when people respond by saying "uh, you're kind of mean," Ann flips out over the level of venom that's directed against her.

Scooter Gets a New Nickname

28301-016

That's 110111010001101-10000 in binary.

Dumbass du Jour

Why do I like Dick Cheney? Because at a time when everybody talks a big game about how they don't like people-pleasing politicians who live by the polls, Cheney is pretty much the only guy out there who walks the walk. He truly doesn't care what people think about him. I love that.

In particular, I like his stance toward the media. His view of the Fourth Estate is a bit like that of a bull elephant annoyed by varmints shnuffling around his feet: He's not bothered enough to squish 'em ... yet.

Cheney's approach to government is ultimately counterproductive.

A Field Guide to Several Men Named Beck

Jeff Beck

Pro: Guitarist for the Yardbirds; Truth, Wired, Blow By Blow LPs.
Con: Appeared on "American Idol" with Kelly Clarkson.

Beck Hansen

Pro: Wrote and performed "Where It's At," "Lost Cause."
Con: Belongs to some weird-ass cult religion.

Rod Beck

Pro: Three-time All-Star pitcher; gracious party bus host while member of AAA team.
Con: Dead, unfortunately.

Glenn Beck

Pro: Claims to no longer be a falling-down drunk.
Con: Inexplicably has both television and radio shows; is an unctuous preening asshole.

The Ultimate "Get"

You Know Things Are Bad...

Still Incoherent After All These Years

There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history....The history I have in mind is 1972....Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won such a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war. In the first place, he was the incumbent, with all its advantages and with enormous amounts of money at his disposal. In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think -- or, for that matter, as the Iraq war is now. In 1972, almost 60 percent of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war.

Maybe more to the point, most Americans did not endorse the way the Democrats would handle the war -- nor the way the antiwar movement was behaving.

According to an April 4 press release, Republican pollster Frank Luntz will participate in the Public Broadcasting Service's coverage of the June 28 Democratic presidential forum, which will be televised live and moderated by PBS host Tavis Smiley: "Immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings." Fellow pollsters have criticized Luntz, a longtime Republican strategist, for mischaracterizing the results of his research, as Media Matters for America has noted. The PBS press release does not mention Luntz's Republican ties, repeating a pattern in the media identified by Media Matters.

As Media Matters has documented, Luntz's credibility has been a recurring issue. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Contract with America, according to a 2000 Salon.com article. Similarly, Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported in 2000 that the National Council on Public Polls "censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."

In a two-pronged assault on its own credibility NBC is reporting results of focus groups conducted by Republican pollster and consultant, Frank Luntz. On opening night of the convention he called the focus group’s utterances "representative" opinion...

While focus groups are useful for supplying context and nuance about a variety of issues or topics they are not a reliable gauge of public opinion on these subjects. Conclusions about what percentage of the general public holds a particular view, or any generalizations about the public, cannot be made from a focus group. Luntz talks about Republicans’, Democrats’ and independents’ opinions as though they applied to all members of those groups in the general public. In fact, those are only the opinions of those in his focus group. There is nothing scientific about these focus groups. They are more akin to a parlor game than to a public opinion poll.

While many news organizations have their news polling conducted by non-partisan pollsters (or a bi- partisan pairing) Luntz is widely known for his work in behalf of Republicans. YROCK.com, a Web site and Internet service run by the National Young Republicans, sponsors the Luntz focus group.

PBS
PBS/Public Broadcasting Service
2100 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
703-739-5000
Email PBS

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over

Great Moments in Jurisprudence

A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that schools can punish a student--without violating his First Amendment rights--when he promotes illegal drug use at a school event.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

ChronWatch Watch

America, the "moral force that defeated communism" is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes, and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin's advice.

When Idiots Attack

Once a Concern Troll, Always a Concern Troll

The standard response from Democratic leaders has been that anyone lost to them over [abortion] is not coming back — and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done. But that is not what I heard from these voters.

Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word “Republican.” Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they’d prefer doesn’t send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.

What would it take to win them back? Respect, for starters...As it turns out, you cannot call people extremists and expect them to vote for you....

Again and again, these voters said Democrats are too unwilling to tolerate dissent on abortion. It is a point of orthodoxy no more open to debate within the party than the ordination of women is in Rome.

And will Democrats ever get wise to the way Republicans, instead of imposing self-defeating litmus tests, manage to have it both ways on [abortion]? Even less likely.

The Democrats are likely to lose the Catholic vote in November—and John Kerry could well lose the election as a result. It’s about abortion, stupid. And “choice,” make no mistake, is killing the Democratic Party.

When it comes to deciding when inconveniently comatose spouses or brutal murderers should be 'terminated,' both major political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical.

Christian morality should be about responding to the wretched and loving the unlovable—not about other people’s sex lives.