2010年3月10日 星期三
2010年3月4日 星期四
Hong Kong Needs A Culture of Safety
Mark L. Clifford
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-04
Amy Coxall was killed when her scarf was caught in a go-kart. To cut down on accidents like this, Hong Kong needs a new awareness of safety.
Our family's idyllic Chinese New Year's holiday at the Olympics in Whistler was shattered by the news that an Island School student had died in a go-kart accident in Tuen Mun. I got the news on an achingly beautiful alpine morning in Whistler as the best athletes in the world, only a few years older than our 15-year-old son, were getting ready to ski, as full of life as anyone can ever be.
I had to give our son the heartbreaking news that Amy Coxall, who had just appeared in a school play with him a few weeks earlier, had been killed in an altogether preventable accident when her scarf was caught up in a go-kart. It was devastating to break this news to our son and, although I don't know the Coxall family, unbearable for me as a parent to think of their pain.
Amidst the predictable finger-pointing after Amy's death there were calls for more regulation. But that simple response misses the point that, for all the talk about a caring society, we are a slipshod city that simply doesn't have a developed-world ethos when it comes to safety. The Hong Kong Kart Club overseeing Diamond Coast Go-kart Track proclaims that its mission is to"Promote safety[sic] driving via professional training for karters; Educate a correct concept of road safety and proper driving habit[sic] for the next generation;[and] Encourage participation by providing easy access for both junior and senior karters." Yet no one in Tuen Mun could keep a 15-year-old girl from wearing a scarf while taking part in a high-speed motor sport?
We have lots of regulations. What we really need is safety consciousness. Why weren't the operators trained to really enforce an ethos of safety? Why didn't they insist that people not wear scarves before operating these cars?
This horrible death got me thinking a friend of mine who was run over and killed by a bus in Central in August 2002. Juanito Ocba was on his way to church on a Sunday afternoon and, yes, he was jaywalking. But, still, to be mown down by a New World bus at the corner of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road, one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Hong Kong on a crowded Sunday afternoon? No charges were filed against the driver and New World management never made the slightest gesture, let alone an apology, to his widow.
The killing goes on. On March 1, two more pedestrians were killed, one by a minibus and one by a taxi. How many more Hong Kong people need to die before citizens say they've had enough to a homicidal driving culture?
Thanks to the virtual ban on cars in Whistler during the Olympics, I've taken a lot of buses during the last two weeks. The safety consciousness of these drivers-- and I had bus drivers who came from places as far apart as China and Quebec-- is extraordinary, and a striking contrast to Hong Kong's kamikaze commercial drivers. Simply put, in Canada no one drives a bus in a way that's likely to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk. In Hong Kong we have nicely painted zebra crossings framed with charming orange lights. But these are museum relics from the colonial era. Anyone who thinks these are protected pedestrian zones is brave or foolish.
For all the talk about the bankruptcy of Western values, when it comes to caring for strangers in a crowd, Hong Kong could learn something from Canada.
Our population is aging. More than ever, we'll need to watch out for the safety of people we don't know, the anonymous faces in the street who are all someone's mother or someone's son. This isn't something that comes naturally. But it can and must be taught.
Let's marry Hong Kong's can-do spirit with more care and compassion, and above all more thought on the part of everyone from go-kart track attendants to bus drivers. Let's learn from the deaths of Amy and Juanito and so many others.
Second Opinion
Next Magazine 2010-03-04
Amy Coxall was killed when her scarf was caught in a go-kart. To cut down on accidents like this, Hong Kong needs a new awareness of safety.
Our family's idyllic Chinese New Year's holiday at the Olympics in Whistler was shattered by the news that an Island School student had died in a go-kart accident in Tuen Mun. I got the news on an achingly beautiful alpine morning in Whistler as the best athletes in the world, only a few years older than our 15-year-old son, were getting ready to ski, as full of life as anyone can ever be.
I had to give our son the heartbreaking news that Amy Coxall, who had just appeared in a school play with him a few weeks earlier, had been killed in an altogether preventable accident when her scarf was caught up in a go-kart. It was devastating to break this news to our son and, although I don't know the Coxall family, unbearable for me as a parent to think of their pain.
Amidst the predictable finger-pointing after Amy's death there were calls for more regulation. But that simple response misses the point that, for all the talk about a caring society, we are a slipshod city that simply doesn't have a developed-world ethos when it comes to safety. The Hong Kong Kart Club overseeing Diamond Coast Go-kart Track proclaims that its mission is to"Promote safety[sic] driving via professional training for karters; Educate a correct concept of road safety and proper driving habit[sic] for the next generation;[and] Encourage participation by providing easy access for both junior and senior karters." Yet no one in Tuen Mun could keep a 15-year-old girl from wearing a scarf while taking part in a high-speed motor sport?
We have lots of regulations. What we really need is safety consciousness. Why weren't the operators trained to really enforce an ethos of safety? Why didn't they insist that people not wear scarves before operating these cars?
This horrible death got me thinking a friend of mine who was run over and killed by a bus in Central in August 2002. Juanito Ocba was on his way to church on a Sunday afternoon and, yes, he was jaywalking. But, still, to be mown down by a New World bus at the corner of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road, one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Hong Kong on a crowded Sunday afternoon? No charges were filed against the driver and New World management never made the slightest gesture, let alone an apology, to his widow.
The killing goes on. On March 1, two more pedestrians were killed, one by a minibus and one by a taxi. How many more Hong Kong people need to die before citizens say they've had enough to a homicidal driving culture?
Thanks to the virtual ban on cars in Whistler during the Olympics, I've taken a lot of buses during the last two weeks. The safety consciousness of these drivers-- and I had bus drivers who came from places as far apart as China and Quebec-- is extraordinary, and a striking contrast to Hong Kong's kamikaze commercial drivers. Simply put, in Canada no one drives a bus in a way that's likely to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk. In Hong Kong we have nicely painted zebra crossings framed with charming orange lights. But these are museum relics from the colonial era. Anyone who thinks these are protected pedestrian zones is brave or foolish.
For all the talk about the bankruptcy of Western values, when it comes to caring for strangers in a crowd, Hong Kong could learn something from Canada.
Our population is aging. More than ever, we'll need to watch out for the safety of people we don't know, the anonymous faces in the street who are all someone's mother or someone's son. This isn't something that comes naturally. But it can and must be taught.
Let's marry Hong Kong's can-do spirit with more care and compassion, and above all more thought on the part of everyone from go-kart track attendants to bus drivers. Let's learn from the deaths of Amy and Juanito and so many others.
2010年2月23日 星期二
炮製黑心食品大踢爆
2010/02/23
來源：on.cc
內地黑心食品層出不窮，更已發展至開班授徒，教導以不同的化學物品去為食品「保鮮」，課程雖索價三千元人民幣，仍吸引不少內地人從各省各地報讀。有本港業內人士批評政府監管豆製品的工作並不足夠，不排除黑心豆製品早已流入本港市面；而港人在內地飲食更要加倍小心，以免毒從口入食出禍。
內地近年湧現「食品加工培訓班」，花數千元人民幣就可以學習多種「黑心」食品製作方法，連沒有化學常識的平民百姓都可以親手做出「黑心」食品出售。
過艷過白過彈要提防
「沒聽說過會吃出人命，你要是怕你就不要吃啦！」來自江蘇省的孫煥平曾以三千元學習脆豆乾的加工技巧，導師指加入雙氧水就可以令豆腐乾更白更亮，更強調不會損害健康。孫之後參加了另一個「食品加工培訓班」，和來自不同地方、不同年紀的人一起「與時並進」學習食物「保鮮」新技術，如在瀕死的魚類身上滴上柴油，可令其回復「生猛」；以保鮮粉泡芽菜可以令芽菜看起來更新鮮，不過保鮮粉其實是用來清洗塑膠的工業原料二亞硫酸鈉。
孫煥平其後因良心戰勝黑心，開始穿梭內地多個省市，教導市民如何辨認黑心食品。「食物過於鮮艷可能使用了色素；食物過白可能用了漂白劑；食品特別有彈性可能用了硼砂。」
「如果豆乾、芽菜出現問題，根本會令人失去食o既興趣，我都唔想食呀！」長居在深圳的工聯會深圳諮詢服務中心助理主任潘志輝表示，時有聽聞內地的食品問題，所以只會到大集團旗下的餐廳用膳，更加會避開有問題的食品，「食o左呢o的有問題o既食物，受苦o既係自己。」
黑心豆製品恐已流港
「o黎貨o既時候又白又靚，點會諗到經過化學加工。」香港入口蔬菜批發商商會會長袁昌表示，本港商販、食肆誤入黑心豆製品不足為奇，「為o左令豆乾、豆芽靚o的，內地不法商人會加入漂白劑等化學物。」袁批評，港府在監管入口蔬菜、豆製品的工作並不足夠，應趁早監管，勿讓問題食品流入本港。
在大埔區街市賣豆類製品的顧太表示，曾聽聞過內地的製品有問題，所以只會在元朗的供應商買本地出產的新鮮豆類製品。她又表示，所賣的芽菜不會浸水，雖然看起來沒那麼吸引，不過炒起來就更爽身。
中文大學生物化學系教授何永成表示，雙氧水本用作漂白或清洗傷口，進食後會刺激腸胃細胞，「因為腸道的黏膜會受損，長期進食會影響消化系統的功能，或者會引起潰瘍、發炎等。」又指曾有研究發現，老鼠攝取雙氧水後，腸胃長出腫瘤，但至今未有證據顯示人體吸收後會致癌。至於令魚類更生猛的柴油，人體攝取過量會令腦部興奮，長期進食含柴油的魚，會損害腦部神經。
傳染病專科醫生勞永樂表示，二亞硫酸鈉是氧化硫溶入水後的物質，有漂白和防霉的作用。使用了二亞硫酸鈉漂白的芽菜，下鑊煮時，遇熱會釋放出硫磺的氣味，可引致流眼水、打噴嚏等敏感徵狀。不過因為烹煮時二亞硫酸鈉已揮發了大部分，除了吃下去會有酸味之外，對人體不會有太大影響。
來源：on.cc
內地黑心食品層出不窮，更已發展至開班授徒，教導以不同的化學物品去為食品「保鮮」，課程雖索價三千元人民幣，仍吸引不少內地人從各省各地報讀。有本港業內人士批評政府監管豆製品的工作並不足夠，不排除黑心豆製品早已流入本港市面；而港人在內地飲食更要加倍小心，以免毒從口入食出禍。
內地近年湧現「食品加工培訓班」，花數千元人民幣就可以學習多種「黑心」食品製作方法，連沒有化學常識的平民百姓都可以親手做出「黑心」食品出售。
過艷過白過彈要提防
「沒聽說過會吃出人命，你要是怕你就不要吃啦！」來自江蘇省的孫煥平曾以三千元學習脆豆乾的加工技巧，導師指加入雙氧水就可以令豆腐乾更白更亮，更強調不會損害健康。孫之後參加了另一個「食品加工培訓班」，和來自不同地方、不同年紀的人一起「與時並進」學習食物「保鮮」新技術，如在瀕死的魚類身上滴上柴油，可令其回復「生猛」；以保鮮粉泡芽菜可以令芽菜看起來更新鮮，不過保鮮粉其實是用來清洗塑膠的工業原料二亞硫酸鈉。
孫煥平其後因良心戰勝黑心，開始穿梭內地多個省市，教導市民如何辨認黑心食品。「食物過於鮮艷可能使用了色素；食物過白可能用了漂白劑；食品特別有彈性可能用了硼砂。」
「如果豆乾、芽菜出現問題，根本會令人失去食o既興趣，我都唔想食呀！」長居在深圳的工聯會深圳諮詢服務中心助理主任潘志輝表示，時有聽聞內地的食品問題，所以只會到大集團旗下的餐廳用膳，更加會避開有問題的食品，「食o左呢o的有問題o既食物，受苦o既係自己。」
黑心豆製品恐已流港
「o黎貨o既時候又白又靚，點會諗到經過化學加工。」香港入口蔬菜批發商商會會長袁昌表示，本港商販、食肆誤入黑心豆製品不足為奇，「為o左令豆乾、豆芽靚o的，內地不法商人會加入漂白劑等化學物。」袁批評，港府在監管入口蔬菜、豆製品的工作並不足夠，應趁早監管，勿讓問題食品流入本港。
在大埔區街市賣豆類製品的顧太表示，曾聽聞過內地的製品有問題，所以只會在元朗的供應商買本地出產的新鮮豆類製品。她又表示，所賣的芽菜不會浸水，雖然看起來沒那麼吸引，不過炒起來就更爽身。
中文大學生物化學系教授何永成表示，雙氧水本用作漂白或清洗傷口，進食後會刺激腸胃細胞，「因為腸道的黏膜會受損，長期進食會影響消化系統的功能，或者會引起潰瘍、發炎等。」又指曾有研究發現，老鼠攝取雙氧水後，腸胃長出腫瘤，但至今未有證據顯示人體吸收後會致癌。至於令魚類更生猛的柴油，人體攝取過量會令腦部興奮，長期進食含柴油的魚，會損害腦部神經。
傳染病專科醫生勞永樂表示，二亞硫酸鈉是氧化硫溶入水後的物質，有漂白和防霉的作用。使用了二亞硫酸鈉漂白的芽菜，下鑊煮時，遇熱會釋放出硫磺的氣味，可引致流眼水、打噴嚏等敏感徵狀。不過因為烹煮時二亞硫酸鈉已揮發了大部分，除了吃下去會有酸味之外，對人體不會有太大影響。
2010年2月11日 星期四
Hong Kong Does Not Need More Regulations
Second Opinion
Next Magazine
2010-02-11
Every time when we hear a call for more regulation or restriction on trade, we should first examine the implicit cost of such interventions to our economy.
Quite often this column has recognized the Hong Kong government as the key impediment to economic growth, individual liberty, and the operation of free markets. Yet, we would give our civil servants far too much credit to suggest that they come up with the ideas that form the foundations for the ill thought out policies government often inflicts on the Hong Kong people.Ideas, however bad, are the basis for policy. In Hong Kong, as the people are not the final arbitrator of public policy, we have an entire industry of academics, civic/environment activists, professional service providers such as lawyers and accountants, and of course business special interests, unchecked in their quest to add, or in the case of business special interests, delete/re-write, Hong Kong's regulatory framework.
By far the most destructive group in terms of providing the intellectual fodder for new regulation is our, often imported, academic community. 20th Century writer William McGurn commented often on ideas that are so bad only a genius could come up with them. Hong Kong academics continue McGurn's maxim into the 21st century.
One day, maybe, the Asia Institute of Financial Law at the University of Hong Kong will have a speaker who is in favor of the free market. But until that time comes we are stuck with the white guy back-scratching club that sponsors speakers to lecture us on"Green Taxation in East Asia" or"Hong Kong's Tax History and Some of The Questions It Raises". Do you think net tax reductions are favored in either of these talks?
Not that the Institute is completely anti-market. Lawyers, accountants, other leaches of regulation and other financial supporters of the Institute, must be thrilled their donations support the arguments that form increased regulation. Frankly the Institute should go for the fundraising gold and host a seminar:"Laws and Regulation, How You Can Profit From Their Implementation".As for the professional service crowd, if the military industrial complex were half as successful in influencing government as lawyers and accountants were in directing regulatory policies, we would all be wearing camouflage and driving Humvees. The drumbeat for every regulatory cost increase in Hong Kong, from tax code revision, introduction of class action lawsuits, introduction of competition law, and any number of additional securities regulations are, more often than not, driven by those who would profit from their introduction.
Years ago, I was told that if the United States had Hong Kong's tax system, 500,000 lawyers, accountants, tax preparers and government workers would be out of work. But millions more would be in jobs in industries not driven out of the US. Regulations don't create jobs, they add cost.
Civic, social, and environmental activists are always pushing for more government. But at least they are honest about it. One can't really fault Greenpeace for wanting a tax on plastic bags or the Cancer Society wanting to ban smoking in bars. Both are bad ideas that have no real effect, but neither group is making a buck on their bad ideas.
The final group influencing regulation is the business community. With the exception of the new"green industries" and Hong Kong power companies, who need to increase the cost on other products to make their products work, most businesses are trying to reduce or stave off regulation. Yes, they profit from their efforts, but that is what business does. And when business saves money we as consumers save money. Competition is the enemy of regulation and what we should always remember is not only the cost of regulation, but also who benefits each time a new regulation is proposed.
Regulation is a cost. No one is advocating destroying the environment or allowing guns in the streets of Hong Kong. Yet, it would serve Hong Kong well if every time when we hear a call for another rule or restriction on trade that we first examine the costs implicit in increased regulation.
Mark Simon first lived in Hong Kong from 1992 to 1995. Since 2000 he has been an executive with the Next Media group in Hong Kong. He has written on free trade in the Asian Wall Street Journal, IHT, SCMP, and various international policy journals.
Next Magazine
2010-02-11
Every time when we hear a call for more regulation or restriction on trade, we should first examine the implicit cost of such interventions to our economy.
Quite often this column has recognized the Hong Kong government as the key impediment to economic growth, individual liberty, and the operation of free markets. Yet, we would give our civil servants far too much credit to suggest that they come up with the ideas that form the foundations for the ill thought out policies government often inflicts on the Hong Kong people.Ideas, however bad, are the basis for policy. In Hong Kong, as the people are not the final arbitrator of public policy, we have an entire industry of academics, civic/environment activists, professional service providers such as lawyers and accountants, and of course business special interests, unchecked in their quest to add, or in the case of business special interests, delete/re-write, Hong Kong's regulatory framework.
By far the most destructive group in terms of providing the intellectual fodder for new regulation is our, often imported, academic community. 20th Century writer William McGurn commented often on ideas that are so bad only a genius could come up with them. Hong Kong academics continue McGurn's maxim into the 21st century.
One day, maybe, the Asia Institute of Financial Law at the University of Hong Kong will have a speaker who is in favor of the free market. But until that time comes we are stuck with the white guy back-scratching club that sponsors speakers to lecture us on"Green Taxation in East Asia" or"Hong Kong's Tax History and Some of The Questions It Raises". Do you think net tax reductions are favored in either of these talks?
Not that the Institute is completely anti-market. Lawyers, accountants, other leaches of regulation and other financial supporters of the Institute, must be thrilled their donations support the arguments that form increased regulation. Frankly the Institute should go for the fundraising gold and host a seminar:"Laws and Regulation, How You Can Profit From Their Implementation".As for the professional service crowd, if the military industrial complex were half as successful in influencing government as lawyers and accountants were in directing regulatory policies, we would all be wearing camouflage and driving Humvees. The drumbeat for every regulatory cost increase in Hong Kong, from tax code revision, introduction of class action lawsuits, introduction of competition law, and any number of additional securities regulations are, more often than not, driven by those who would profit from their introduction.
Years ago, I was told that if the United States had Hong Kong's tax system, 500,000 lawyers, accountants, tax preparers and government workers would be out of work. But millions more would be in jobs in industries not driven out of the US. Regulations don't create jobs, they add cost.
Civic, social, and environmental activists are always pushing for more government. But at least they are honest about it. One can't really fault Greenpeace for wanting a tax on plastic bags or the Cancer Society wanting to ban smoking in bars. Both are bad ideas that have no real effect, but neither group is making a buck on their bad ideas.
The final group influencing regulation is the business community. With the exception of the new"green industries" and Hong Kong power companies, who need to increase the cost on other products to make their products work, most businesses are trying to reduce or stave off regulation. Yes, they profit from their efforts, but that is what business does. And when business saves money we as consumers save money. Competition is the enemy of regulation and what we should always remember is not only the cost of regulation, but also who benefits each time a new regulation is proposed.
Regulation is a cost. No one is advocating destroying the environment or allowing guns in the streets of Hong Kong. Yet, it would serve Hong Kong well if every time when we hear a call for another rule or restriction on trade that we first examine the costs implicit in increased regulation.
Mark Simon first lived in Hong Kong from 1992 to 1995. Since 2000 he has been an executive with the Next Media group in Hong Kong. He has written on free trade in the Asian Wall Street Journal, IHT, SCMP, and various international policy journals.
2010年2月7日 星期日
中國濫發抗生素 全球恐無藥可用
AppleDaily
2010-02-07
中國抗生素人均年消費量在 138克左右，是美國的 10倍。英國《每日電訊報》指，中國醫務人員濫用抗生素，令抗藥性病菌案例急增。有瑞典傳染病專家擔心，這些抗藥病菌萬一擴散到全球，將令醫學界無藥可用，倒退到無抗生素時代。
內地醫院抗藥病菌急增
英國《每日電訊報》駐京記者扮喉龍痛到藥房買藥，發現即使無醫生紙，五間藥房中有三間都毫不猶豫賣給抗生素。其中一間藥房表示會找醫生補寫回處方。醫院情況更嚴重，六成住院病人都發抗生素。北京大學臨床藥理研究所副所長肖永紅指，醫生濫開抗生素因醫院逾半收入靠賣藥，其中又以抗生素最賺錢。因濫用抗生素，內地醫院抗藥病菌急升；去年廣州運來香港的生豬，亦發現新品種的抗藥性金黃葡萄球菌。中國衞生部曾透露，內地每年濫用抗生素，直接或間接導致八萬人死亡。瑞典傳染病專家指出，中國濫用抗生素情況，令一些感染症首選或次選藥無效，甚至第三或第四類藥也無效。他擔心這些抗藥惡菌擴散全球，令現有抗生素失效。
2010-02-07
中國抗生素人均年消費量在 138克左右，是美國的 10倍。英國《每日電訊報》指，中國醫務人員濫用抗生素，令抗藥性病菌案例急增。有瑞典傳染病專家擔心，這些抗藥病菌萬一擴散到全球，將令醫學界無藥可用，倒退到無抗生素時代。
內地醫院抗藥病菌急增
英國《每日電訊報》駐京記者扮喉龍痛到藥房買藥，發現即使無醫生紙，五間藥房中有三間都毫不猶豫賣給抗生素。其中一間藥房表示會找醫生補寫回處方。醫院情況更嚴重，六成住院病人都發抗生素。北京大學臨床藥理研究所副所長肖永紅指，醫生濫開抗生素因醫院逾半收入靠賣藥，其中又以抗生素最賺錢。因濫用抗生素，內地醫院抗藥病菌急升；去年廣州運來香港的生豬，亦發現新品種的抗藥性金黃葡萄球菌。中國衞生部曾透露，內地每年濫用抗生素，直接或間接導致八萬人死亡。瑞典傳染病專家指出，中國濫用抗生素情況，令一些感染症首選或次選藥無效，甚至第三或第四類藥也無效。他擔心這些抗藥惡菌擴散全球，令現有抗生素失效。
2010年2月5日 星期五
令人震驚的三聚氰胺廣東“路線圖”
金羊網 新快報
2010-02-05
春節前三聚氰胺捲土重來已成為一個不折不扣的悲劇。人們不會忘記，三聚氰胺超標的奶粉當時信誓旦旦號稱已全部被銷毀。
在現有的監管漏洞下，一直“潛伏”的三聚氰胺終於使廣州地區的從化、潮汕地區的潮安在劫難逃。日前廣東省衛生廳食安辦有關負責人證實了這一點，並表示案件目前正在查處。
必須強調，除了從化、潮安，省內包括廣州市還有哪些地方仍飄蕩著三聚氰胺的陰魂，公眾恐怕暫時還不得而知，也無法僅僅根據有關部門的通報來判斷，因為他們最多只能通報“已發現的”，但有沒有發現，和事實上是否存在，並不是一回事。
三聚氰胺為什麼會出現在不屬於“市區”的從化、潮安？
從邏輯上講，三聚氰胺會以隱蔽的形式在全國向任何地方滲透和擴散，因為哪兒都是市場。然而，在打擊的高壓態勢下，這一點還是毫無疑問的：相比於城市，在農村地區或城市郊區，三聚氰胺更沒有被發現的風險。
其一就是漏洞百出的監管體系在農村地區和城市郊區更形同癱瘓，對市場上的任何有毒商品更不敏感；其二就是農村地區和城市郊區的居民，即使吃了有毒奶粉，除非有“集體中毒”這樣具有刺激性的衝擊和聚焦效應，否則難以被意識和關注到，而這樣，也就無法驅動監管部門的權力運作。
事實上，相比於城市市區，農村地區和城市效區對於含有三聚氰胺的“毒奶粉”之類的“商品”的防範體系非常脆弱。這倒並不在於農民比市民更缺乏辨別商品有無毒害的知識(大家實際上都差不多，都無法辨別)，而是由於收入水準的限制，農民無法選擇在心理上對他們來說更有品質和安全保證的商品(比如進口奶粉)。農村地區和城市郊區差不多是各種假冒偽劣商品和有毒商品的傾銷地。在趨利避害的本能下，三聚氰胺更偏愛農村和城市郊區，實屬必然。
這是農村地區和城市郊區在現代化進程中的又一曲挽歌。它承擔了從城市轉移而來的“消費風險”。而對此，當地的監管部門似乎並不感到吃驚。
媒體注意到：就從化麵包坊的三聚氰胺事件，廣州市衛生局法監處一負責人表示，廣東省衛生廳已將衛生部的通報轉發給廣州市工商、市質監、市衛生局等部門。至於是哪個單位去查處，這位元負責人說他也不清楚，他分析或者是工商部門或者是質監部門。但工商部門認為，他們主要監管流通領域，不可能去工廠檢查，因為“生產領域主要由質監部門和食品安全辦”。而衛生監督所則說他們的監管範圍是廣州市的餐飲單位，麵包坊不歸他們管。
從三聚氰胺到廣東的“路線圖”看，可謂一環扣一環，緊密而悄然無聲地滲入市場。然而，與之相比，負有監管職責的政府各部門卻奉行條塊管理，相互扯皮，有利益就上，沒利益就推卸責任，實在讓人震驚。三聚氰胺都已經出現了還如此遲鈍，更別說主動去防禦和發現三聚氰胺。
這樣的監管體系與其說是在負起監管責任，不如說只是給政府各部門劃定“利益範圍”，並給“毒奶粉”等留足空間。僅僅要這些部門承擔起責任是不夠的，最重要的是對改善和重構這樣的監管體系承擔責任。
編輯：楊日
2010-02-05
春節前三聚氰胺捲土重來已成為一個不折不扣的悲劇。人們不會忘記，三聚氰胺超標的奶粉當時信誓旦旦號稱已全部被銷毀。
在現有的監管漏洞下，一直“潛伏”的三聚氰胺終於使廣州地區的從化、潮汕地區的潮安在劫難逃。日前廣東省衛生廳食安辦有關負責人證實了這一點，並表示案件目前正在查處。
必須強調，除了從化、潮安，省內包括廣州市還有哪些地方仍飄蕩著三聚氰胺的陰魂，公眾恐怕暫時還不得而知，也無法僅僅根據有關部門的通報來判斷，因為他們最多只能通報“已發現的”，但有沒有發現，和事實上是否存在，並不是一回事。
三聚氰胺為什麼會出現在不屬於“市區”的從化、潮安？
從邏輯上講，三聚氰胺會以隱蔽的形式在全國向任何地方滲透和擴散，因為哪兒都是市場。然而，在打擊的高壓態勢下，這一點還是毫無疑問的：相比於城市，在農村地區或城市郊區，三聚氰胺更沒有被發現的風險。
其一就是漏洞百出的監管體系在農村地區和城市郊區更形同癱瘓，對市場上的任何有毒商品更不敏感；其二就是農村地區和城市郊區的居民，即使吃了有毒奶粉，除非有“集體中毒”這樣具有刺激性的衝擊和聚焦效應，否則難以被意識和關注到，而這樣，也就無法驅動監管部門的權力運作。
事實上，相比於城市市區，農村地區和城市效區對於含有三聚氰胺的“毒奶粉”之類的“商品”的防範體系非常脆弱。這倒並不在於農民比市民更缺乏辨別商品有無毒害的知識(大家實際上都差不多，都無法辨別)，而是由於收入水準的限制，農民無法選擇在心理上對他們來說更有品質和安全保證的商品(比如進口奶粉)。農村地區和城市郊區差不多是各種假冒偽劣商品和有毒商品的傾銷地。在趨利避害的本能下，三聚氰胺更偏愛農村和城市郊區，實屬必然。
這是農村地區和城市郊區在現代化進程中的又一曲挽歌。它承擔了從城市轉移而來的“消費風險”。而對此，當地的監管部門似乎並不感到吃驚。
媒體注意到：就從化麵包坊的三聚氰胺事件，廣州市衛生局法監處一負責人表示，廣東省衛生廳已將衛生部的通報轉發給廣州市工商、市質監、市衛生局等部門。至於是哪個單位去查處，這位元負責人說他也不清楚，他分析或者是工商部門或者是質監部門。但工商部門認為，他們主要監管流通領域，不可能去工廠檢查，因為“生產領域主要由質監部門和食品安全辦”。而衛生監督所則說他們的監管範圍是廣州市的餐飲單位，麵包坊不歸他們管。
從三聚氰胺到廣東的“路線圖”看，可謂一環扣一環，緊密而悄然無聲地滲入市場。然而，與之相比，負有監管職責的政府各部門卻奉行條塊管理，相互扯皮，有利益就上，沒利益就推卸責任，實在讓人震驚。三聚氰胺都已經出現了還如此遲鈍，更別說主動去防禦和發現三聚氰胺。
這樣的監管體系與其說是在負起監管責任，不如說只是給政府各部門劃定“利益範圍”，並給“毒奶粉”等留足空間。僅僅要這些部門承擔起責任是不夠的，最重要的是對改善和重構這樣的監管體系承擔責任。
編輯：楊日
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
