(China Daily)
Updated: 2007-11-12 15:05

The recall and suspension of the popular toys Aqua Dots, or Bindeez, may prevent numerous young children from potential harm by its toxic coating.

But the additional damage to the reputation of Chinese toy exports, and the "Made in China" label, is beyond repair.

Initial investigations by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (GAQSIQ) confirmed that the recalled toys contain toxic elements.

This, along with the slew of recent product quality scandals, is widely anticipated to further erode consumer confidence and scare away Christmas shoppers. All toy manufacturers in China will feel the chill this winter.

It is unfair and irrational to subject all Chinese toy manufacturers to discrimination just because a few of them were involved in or responsible for such scandals. Chinese exports are by and large reliable and up to the strict standards set by destination countries. This is a fact, not just a public relations statement by the Chinese government.

But ordinary consumers are not to blame for the contagious fear of the "Made in China" label. After all, defective products were found carrying that label.

To stamp out unwarranted suspicions, the fundamental solution is a complete house-cleaning. We need harsher legal deterrence against sub-standard products, up-to-date quality standards, and operational mechanisms. The national product quality watchdog has demonstrated considerable efficiency in doing that.

Another immediate imperative in our response to such scandals, however, is to find out the truth concerning each and every one of them. Both manufacturers and consumers deserve a clear and complete picture. This is not just for assigning blame. Without knowing exactly what went wrong, we will not know how to avoid such scandals in the future.

The GAQSIQ has done a decent job so far regarding Aqua Dots. We are anticipating a more complete picture from its investigations. There are a lot more technical details that need to be scrutinized.

The most crucial ones include: Why the industrial chemical 1.4-butanediol, the alleged culprit of the poisoning cases, was used? Did the samples the manufacturer supplied and the contractor accepted contain 1.4-butanediol? How do the manufacturer's warnings on the toys, against swallowing and use by children under three, relate to the cases?