Submitted By: Lindsay Yoshitomi

In regard to the recent deaths of many US family pets, I found an interesting  LA Times article linking China to the pet food contamination. Investigations revealed that a mildly toxic chemical called melamine is the culprit. However, our family cats and dogs may not be the only animals being affected by this contaminant, as the FDA and US Department of Agriculture announced that the Chinese tainted wheat gluten in pet foods has also been found in chicken feed on 38 farms in Indiana. These chicken farms supply poultry for human consumption.

Melamine is usually used to make plastics or fertilizer. Do melamine dishes ring a bell? Anyway, supposedly, the chemical isn’t considered a human health concern even though there isn’t any scientific data to back up that claim. It’s also not known what happens to melamine when it’s combined with other compounds, and how it affects our health. But given the facts that it can kill cats and dogs makes you wonder if it really is safe. Adding melamine to food products is not illegal in China, but it is under American law.

Melamine, being nitrogen-rich, in turn raises the nitrogen levels of the feed to which it has been introduced. Nutritional value is not increased, but it fraudulently gives feed the appearance that it is higher in protein. That makes it attractive to the animal food industry in China because it boosts sales. One business, the Kalyuan Protein Feed Company in Shijiazhuang, admits they have been using the chemical additive for 15 years and with the proper quantity claims, “Our products are very safe, for sure.” Well, that’s reassuring as pets across America go through kidney failure. A spokesman for the Chinese melamine supplier, Sanming Dinghui Chemical Trading Company says, “As to whether melamine is toxic or not, I believe it won’t do any harm if there is only very small amount . . . otherwise, those companies could not do that.” Well, of course, but tell that to the thousands of American hogs who ate melamine contaminated feed, and were destroyed so tainted meat wouldn’t reach consumers.

As we import more and more food products from China, and that includes food for human consumption, how can we regulate what practices are not illegal there, but are illegal here? If the introduction of melamine to food has been an ongoing and open practice for years in China, how could we have not known? Or did cheaper products outweigh the safety issue?

So often in a university setting (and in blog land) we fall into the trap of arguing about where we should travel to for a study tour like this, why, whether one place is “better” than the other, etc. I myself sometimes fall into that trap. Much of this is silliness, and the recent Wall Street Journal article How to Get China and India Right, shows why.

It gives some good nuts and bolts ideas for how good companies leverage the complementary strengths of both of these emerging markets. A very good and informative article. And sure enough, two days after I read this article I was discussing with an executive from Microsoft whether they are hedging their bets more toward India or China, and he said, in effect, “we play it smart and safe and focus on both and will continue to do so.”

Having typed the above, clearly, there are some markets that make sense and some that do not for a business school with limited resources (i.e., us) to focus on. We simply can’t/don’t have the resources to put together a tour to every place on the planet that folks (faculty and students) may want to go. So places like China and India — yes.   Chile, Botswana, Estonia, Finland, Russia, Italy?  Don’t think so.

Don’t laugh at such latter options … I have run into some folks who argue that we need to have an educational and business presence in these latter countries. Clearly, they don’t read pubs like the Wall Street Journal to see where the action is nor have they ever taken an MBA strategy course; and I really don’t think the “puck” of business will be moving to or stopping in such countries anytime soon (and yes, in my view that includes Russia although I recognize I may have to one day eat crow on that prediction and I have no problem at all if you disagree, as time may prove you right and me wrong on Russia).

By the way, I, like you, pay taxes and I hate it, hate it, hate it when I see taxpayer dollars being wasted. When I put my taxpayer hat on, I feel strongly that California universities need to link with and visit places that are important from a US and California trade perspective. Having said that, the ten biggest US partners in terms of total trade turnover (imports plus exports) are (in descending order): Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, UK, Korea, Taiwan, France, and Malaysia. Collectively, the US exports twice as much to the three European countries on the list as it does to China. Together, China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan are clearly major players with the US. India is a “comer,” while Brazil and Russia are unlikely to reach these same types of trade levels soon.

Prof Carr February 4, 2009 addendum:  If you can access it, here is a must read article that recently appeared in the Financial Times [free subscription/sign up may be required] by an operations professor at the UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School re: how companies should think about leveraging operations in China and India during the downturn.

As a follow-up to today’s session with Mark Wesley, you really must check out the recent Wall Street Journal article, Battling Boycotts: When A Company is Targeted Simply Because of It’s Nationality, What Can It Do? It contains some great “best practice” tips that relate to a number of the firms we will visit in China (e.g., think of the Starbucks and the Forbidden City controversy as Exhibit A that I previously post on).

What were some of your helpful take-aways from today’s session with Mark re: Starbucks?

And here’s another article I want to bring to your attention …

A good article in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal re: activists turning up the heat on the Beijing Olympics. Check it out. This article ties nicely into the The China Fantasy book and post I made some time ago and James Mann’s chapter on how he thinks the PRC will use the Olympics to support his thesis. Who do you think will win this PR battle in China, and why?

t seems to me that success or failure of the 2008 Olympics will not be determined so much by how many groups protest or try to hijack the Olympics to further their own goals, but rather by how China elects to respond or not respond to such attacks.  I.e., the outcome, really, is up to China.

We have had some good discussion on this blog about the sad state of China’s health care system.

Check out yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article, China Seeks Advice on Health Overhauls, which discusses the two proposals on the table: (1) More money is given to the Ministry of Health to support state-run hospitals, township clinics and village doctors: (2) Don’t do it completely through public facilities, rely more on competition — the idea being to give money to a government agency that would purchase health services on behalf of patients from state providers or from private clinics and hospitals, who would have to compete for funding.

Which proposal would you support, and why?

And now, as a practical matter, which one will be easier to push through politically?

(To signal my own view, I reiterate what I have said for years about American and even world wide double-speak on this issue …. “Every individual, business, industry and government say they support the “free market” and competition …. until it applies to them.” Doesn’t that almost sound like a “yogiism” that Yogi Berra would say??)

See if you can discuss this for a few minutes in your class with Dr. Marlow. Part of his research and writing relates to this important topic.

This post extends Adib’s good post of two days ago, Academic Dishonesty in China …

This NY Times article, Duke Biz School Punishes 34 for Cheating, speaks for itself. Talk about a brand killing nightmare for that MBA Associate Dean.

Please, Cal Poly MBA students, this can/will never happen here, right?

Would you report a classmate who did this? Why or why not?

Is cheating really this prevalent in graduate schools across the country (56 percent in business, 54 percent in engineering)????

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, but I also appreciate that folks may not feel comfortable publicly answering these types of questions. I just pose them for consideration. If the answers to the above are “yes, this can happen here”, “no, I would never report a cheating classmate” and “yes, cheating is this prevalent in graduate programs”, respectively, I will need a stiff drink … or two …. or three ….