5 ms·

>And you'd never encounter a product that smells formaldehyde with an OEKO-TEX label. These guys will put lead in children's toys but would never be so unscrup

>And you'd never encounter a product that smells formaldehyde with an OEKO-TEX label. These guys will put lead in children's toys but would never be so unscrupulous as to put a fake label on the product? Or lie to obtain certification?

floatrock 7y ago
That's a criticism of the supply chain and enforcement, not the certification itself. I think most people would agree that a promise without verification is no real promise.
- Eleanor65 7y ago
  Hye every one I am doing work for making cash more than $ 15k to $ 18k . plz check this link. HERE →→→→→→ https://www.facebook.com/Suŋ-Nƴ-499555380459352/app/638781329968943/ https://www.facebook.com/Suŋ-Nƴ-499555380459352/app/63878132...
- Eleanor65 7y ago
  I̳ ̳g̳e̳t̳ ̳p̳a̳i̳d̳ ̳o̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳$9̳0̳ ̳p̳e̳r̳ ̳h̳o̳u̳r̳ ̳w̳o̳r̳k̳i̳n̳g̳ ̳f̳r̳o̳m̳ ̳h̳o̳m̳e̳ ̳w̳i̳t̳h̳ ̳2̳ ̳k̳i̳d̳s̳ ̳a̳t̳ ̳h̳o̳m̳e̳. ̳I̳ ̳n̳e̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳t̳h̳o̳u̳g̳h̳t̳ ̳I̳'d̳ ̳b̳e̳ ̳a̳b̳l̳e̳ ̳t̳o̳ ̳d̳o̳ ̳i̳t̳ ̳b̳u̳t̳ ̳m̳y̳ ̳b̳e̳s̳t̳ ̳f̳r̳i̳e̳n̳d̳ ̳e̳a̳r̳n̳s̳ ̳o̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳1̳0̳k̳ ̳a̳ ̳m̳o̳n̳t̳h̳ ̳d̳o̳i̳n̳g̳ ̳t̳h̳i̳s̳ ̳a̳n̳d̳ ̳s̳h̳e̳ ̳c̳o̳n̳v̳i̳n̳c̳e̳d̳ ̳m̳e̳ ̳t̳o̳ ̳t̳r̳y̳. ̳T̳h̳e̳ ̳p̳o̳t̳e̳n̳t̳i̳a̳l̳ ̳w̳i̳t̳h̳ ̳t̳h̳i̳s̳ ̳i̳s̳ ̳e̳n̳d̳l̳e̳s̳s̳. ̳H̳e̳r̳e̳s̳ ̳w̳h̳a̳t̳ ̳I̳'v̳e̳ ̳b̳e̳e̳n̳ ̳d̳o̳i̳n̳g̳, Just Visit link════►►► https://t2m.io/Rzb5v9yP https://t2m.io/Rzb5v9yP
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  China executed people responsible for adding an industrial chemical to baby formula [1]. Without debating the merits of capital punishment, I think the issue is the lack of consistency in supple chain management. The only model I could compare to would be Costco, who is pretty good at curating products customers will like (and the quality is usually good IMHO). Trust sells, if you find buyers who value trust. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk-scandal-pair https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...
  - verall 7y ago
    China executed scapegoats after huge internal outrage and an attempted coverup. Not the kind of thing that builds trust.
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      I don't know whether they were just scapegoats. But if we assume the worst, that they were, it's still a big cost. Having to find scapegoats to pin the blame on while keeping morale of other employees up, I'd imagine that isn't easy. People will be scared. They will wonder whether they are next in line for scapegoating. They will try their best to stay away and cover their asses. It will raise costs to the point that no one will try this again.
monk_e_boy 7y ago
I don't know about manufacturing. But for food products people get prosecuted all the time by trading standards. My friend who works for them has a lot of interesting stories to tell. One story, she visited a local pub and asked for a dairy free ploughman's, the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added, then she put the whole meal, plate and all into a plastic bag and took it away for analysis. The pub got fined and another visit from trading standards.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  >the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added // I've heard stories like this before. It sounds a bit stupid on the part of Trading Standards (TS). Waiter: "Do you want butter" Customer/TS agent: "Yes, please" Then the TS agent prosecutes you for putting butter on their food. Well why did they ask for butter. I mean, I realise that people are sometimes absolute idiots but I don't think you should prosecute restaurants for serving what you ask for. A story in our local press was that the TS agent said "no peanuts for me as I have an allergy, I'll have the lamb bhuna, ..." and then they ordered a load of dishes - as you would for a family - and they included in their order "chicken satay". They specifically asked for it. Guess what the restaurant did, they gave them what they asked for. And Trading Standards prosecuted them and made them out in the press to be evil. Now to me it sounded like the person was ordering a bhuna with no nuts and a load of stuff for other people, if they're stupid enough to order a nut dish isn't that their own fault? I don't know what's happened to personal responsibility but the expectation for businesses to coddle people has gone too far IMO. /rant
  - kqr 7y ago
    It takes very little for the waiter to inject, "The satay contains peanuts as an essential ingredient, do you still want to order it?"
    - CogitoCogito 7y ago
      Sounds by that story that the other orders were intended for the other people eating given that the peanut free order was explicitly made. So I can only assume the waiter assumed the rest was an order for the others? Maybe that assumption may not (legally) be made and a warning needs to be made for everyone at a whole table? Either way that seems like a bit of a gray zone. Sounds almost like the point was to trip up the waiter.

floatrock 7y ago

That's a criticism of the supply chain and enforcement, not the certification itself. I think most people would agree that a promise without verification is no real promise.

Eleanor65 7y ago
Hye every one I am doing work for making cash more than $ 15k to $ 18k . plz check this link. HERE →→→→→→ https://www.facebook.com/Suŋ-Nƴ-499555380459352/app/638781329968943/ https://www.facebook.com/Suŋ-Nƴ-499555380459352/app/63878132...
Eleanor65 7y ago
I̳ ̳g̳e̳t̳ ̳p̳a̳i̳d̳ ̳o̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳$9̳0̳ ̳p̳e̳r̳ ̳h̳o̳u̳r̳ ̳w̳o̳r̳k̳i̳n̳g̳ ̳f̳r̳o̳m̳ ̳h̳o̳m̳e̳ ̳w̳i̳t̳h̳ ̳2̳ ̳k̳i̳d̳s̳ ̳a̳t̳ ̳h̳o̳m̳e̳. ̳I̳ ̳n̳e̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳t̳h̳o̳u̳g̳h̳t̳ ̳I̳'d̳ ̳b̳e̳ ̳a̳b̳l̳e̳ ̳t̳o̳ ̳d̳o̳ ̳i̳t̳ ̳b̳u̳t̳ ̳m̳y̳ ̳b̳e̳s̳t̳ ̳f̳r̳i̳e̳n̳d̳ ̳e̳a̳r̳n̳s̳ ̳o̳v̳e̳r̳ ̳1̳0̳k̳ ̳a̳ ̳m̳o̳n̳t̳h̳ ̳d̳o̳i̳n̳g̳ ̳t̳h̳i̳s̳ ̳a̳n̳d̳ ̳s̳h̳e̳ ̳c̳o̳n̳v̳i̳n̳c̳e̳d̳ ̳m̳e̳ ̳t̳o̳ ̳t̳r̳y̳. ̳T̳h̳e̳ ̳p̳o̳t̳e̳n̳t̳i̳a̳l̳ ̳w̳i̳t̳h̳ ̳t̳h̳i̳s̳ ̳i̳s̳ ̳e̳n̳d̳l̳e̳s̳s̳. ̳H̳e̳r̳e̳s̳ ̳w̳h̳a̳t̳ ̳I̳'v̳e̳ ̳b̳e̳e̳n̳ ̳d̳o̳i̳n̳g̳, Just Visit link════►►► https://t2m.io/Rzb5v9yP https://t2m.io/Rzb5v9yP
toomuchtodo 7y ago
China executed people responsible for adding an industrial chemical to baby formula [1]. Without debating the merits of capital punishment, I think the issue is the lack of consistency in supple chain management. The only model I could compare to would be Costco, who is pretty good at curating products customers will like (and the quality is usually good IMHO). Trust sells, if you find buyers who value trust. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk-scandal-pair https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...
- verall 7y ago
  China executed scapegoats after huge internal outrage and an attempted coverup. Not the kind of thing that builds trust.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    I don't know whether they were just scapegoats. But if we assume the worst, that they were, it's still a big cost. Having to find scapegoats to pin the blame on while keeping morale of other employees up, I'd imagine that isn't easy. People will be scared. They will wonder whether they are next in line for scapegoating. They will try their best to stay away and cover their asses. It will raise costs to the point that no one will try this again.

monk_e_boy 7y ago

I don't know about manufacturing. But for food products people get prosecuted all the time by trading standards. My friend who works for them has a lot of interesting stories to tell. One story, she visited a local pub and asked for a dairy free ploughman's, the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added, then she put the whole meal, plate and all into a plastic bag and took it away for analysis. The pub got fined and another visit from trading standards.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added // I've heard stories like this before. It sounds a bit stupid on the part of Trading Standards (TS). Waiter: "Do you want butter" Customer/TS agent: "Yes, please" Then the TS agent prosecutes you for putting butter on their food. Well why did they ask for butter. I mean, I realise that people are sometimes absolute idiots but I don't think you should prosecute restaurants for serving what you ask for. A story in our local press was that the TS agent said "no peanuts for me as I have an allergy, I'll have the lamb bhuna, ..." and then they ordered a load of dishes - as you would for a family - and they included in their order "chicken satay". They specifically asked for it. Guess what the restaurant did, they gave them what they asked for. And Trading Standards prosecuted them and made them out in the press to be evil. Now to me it sounded like the person was ordering a bhuna with no nuts and a load of stuff for other people, if they're stupid enough to order a nut dish isn't that their own fault? I don't know what's happened to personal responsibility but the expectation for businesses to coddle people has gone too far IMO. /rant
- kqr 7y ago
  It takes very little for the waiter to inject, "The satay contains peanuts as an essential ingredient, do you still want to order it?"
  - CogitoCogito 7y ago
    Sounds by that story that the other orders were intended for the other people eating given that the peanut free order was explicitly made. So I can only assume the waiter assumed the rest was an order for the others? Maybe that assumption may not (legally) be made and a warning needs to be made for everyone at a whole table? Either way that seems like a bit of a gray zone. Sounds almost like the point was to trip up the waiter.