2007年6月27日 星期三 ( C9 W2 Y2 h; |" x& I5 K 0 B& c+ e! B3 V3 F1 {. ]
中国以产品不安全为由扣留了两批来自美国的食品，并警告要加强对美国输华食品的检验检疫程序。6 O: i5 W E2 p* q4 Q7 p: \
$ \7 G6 F/ E. O% m0 `中国食品安全检查部门昨日在其网站上表示，政府检查人员分别截获了从美国船运来的柳橙果肉和杏脯，因为这些产品含有过量的细菌和霉菌。9 V, g0 Q% w! f& Z$ Z* K* i
1 w4 @; k# ^9 G- V7 X由于美国不久前爆发了一系列有关中国进口产品的质量丑闻，因此，很多进口商会将这项公告视为中国官方的一种报复。 $ m5 {/ p0 ]* W: Z8 U 2 C- ^8 g3 p+ j$ @
在声明发布前一天，美国监管机构宣布召回一家中国公司制造的多达45万个轮胎，原因是这些轮胎存在安全隐患。 q, I. N# r* G8 T2 H- H2 O& b5 k3 j ~6 O) r
中国国家质量监督检验检疫总局(General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine)表示，柳橙果肉是在东部省份山东查获的，杏脯是在深圳查获的。 1 m" Z+ L# B2 @ W4 w 4 v* k8 g: W: p. C! s/ T4 v2 t质检总局表示这些货物“细菌总数、霉菌和二氧化硫含量超标”，但没有具体说明查获的时间和数量。' P" e2 ]+ ^+ M
7 z6 z. s4 a- W8 P
该机构在声明中表示，已要求地方质检部门“加强对美国输华食品的检验检疫”。+ a8 Y' j! d/ n' L+ x, @
' N# q3 X( I5 _# b* J1 m! X5 S
某欧洲贸易公司驻上海的一位高管表示：“没有看到关于这些货物的细节，我们说什么都没有把握，但显然，这看起来像是要引开人们对中国及其自身质量问题的关注。” " f: M! Q5 E' ]' J& e- y- _! B5 l( A+ Y- |
美国政府下属的国家公路交通安全管理局(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)周一宣布召回新泽西州分销商Foreign Tire Sales销售的轮胎，这些轮胎可用于有篷货车、SUV和小型敞篷载货卡车。 ; v, k: ~) K. B: Z7 X" W& L! p7 }! K4 Q' q
由中国杭州中策橡胶有限公司(Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber)制造的这些轮胎缺少一层帮助加固轮胎、防止胎面分离的橡胶层——2000年，正是这个问题导致美国大规模召回凡世通轮胎(Firestone)。记者昨日未能联系到杭州中策的管理人员置评。 0 S' a( N2 ?- J" a % T- Q `& u1 t + M( d& u; H' T" E4 ?By Geoff Dyer in Shanghai ) C8 A4 E; m7 F4 |. E a* W4 s. z
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - X+ c8 I; o7 ^6 h! ?% u8 @
; I e" Q, [; L P4 g
# X7 K2 b l' S o5 O1 O) [$ HBEIJING'S SEIZURE OF US FOOD SEEN AS RETALIATION& s# H" t) i" H j
2 z- v) t1 K( jChina has impounded two shipments of food from the US on the grounds that the produce is unsafe and warned that procedures for monitoring American food imports should be tightened. * D; j6 f# R1 g3 B' T5 o: W s8 V4 O
Government inspectors seized separate shipments of orange pulp and apricots from the US because they contained excessive bacteria and mould, China's food safety inspectorate said yesterday on its website.8 W$ B U, i: n' X0 S: V' _! I
6 P5 S$ q/ \3 G
Coming on the back of a series of scandals in the US over the quality of imported goods from China, the announcement will be considered by many importers as a form of retaliation by the Chinese authorities. , @( Y4 u X" F, z) B% [+ Q/ V # H. k, r& j. I1 T2 uThe statement comes one day after regulators in the US announced a recall of up to 450,000 tyres manufactured by a Chinese company because of a potentially dangerous safety problem. % |' Y* Y" X0 ^. j2 M2 K4 B5 ? $ @ S5 E# K6 a% Y7 oChina's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said it had impounded the orange pulp in the eastern province of Shandong and the apricots were seized in Shenzhen. , }& u4 ]" {& g9 g" r2 o1 V! e ( ]7 q8 Q+ h* W5 ?The shipments contained “excessive bacteria, mould and sulphur dioxide”, the agency said, but gave no details about when they were impounded or how big the shipments were.0 X/ Y& Z0 g2 X% _! Q
* m& M* X+ e3 k: z" W" c( s4 J/ z9 Y! A
The agency's statement said local departments had been advised to “strengthen quarantine and inspections on food imports from America”. 0 Q. q0 L6 {% _7 s" t9 O+ G5 b0 f1 T5 Y' V. ~$ ?" @: f( f! e
An executive at a European trading company based in Shanghai said: “We cannot say anything for sure without seeing details about the shipments, but it certainly looks like a way of deflecting some of the attention away from China and its own quality problems.” / T! `. j: C/ l " I v& I8 A1 aThe US government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced on Monday the recall of tyres sold by Foreign Tire Sales, a New Jersey distributor, which are used in vans, sports utility vehicles and pick-up trucks.! e2 Q( d& c' \2 Y, N0 L4 X7 J
: f% g" R) B2 u, e4 h; T
The tyres, made by a Chinese company called Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber, lacked a gum strip that helps strengthen the tyre and prevent tread separation – the problem that caused a massive recall of Firestone tyres in the US in 2000. Officials at Hangzhou Zhongce could not be reached for comment yesterday./ T6 C$ S" I! `" r
3 w1 C' E+ f1 x, q- ^/ N* e) J( m
, E9 R2 a+ v' i. A/ _( k& o3 A. v
Financial Times
