I know I just cautioned you about purchasing products that are ingested or applied to the skin from China, but here comes another Made in China cautionary tale. This time it is a chair that can cause chemical burns to the skin--just from sitting on it!  French retailer in hot seat over Chinese chairs,

One customer, Caroline Morin, said Friday she was stunned to learn the chair she bought last December appears to have caused the skin problems she says she suffered for months.

"You sit comfortably on something and in fact you have a bomb under your butt," she said.

... 

A rash of cases have cropped up in Britain, too. British attorney Christian Shotton said his law firm, Russell, Jones & Walker, is representing 1,300 people who bought Linkwise recliners and sofas from British retailers and who are suing for compensation. He said there have been other cases in Sweden and Finland.

"Some of the children, some of the babies, are covered head to toe," in burns, rashes and infections, Shotton said.

The Chinese as a culture doesn't seem to have any prohibitions to stealing intellectual property or producing products that are not what they are supposed to be--as in the baby formula and dog food.

This chair problem was more of an "innocent" mistake--one made out of ignorance. The burns and rashes were a reaction to a mold retardant. The manufacturer made an error in judgment in that if a little mold retardant is good, more must be better.

Normally, just one sachet of the anti-mold chemical is meant to be inserted into the chairs, but some contained as many as 10, said a Conforama spokeswoman, Stephanie Mathieu.

She said the Chinese firm told Conforama that "as it was the monsoon season they decided that they needed to put more sachets in." 

Need another reason to buy only from legitimate manufacturers from more developed countries? How about this latest one?

The toxic chemical, melamine, has showed up in White Rabbit, a taffy type candy sold in China and other countries, including United States. The article said that tiny amounts of melamine would not be enough to be lethal as it was in the infant formula or pet foods, but it still should not be there. It could cause kidney stones or other health problems.

I am afraid to ask this, but what next?

UPDATE: I didn't even get the above posted and the food warning expands. This group, like the White Rabbit candy, included anything creamy, such as chocolate. Melamine again is the culprit.

"We have to think about any processed food with milk or protein in it," said James Rice, a food industry veteran who is now China country manager for Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN), the world's largest meat processor.

None of these products seems to have hit the mainstream American markets, but Kraft Foods was mentioned in the article.

When rumors of melamine-related recalls of Oreos and other sweets spread by phone text messages and on the Internet earlier this week, Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) hastened to reassure customers that none of its Oreo-brand products contain milk powder from China.

Oreo fillings contain no milk, while Oreo cookies with icing on them use milk powder from Australia, it said. "Regardless of where they are produced, Kraft products are always held to the highest quality and safety standards," the company said.

Who knew their Oreo wasn't 100% made in the USA? 

We are not big Oreo fans, but I can see I am going to have to really start reading that fine print on product wrappers. Ah, the joys of a global market.

UPDATE: There is more...Cadbury pulls Made in China chocolate. (Not US) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

UPDATE: Two world-wise, twenty-something young women today and I were talking about the Miley picture. Their reaction surprised me because they did not seem all that conservative. They both thought the picture was in inappropriate. Good, I thought, there is hope for today's youth. They then went on to tell me of another picture from that shoot that they both deemed "creepy". It was of Billy Ray with Miley draped over his leg--hardly a father daughter pose. This photo will be harder for Billy Ray to claim, I would not have allowed that pose had I been there. Obviously, he was!

I had not seen the picture of Miley Cyrus until this morning, but I did hear plenty about it on the radio yesterday. The photo looks pretty much as I expected it to look. It was not the amount of skin--she could have been wearing a halter swim suit at the beach--it was the context.

Actually, I am glad the public is shocked to see "Hannah Montana" portrayed as a sexy woman. It shows at least some concern for the loss of innocence in our children. 

Possibly it was because of the juxtaposition of the squeaky clean Hannah image with the sultry photo of Miley Cyrus that the reaction has been so pronounced. Maybe it will serve as a wake up call to parents of girls in particular that allowing our little girls and minor teens to look like sex objects is sending the wrong signal.

Miley's parents, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for this photo shoot.  A young girl is not going to tell a famous photographer no--especially since young girls are often anxious to look older than their years. The famous photographer Leibovtiz is only after taking another controversial picture featuring a lot of skin. I would have thought that Disney would have been more protective of Hannah's image though.

How could a parent sit by and watch this happen to their daughter? (A comment on Fairly Conservative stated that according to ET, the parents were not there for the actual shoot, but Mercury News indicated otherwise.) 

Whether dad was there or not, may I suggest that in the world of theater and dance, artists have a very casual attitude about their bodies. Modesty is pretty rare.  It is not unusual to see a stark naked actor or dancer sitting at their makeup table or even having a conversation with a wardrobe person as if nothing was odd. I don't know if this was the case with Miley, but she and her dad obviously did not seem to think draping her naked self in a satin sheet was odd.

Sometimes like the frog in the pot being desensitized to rising temperatures, we are desensitized to the increased sexing up of our children. It is only when caught in the stark light of public scrutiny that the Cyrus family seemed to realize how inappropriate this picture and image was.

But before we start pointing our fingers just at the Cyruses, I have seen lots of teen girls in public with their parents dressed in a very trampy way. Ads in the Sunday paper for teen clothing make many of them look like they are looking for night work. Parents often want to keep their girls from looking like that, but when met with resistance they just give in and say, what can we do about it?

It is up to parents to protect their children from losing their innocence. That means not allowing them to be vulnerable to inappropriate situations, not allowing just any PG-13 movie to be viewed--some are very inappropriate, not allowing unlimited access to the internet in remote areas of the home, not allowing access to any TV show, and not allowing the school district to decide what is appropriate information for your child to learn about Human Growth and Development.

Protecting our children's innocence is our responsibility. We must take the time to investigate, filter, and shield.  Hopefully Miley's photo will jolt parents to say, what is going on here?

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park