I would like to use the document attached
I would like to use the document attached (Week 1 _ case .docx) with less plagerisum. I attached the case studies
for the questions if needed. Thanks in advance.
ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Download attachmentQuestion 1 caseWhen it comes to the safety of young children, Fre is a parent’s nightmare.Just the thought of their young ones trapped in their cribs and beds by araging nocturnal blaze is enough to make most mothers and fathers takeevery precaution to ensure their children’s safety. Little wonder that whenFre-retardant children’s pajamas Frst hit the market, they proved anovernight success. Within a few short years more than 200 million pairswere sold, and the sales of millions more were all but guaranteed. ±or theirmanufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. Then, like a boltfrom the blue, came word that the pajamas were killers. The U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission (CPSC) moved quickly to ban their sale andrecall millions of pairs. Reason: The pajamas contained the ²ame-retardantchemical Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidneycancer in children.Because of its toxicity, the sleepwear couldn’t even be thrown away, letalone sold. Indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were tobe disposed of—buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths.Whereas just months earlier the manufacturers of the Tris-impregnatedpajamas couldn’t Fll orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying abouthow to get rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses.Soon, however, ads began appearing in the classiFed pages ofWomen’sWear Daily.“Tris-Tris-Tris … We will buy any fabric containing Tris,” readone. Another said, “Tris—we will purchase any large quantities of garmentscontaining Tris.” The ads had been placed by exporters, who began buyingup the pajamas, usually at 10 to 30 percent of the normal wholesale price.Their intent was clear: to dump*the carcinogenic pajamas on overseasmarkets.20Tris is not the only example of dumping. There were the 450,000 babypaciFers, of the type known to have caused choking deaths, that wereexported for sale overseas, and the 400 Iraqis who died and the 5,000 whowere hospitalized after eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-bannedorganic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic male hormone that hadbeen found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available inBrazil as an appetite stimulant for children. DowElanco sold its weed killerGalant in Costa Rica, although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)forbade its sale to U.S. farmers because Galant may cause cancer. After theU.S. ±ood and Drug Administration (±DA) banned the painkiller dipyronebecause it can cause a fatal blood disorder, Winthrop Products continued tosell dipyrone in Mexico City.
View the AnswerManufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by proFt,or at least by the hope of avoiding Fnancial losses resulting from having towithdraw a product from the U.S. market. ±or government and healthagencies that cooperate in the exporting of dangerous products, sometimesthe motives are more complex.±or example, when researchers documented the dangers of the DalkonShield intrauterine device—among the adverse reactions were pelvicin²ammation, blood poisoning, tubal pregnancies, and uterine perforations—its manufacturer, A. H. Robins Co., began losing its domestic market. As aresult, the company worked out a deal with the O³ce of Population withinthe U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), whereby AID boughtthousands of the devices at a reduced price for use in population-controlprograms in forty-two countries.Why do governmental and population-control agencies approve for sale anduse overseas a birth-control device proved dangerous in the United States?They say their motives are humanitarian. Because the death rate inchildbirth is relatively high in third-world countries, almost any birth-control device is safer than pregnancy. Analogous arguments are used todefend the export of pesticides and other products judged too dangerous foruse in the United States: ±oreign countries should be free to decide forthemselves whether the beneFts of those products are worth their risks. Inline with this, some third-world government o³cials insist that denyingtheir countries access to these products is tantamount to violating theircountries’ national sovereignty.This reasoning has found a sympathetic ear in Washington, for it turns up inthe “notiFcation” system that regulates the export of banned or dangerousproducts overseas. Based on the principles of national sovereignty, self-determination, and free trade, the notiFcation system requires that foreigngovernments be notiFed whenever a product is banned, deregulated,suspended, or canceled by a U.S. regulatory agency. The State Department,which implements the system, has a policy statement on the subject thatreads in part: “No country should establish itself as the arbiter of others’health and safety standards. Individual governments are generally in thebest position to establish standards of public health and safety.”Critics of the system claim that notifying foreign health o³cials is virtuallyuseless. ±or one thing, governments in poor countries can rarely establishhealth standards or even control imports into their countries. Indeed, mostof the third-world countries where banned or dangerous products aredumped lack regulatory agencies, adequate testing facilities, and well-sta´ed customs departments.
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
