The New Intimacy

How do You Feel About Corporate Dumping?

Skip to last post
Set alerts
Updates
Forum search
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Corporate Dumping is considered a corporate crime by some and is an international harm in many ways, but it often goes unpunished because technically it isn't illegal.

Corporate dumping is essentially "dumping" a product not deemed fit for the United States onto other countries (usually third world) by exporting goods that have been banned or not approved for sale. So basically we are given our reject products to countries where they don't protect their citizens as well or have as high of standards to still make a profit.

On example in the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. It killed 17 women in the US before it was pulled from the market. It was then shipped to third world countries.

How do you feel about this? Is it ethical just because the other countries might not have pulled it if it was manufactured there first? Are certain products okay and not others? Or is this wrong in all ways?
Answers (public voting - your screen name will appear in the results):
It's fine, it's not here and it follows their standards
It's ok for certain products
Janis , gsfanatic , SoloJoe
3
It's not ok under any case-should be illegal
cherryredhead88 , Viktor Vysheslav Malkin , El-Jaro , Selective Sensualist , Avant-garde , Alegria , Naughty Student , OhMy! , The Nakanas , ToyGeek , kitti , PuplePleasures , Cadence , bigboybig , Anne Ardeur , cburger , darthkitt3n , K101 , Spring , LavenderSkies , curmudgeoncat , lovemuscle n cookie , The Curious Couple , Errant Venture , Andersonda , Rhazya , Brianna91 , Mysterious Mr. L , MaryExy , BlackCrescent , neil i. , glasskitten , Stagger13 , sweetpea12 , Kenneth Fort , roskat , bettle590 , Rory , ThingsBetchesLove , iabicpl09 , glassrose , falalena
42
WTF???? I didn't know we did this
Dusk , Persephone Nightmare , DeliciousSurprise , Lady Venus , Jenniae09 , Selective Sensualist , Alegria , meganthomas , Naughty Student , PuplePleasures , Cora Jane , Rhazya , MaryExy , BlackCrescent , ThingsBetchesLove , Beaners
16
Other
~LaUr3n~ , the bedroom blogger , DeliciousSurprise , onehotmomma , Lady Venus , Tori Rebel , Sir , Kindred , Victoria , Unconventional , wetone123 , Janis , NarcissisticLust , kokopelli , jay28 , Love Perpetua , glasskitten , Missmarc , leanright69 , Gunsmoke , Beaners
21
Total votes: 82 (69 voters)
Poll is closed
10/06/2010
  • Treat Her! Gift Set For Women For $69.99 Only
  • Complete lovers gift set
  • Upgrade Your Hands-Free Play!
  • Long-distance pleasure set for couples
  • Save Extra 20% On Love Cushion And Toy Set!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
I don't really know how to feel about this since I see both sides. We are offering products to countries that might not get them otherwise. While the Dalkon Shield example did kill people, it also helped many more. From a utilitarian perspective it helped the greater good of the greatest number of people. But...there still is the ethics of it. It seems wrong especially when looking at the financial push behind it.
10/06/2010
Contributor: the bedroom blogger the bedroom blogger
I want to say that it should definitely be illegal. I mean, if we recall something in this country because it is unsafe and can lead to death, then we shouldn't pawn it off on anyone else just to make a buck. However, I see your point in that we are offering products to people that do have value that they may not have access to otherwise. I guess it is really the fact that most just do it to make a profit that rubs me the wrong way. If there was some sort of health warning or disclaimer in the cases that the products proved harmful in some cases, I would feel much better about this. If the countries we are shipping these potentially harmful to were made aware of the risks, then their citizens could make use of them at their own risk.
10/06/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by the bedroom blogger
I want to say that it should definitely be illegal. I mean, if we recall something in this country because it is unsafe and can lead to death, then we shouldn't pawn it off on anyone else just to make a buck. However, I see your point in that ... more
Unfortunately, I bet that even if disclaimers are made there is probably a language barrier and or poor education anyways. I'm not sure that the risks would be fully understood.
10/06/2010
Contributor: cherryredhead88 cherryredhead88
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
Corporate Dumping is considered a corporate crime by some and is an international harm in many ways, but it often goes unpunished because technically it isn't illegal.

Corporate dumping is essentially "dumping" a product not ... more
I will keep my opinions to myself on this subject, but my vote will say enough
10/06/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by cherryredhead88
I will keep my opinions to myself on this subject, but my vote will say enough
Piddle! I won't place any judgments. I'm sure there are ones I would find much less damaging.
10/06/2010
Contributor: the bedroom blogger the bedroom blogger
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
Unfortunately, I bet that even if disclaimers are made there is probably a language barrier and or poor education anyways. I'm not sure that the risks would be fully understood.
Right...which is why I want to say it should be illegal...but in a perfect world, disclaimers that would be properly interpreted and understood would be in place so that people are made aware of the possible risks, but still have access to the possible benefits. But in the case that something we have banned in the US causes serious harm in most cases, I think it should in no way be allowed. Blah...this is a tough one.
10/06/2010
Contributor: onehotmomma onehotmomma
I think products that are killers (like the one you mentioned) shouldn't be allowed to be dumped on other countries. Especially third world countries. I think a lot of third world countries especially people who live in remote areas and have no idea what's happening in the world will have the attitude "It came from america, it's going to help us" which isn't always the case.

I'm a momma and things get pulled off the shelves all the freaking time, which I believe is due to stupidity. Why let a perfectly good high chair go to waste because the BACK of it has a hook that can hurt your child if he's CRAWLING OUT OF HIS SEAT. Makes no sense, why not give them to other countries who don't have mass produced products like that?

Even clothing products that get recalled, they should be given to someone needing them.

I think there should be a law that prohibits certain things from being passed onto other countries, but not everything.
10/06/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by onehotmomma
I think products that are killers (like the one you mentioned) shouldn't be allowed to be dumped on other countries. Especially third world countries. I think a lot of third world countries especially people who live in remote areas and have no ... more
You bring up a very good point. SOME products are only pulled because they fear being sued. Other countries don't have that fear and the products could be just fine given they are used with common sense.
10/06/2010
Contributor: Sir Sir
I do not believe in any form of global trade. So no.

I do not care what it is - I think that we should work within our country, for our country. If we make something faulty, then it should be taken off of the market, period, not sent elsewhere for a few dimes.
10/06/2010
Contributor: Tori Rebel Tori Rebel
I remember this happening a few years back with Bayer or Tylenol or something like that as well. There was a problem with a very large batch and it was sent to other countries. I think it's morally wrong for the US companies to sell it to anyone knowing it could be harmful, but at the same time, how many products ARE sold in the US that are known to be harmful. Birth control can cause blood clots especially in smokers and I know too many smokers still prescribed and sold the pills here. They do what the governing bodies allow - and in the cases where our governing bodies (FDA) won't allow a product to be sold, other countries with more lax or no standards will allow it. So while it is ethical, according to the country the product is sold in, it's legal.

I see your point on people not being able to get certain products if it weren't for US companies selling them. I also see our own government allowing US pharmaceutical companies to sell things here that can be very harmful. The anti-depressant Paxil has been known to cause suicide. Does it in some? yes. Most? no. Women get blood clots and die from birth control. Vioxx killed quite a few people, but gave a lot more a VASTLY different, pain-free quality of life. I honestly don't know WHAT my opinion is. It's part good/part bad/part government/part ethics.
10/06/2010
Contributor: Viktor Vysheslav Malkin Viktor Vysheslav Malkin
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
Corporate Dumping is considered a corporate crime by some and is an international harm in many ways, but it often goes unpunished because technically it isn't illegal.

Corporate dumping is essentially "dumping" a product not ... more
There just has to be a better way.
10/06/2010
Contributor: Kindred Kindred
While I don't know the specifics regarding the Dalkon Shield, there are some things to consider:

All drugs have risks involved. However, a disclaimer is not always an acceptable method in the US. In approving a product, the FDA evaluates the benefit/risk ratio. They try to answer, do the potential benefits of the drug outweigh the risks, because there are risks associated with all drugs.

The other factor is what other options are available. With an IUD, there are many options available. Therefore, a disclaimer would not be an acceptable solution since there are "safer" products available that provide the same benefit.

Lastly, products can be approved by various countries, and they are not all approved equally. Some products are approved in the US but not in say EU countries, and vice versa. Each country has their own requirements in terms of approving drugs.

So with the Dalkon Shield (and I don't know this, this is just my example), it's possible that it is still approved in another country despite the US recalling it. Similarly, if we apply how the US evaluates a drugs risk/benefit, there may not be similar drugs available in these other countries. Therefore, the risk/benefit ratio is different for that country than in the US.

I'm by no means condoning corporate dumping, but it may not be as simple as it appears on face value.
10/06/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by Tori Rebel
I remember this happening a few years back with Bayer or Tylenol or something like that as well. There was a problem with a very large batch and it was sent to other countries. I think it's morally wrong for the US companies to sell it to ... more
Wow i didn't know they sent that away!?!? I heard about it being here though.

You have a good point. For example the Horrmel meat packaging plant was caught for RE-packaging and dying old meat that was sent back to them. Basically they were dying out the discoloration and adding unnatural flavors to cover up spoil.

Paxil's problem was that they were lying about clinical trials and didn't have any warning. I just saw a film on that actually.

Very good info! Thanks for sharing!
10/07/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
While I don't know the specifics regarding the Dalkon Shield, there are some things to consider:

All drugs have risks involved. However, a disclaimer is not always an acceptable method in the US. In approving a product, the FDA evaluates ... more
It is an intrauterine device. Something that goes inside of you. It's not a pill. It also caused miscarriages if the woman was pregnant. But yes that is why they sent it off because the countries didn't have as high of standards. I hear your point.
10/07/2010
Contributor: Naughty Student Naughty Student
Wow, I had no idea this was done or is being done, it's quite scary. I think it is quite disgusting actually and totally disagree with it. It's disrespectful at a surface level and harmful at a deeper level. Its like murdering/harming people through an intermdeiary product. It should be illegal.
10/26/2010
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by Naughty Student
Wow, I had no idea this was done or is being done, it's quite scary. I think it is quite disgusting actually and totally disagree with it. It's disrespectful at a surface level and harmful at a deeper level. Its like murdering/harming people ... more
I knew about it, but I didn't know about these cases I recently learned about. It's pathetic.
10/26/2010
Contributor: Unconventional Unconventional
Well, some things (like medications) that have an expiration date have a "buffer" time. I assume this isn't what is typical with the whole corporate dumping thing, but I agree with the seeing both sides aspect. On one hand, a lot of our standards are put in place WITH a buffer so asses are covered. If someone can benefit from it, that's great. I think that certain things (like items that are known to cause fatalities) should not be allowed anywhere.
10/26/2010
Contributor: Blinker Blinker
This is like DDT...

DDT is incredibly harmful and is banned here in the US as a pesticide, but we still mass produce it and sell it to other countries, especially those in Latin America. They use it on their crops then that produce ends up here as a cheaper alternative to locally grown produce. It's cheaper so we buy it and are basically ingesting the same DDT that the US has outlawed years ago.

Circle of poison.
11/03/2010
Contributor: ToyGeek ToyGeek
Horrific. I'd like a list of corporations which have done this so I can boycott them forever.
11/04/2010
Contributor: Janis Janis
If it's something like an intrauterine device that is shown to kill people, absolutely not! However, if it's something like a shirt that was cut crookedly, it's not going to harm anyone, and I suppose would be ok.
04/09/2011
Contributor: K101 K101
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
I don't really know how to feel about this since I see both sides. We are offering products to countries that might not get them otherwise. While the Dalkon Shield example did kill people, it also helped many more. From a utilitarian perspective ... more
I didn't even think of that point. I do understand what you mean there. Now, I guess I can really see how it can be beneficial in certain ways.
05/20/2011
Contributor: LavenderSkies LavenderSkies
Quote:
Originally posted by the bedroom blogger
I want to say that it should definitely be illegal. I mean, if we recall something in this country because it is unsafe and can lead to death, then we shouldn't pawn it off on anyone else just to make a buck. However, I see your point in that ... more
I completely agree.
06/03/2011
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by ToyGeek
Horrific. I'd like a list of corporations which have done this so I can boycott them forever.
I actually can give you a small list if you'd like.
07/11/2011
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
Quote:
Originally posted by Janis
If it's something like an intrauterine device that is shown to kill people, absolutely not! However, if it's something like a shirt that was cut crookedly, it's not going to harm anyone, and I suppose would be ok.
I agree.
07/11/2011
Contributor: Errant Venture Errant Venture
I get that on some products it's okay, but I feel it's unethical. It's kind of like saying 'we're too good for this, but it's okay for you.'
07/12/2011
Contributor: edenguy edenguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Blinker
This is like DDT...

DDT is incredibly harmful and is banned here in the US as a pesticide, but we still mass produce it and sell it to other countries, especially those in Latin America. They use it on their crops then that produce ends up ... more
I don't disagree. Still there is the Utilitarian principle discussed above. It's worth evaluating any possible benefits of ddt against the costs
08/27/2012
Contributor: edenguy edenguy
I tend to learn towards informing the consumers of the risks involved and letting them decide. I acknowledge the practical obstacles of getting proper information. Furthermore, this is within reason. Something cannot be blatantly dangerous.
08/27/2012
Contributor: glasskitten glasskitten
Quote:
Originally posted by ~LaUr3n~
I don't really know how to feel about this since I see both sides. We are offering products to countries that might not get them otherwise. While the Dalkon Shield example did kill people, it also helped many more. From a utilitarian perspective ... more
I didn't know that we shipped the Dalkon Shield elsewhere. Jeez! And where did you read that it actually helped anyone? Because from what I've read, there was no way in hell that horrible little thing could be effective at it's intended use.

And yes, 17 women died, but thousands were injured! Considering how all the studies to get it approved by the FDA were fudged, I just don't see how there is any way this device could have any utilitarian benefit... unless that benefit was killing/maiming tons of people. *shudder*

As an IUD user myself, I'm very interested in the history of the device. I'd love any information you could send my way regarding our dumping the Dalkon's on other countries and if those countries somehow benefited from it (I tried to find the info myself, but came up mostly empty-handed).
09/24/2012
Contributor: gsfanatic gsfanatic
Frankly, much as it kills me to say it, sometimes it's an okay practice. Unfortunately, that's the only way some people would have any access to certain supplies, even if they carry a higher risk than the US would allow. That said, I'd much prefer if corporations couldn't do it because better safe products were available
09/24/2012