[smallpox]

You said "It's not like the death penalty would solve the problem of quality/security standards in China and it's not like it would even deter crime or negligence. China just wants to show foreign buyers that they have "dealt" with the problem." Which may or may not be correct. But as an OPINION, unsupported by facts it is not really a debatable point. You don't know what kind of deterrent it would be and you don't know if they executed him to impress us.

It's an educated opinion. Capital punishment is useless at deterring crime in general. The only absolute deterrent the death penalty offers is a specific deterrent (we can be assured that the dead corpse will not again commit a crime again). But considering that the crime was committed because the offender held a post of authority, then we can assure that it would not occur once the offender has been stripped of his power to commit the offence. So basically, once he lost his job, he could no longer be bribed to be negligent again.
There are no statistical conclusions that would suggest the death penalty a means of deterring crime. Prove me wrong if you can, but I can't really cite something that doesn't exist. I can say things like: Canada and Japan don't have capital punishment and they have lower crime rates than the USA, if that means anything to you. Then you'll probably post some stats on how a state in a while with capital punishment happens to have lesser crime rates than the next without capital punishment. But then I'll just argue that several factors affect crime rates such as how many people report crimes, the efficiency of the police force at finding crime and so on. It all boils down to how crimes are committed and logic. Does RESPONDING to crime PREVENT crime? No one can really argue that certainty deters crime much better than harsh punishment. So can I prove that Zheng Xiao yu would have continued his offences if it were not for capital punishment?...well, once fired he couldn't have carried his offences any longer. Making this just another useless murder by the state. Would this have deterred others? Like I said, certainty is much more efficient at this.

Apparently so, and they dealt with it. Again, it was for BRIBERY and it was about drugs sold in China, NOT in the United States. If the Chinese wanted to execute the person responsible for tainted food, they would have SAID it was for that reason, wouldn't they?

Of course they won't say it, cause then we'll turn around and say "look at those barbarians." For all we know, the one responsible for our tainted food was coincidently executed for another crime so we should fear not of tainted food from China.

You have provided nothing to show there is ANY connection.

Well, it's a fundamental principal that if we distrusted Chinese made goods, we would stop purchasing them.

And what do you have to show that there is another agenda?

How perfect is it that he gets executed just after there have been a series of tainted food being exported from China.

Don't get me wrong. I have no use for the government of Communist China but I'm dealing with the points you have brought up.

How is China even Communist anymore?
Either ways, this is a strawman. I'm not arguing his charges in Chinese court. I'm saying that killing him won't solve anything, what he "deserves" should be the last thing anyone worries about, and this seems like a show to regain foreign trust in Chinese manufactured food.

No it isn't. The judicial systems in our country is different. We cannot force the Chinese to adopt our system any more than they can force us to adopt theirs.

Strawman. I was referring to the death penalty. I never said anything about changing their laws (they're doing it on their own anyways).

I'm not angry in the least, and even if I was it wouldn't compel the Chinese to do anything about it based on my personal feelings. Which is why I see it as an internal matter.

When you say he gets what he deserve, it's an appeal to your emotions.