Recall on breast implants and European Community standards Hypocritical excuse to protectionism!
Posted Mon Jan 02, 2012 08:59 AM
The silicone used to make the implants is of bad quality. The company making them is (was) French (that's not the point).
So, there is a "recall". Those implants were also used in other countries other than France.
Around here, almost on a daily basis one reads in the newspapers about new rules/conditions for producing something. Like now, there are new rules as for how you can keep your chickens (chicken farms) if you produce eggs. The oficial justification: we need to give the poor chickens better quality of life. OK, I'm OK with that, but...
Since there are many subsidies here to adapt old "farms", etc, I can imagine it as hardship for the producers, but at least there are subsidies. But what about countries selling eggs to Europe???? Countries were there aren't subsidies to help farmers to adapt??? Because they demand the same "standards" from countries wishing to export to us.
How could you call it, if not protectionism??? And the "chicken" example is only one of them.
European standards are supposed to be so wonderful! So, how to explain those implants being commercialized? Isn't there a control, or something???? I say our "high standards" (... ... are they???...) are mostly a hypocritical excuse for protectionism.
Of course, there are exceptions. But...
First world is always ingenious to keep third world... well, third. And now, with the crisis, expect desperate measures!... Brazilian economy has surpassed the UK's. They're 6th (Brazil). Can we accept it with... dignity? I wonder!
Disclaimer: just for the record, I don't have breast implants, so, it isnt "personal"... ... I also don't have antennae implants... just saying... ... and their color is natural... just saying...
Posted Mon Jan 02, 2012 04:00 PM
A) The company had a major lapse in quality control testing due to one of many possible factors, such as a lazy or incompetent inspector (or, more rarely, a malicious attempt to ruin the company's reputation).
The company had already sunk X amount of dollars into developing and producing the product, didn't want to lose all that money by throwing away their first production batch, and just released them on the market anyway, completely ignoring all regulations and hoping to hell that it was never discovered (this happens more than any of us would like to believe, but thankfully, it usually doesn't have any severe consequences).
C) The company exploited a loophole in laws that allowed them to sell these on the market in the hopes that the flaw wouldn't adversely affect them in any way, and now that it has, they're instituting the recall in an attempt to salvage their company's reputation and possibly in response to a lawsuit.
Of course, it could be any number of other things, but it's probably something alone the lines of the aforementioned possibilities.
Posted Mon Jan 02, 2012 05:07 PM
C) The company exploited a loophole in laws that allowed them to sell these...
Exactly. And all laws seem to have "loopholes".
Hum... I'm sure there is a very good explanation for all those incompetently written laws... surely there is one...
One could almost be made to think that it is because the law is made in parliaments, those institutions where politicians lurk, and, one could almost be made to think these creatures could perhaps be the worst criminals out there (surely not, I'm sure...), so, one could end up thinking that, if that was the case, but I'm sure it isn't, they surely wouldn't approve a law without a loophole in the text... of course, if one'd think that, one'd be wrong. There is so much evidence to the contrary, to the purity of heart of our politicians.
Here, in Belgium, for instance, they were so worried to form the best government the good people of this country could get, they took 540 days to form one after last elections. All for the good of the people... ... surely... the world was burning, Europe was sinking through one of its great crisis, but they weren't distracted! They kept at it. So brave. So magnanimous! Well, the did interrupt their high level discussions to give a few billion euros of people's money to save a bank... but I'm sure, it was just for the good of the people... ... surely.
Posted Tue Jan 03, 2012 03:13 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions - St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Or in this case, the road to political power is best traveled on the backs of those without it.
Posted Tue Jan 03, 2012 06:18 PM
In the U.S., it's called "lobbying".