Haagen Daz ice cream costs 32 yuan a cup in south China, and is available only at select outlets. Locally made ice creams cost between 1.5 to 5 yuan, but a foreigner has to hunt rather hard to get a decent flavour. Hence the occasional Belgian Chocolate treat at the nearest Haagen Daz outlet is ? or used to be ? a much-relished affair.

This June, the internationally renowned brand was caught manufacturing its delectable desserts in conditions that would put any ?haath-gaadi? manufacturer to shame. A tip-off to the local food inspectors? office resulted in a raid at the Haagen Daz ?factory? in the city of Shenzen, mainland China?s much-touted answer to Hong Kong. It turned out to be a three-room apartment, with a toilet next to the ice cream processing area and a trash can right next to cooking facilities. The staff showed the inspectors a permit meant for a different location.

The ice cream found there was disposed of and the ?factory? sealed. A fine of 50,000 yuan later, Haagen Daz apologized.

The discovery prompted similar raids on local ice cream manufacturers, who, expectedly, were found operating in even worse conditions.

Haagen Daz is only the latest in a series of big brands which have been caught taking unfair advantage of the Chinese consumers? craze for foreign brand names. Before this, Nestle was at the centre of an unsavoury controversy over its baby milk powder. When babies began dying of malnutrition caused by fake milk powder last year, most Chinese blamed domestic manufacturers and switched to Nestle. But reports this May confirmed that Nestle?s baby milk powder was found to have more than permissible levels of iodine. Initially, the Swiss giant denied the reports. It took two weeks of intense public pressure to get Nestle to remove the faulty packs from stores and to refund consumers. It later apologized and promised to increase the frequency of iodine testing.

Unsavoury truths

KFC adopted a similar attitude when confronted with the allegation that it was using the banned Sudan 1 dye on its temptingly red fried chicken. Heinz, however, withdrew its sauces after the Sudan 1 scandal broke out in the West.

China today is the fourth largest grower of genetically modified crops. The Chinese government, like most governments, isn?t too keen on its janata getting too knowledgeable about the GM controversy. A study on GM crops and products in China, published by the US journal, AgBioForum, quotes a 2001 confidential study done for China?s State Council that recommends keeping ?reports about transgenic crops strictly in check, in order to prevent unsuitable news and stirred-up (chaozuo) reports, and reduce negative impacts.?

Expectedly, an AgBioForum survey in 2003 of 1,000 consumers, found only a fifth knew what GM meant. It took Greenpeace to expose this year that international brands such as Kraft and Campbell were using GM ingredients in their products sold in China, Ritz Biscuits and Corn Soup respectively, without mentioning this fact in their labels. In Europe, these firms are not allowed to even use GM ingredients.

Surveys have shown that less than half of Chinese consumers feel their food is safe. But Chinese authorities are exactly like their Indian counterparts: interested in making a quick buck at the expense of the health of their innumerable citizens. It?s only when public pressure builds up that the state-controlled press unleashes a series of reports confirming that manufacturers have compromised on safety.

As happens everywhere, Chinese consumers are more combative than their governments. One woman successfully sued Procter & Gamble this March after its SK-II anti-wrinkle cream caused a painful allergy. Initially denying culpability, P&G had, in a month, paid 200,000 yuan in compensation and apologized to consumers.