farmer milk fat ……………2.60 yuan

company …………………no 2.20kg

Farmer screw You ! ………2.60..

company…………………2.20!

farmer ……..ok

adds melamine and water to milk hehe………………..screw everyone!

The assumption that people know what you (think you) know is unfounded. What they know, if anything, may (conveniently) be totally opposite to what you know, and guess what? You might very well BOTH be wrong – the facts of science have made fools of all of us, and will continue to do so. As for their innocence, be reminded, I make no claim that they in any genuine way care for the well-being of their victims. The well-being of their victims comes into their considerations only as it pertains (see my previous comment) to the actors’ continuing well-being.

Maybe it’s like disposing of cyanide on the Interstate (or Motorway) by dribbling it out of moving trucks (or lorries). The gangsters who do this don’t know whom, when, or even whether they’re poisoning someone. But they do know they can collect a fee for doing this, and as for the poor bastard driving behind them, well, good luck, buddy (drive carefully)!

In 2007 during the pet food recall it was pretty clear that MARC (melamine & related compounds) was toxic.

In 2007 during the Thailand deaths of thousands of baby pigs <(genetically similar to humans) it became pretty MARC was toxic.

In 2007 China executed Zheng, the former head of its food & drug administration, and gave Cao, his subordinate, a reprieve.

In 2008 it seems pretty clear that anyone who used MARC had some knowledge that toxicity was an issue, and therefore coming to the conclusion that they innocently added MARC is not a logical conclusion.

What is a logical conclusion, when looking at the overall picture, is that Global Trade agreements and the Global Economy often put Science in the backseat (or buried) due to politics.

If someone is unscrupulous enough to add melamine to baby milk to falsify protein levels, then there’s no reason to think that they would use expensive chemically pure material. This would go some way to answering one of the questions asked by a commenter on the original post. Apparently, the Chinese government reported findings 2565 ppm or 0.25% of melamine in Sanlu’s milk powder. The cost of melamine is relatively high, so what would be the economic justification for such an irresponsible act if it were only increasing the apparent protein level by 1.2%?

Yes, there are reasons why a person, scrupulous or otherwise, might favor a more-expensive protein-indication booster. I’ll spell some out for the unimaginative. Let’s say we want to boost the protein level in our product but we don’t want to hurt anybody. Is that possible, or must all fudging always be malevolent? The desire not to hurt anyone isn’t even necessary for selecting an innocuous booster – all that’s necessary is a desire to avoid detection, and not hurting anyone is a very good start in that direction. Killing or even sickening one’s customers is also very poor business practice, an oversight I might ascribe to a self-anointed scientist, but never to a sharp Chinese entrepreneur.

How does 0.25% melamine content become 1.2% (apparent) protein boost? There must be data (or speculation) elsewhere (up the Comments thread?) linking these two figures. Continuing with the non sequiturs, if a 1.2% protein boost is so paltry, why would it have been done in the first place? Pure malevolence, unrelated to any pecuniary gain or desire to boost protein? An enemy of Peace, Justice, and the Chinese Way of Life? Maybe the 1.2% boost (if, indeed, that’s what it was – I think we’re reverse-engineering here) was that slight nudge that made the difference between acceptance and rejection of a huge batch of product. Plenty of economic motivation in that scenario, unless I’ve forgotten the meaning of the word.

The analysis on this site might benefit, it continues to look to me, by a steep reduction in the level of dudgeon. A little more attention to logic might even ensue automatically.