Dirty chopsticks picked up in new China scare

[chokkan 2]

A Beijing factory recycled used chopsticks and sold up to 100,000 pairs a day without any form of disinfection, a newspaper said on Wednesday, the latest in a string of Chinese food and product safety scares


WTF

[Shin Asuka]

I can understand the used chopsticks being recycled and resold but damn, at least wash them first before selling. Yet another defect in "Made In China" goods, I'm just wondering how many other products are going to be revealed in the coming months.


BTW I also read the the Chinese are on the offensive with U.S. soybean exports being tainted with "harmful chemicals" and dirt supposely. But why now?

[Sexykago]

OMG....talk about unsanitary.

I have nothing against China at all. Infact Junjun is about the only thing that makes current h!p still worthwhile. After aibon got fired I thought I'd never care to keep up with h!p but then came Junjun.
But all this China stuff is starting to scare me.

No form of disinfection at all? Not even soap?
That is just gross.

[RatBastich]

This is most definitely gross.

Lotta bad PR for China lately.

[RionZ]

Everything China does is bad PR for China.

[reyfer]

It is indeed gross, but... I read the article, and I can't find any mention about the chopsticks being "recycled" and "used".

A Beijing factory sold up to 100,000 pairs of disposable chopsticks a day without any form of disinfection, a newspaper said on Wednesday, the latest in a string of food and product safety scares.

So what the article is saying is that the chopsticks were manufactured and sold without the proper sanitary measures, but it never says they were "used" or "recycled".

[JFC]

^ It was probably because the article said they were "disposible" chopsticks that gave the impression that they were "previously used".

[reyfer]

^ It was probably because the article said they were "disposible" chopsticks that gave the impression that they were "previously used".

The OP changed "disposable" in the original article for "recycled used", and that's what makes the article look so much more disturbing than it really is. It is still disturbing, so I don't get why was it necessary to say something the article does not say at all.