Alright, I have had it with this bullshit outrage over the Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak...
"A federal probe into a deadly salmonella outbreak has exposed a dirty secret: Food producers in most states are not required to alert health regulators if internal tests show possible contamination at their plants."
First of all, it's not a dirty secret its public record- in most cases, companies aren't legally required to submit it. They have the option. The FDA has access to review this data when they come on-site for an inspection.
"The flaw has infuriated regulators and food safety experts, who are pushing legislation that would require the alerts at the first sign of contamination. They say stricter requirements could have stemmed an outbreak, which may have started months ago and has sickened at least 500 people and may have led to eight deaths."
It's not a "flaw" its intentional. Its to protect the companies and "encourage" the companies to do the right thing and deal with it internally and not get the FDA involved.
Stricter requirements aren't going to stop this from happening again. ENFORCEMENT and BIG HUGE FINES and the FEAR of BIG HUGE FINES are what is going to stop this from happening again. Haul the plant manager of this facility into court to face criminal charges for manslaughter... that will help.
This is the same thing with the banks, they were left on their own to police themselves mostly and see how that turned out?
The FDA has a limited number of resources and jurisdiction over thousand and thousands of food/drug/cosmetic/device facilities all over the world (yes, technically a company in another country that sells/distributes their product in the US is subject to FDA inspections and guidelines).
Not that I am saying it's a bad idea, but realistically- imagine if every company that had a contamination issue that's under the FDA had to formally notify the agency. 1) They'd be deluged in paper work. Thousands and thousands of companies make tens maybe hundreds of bulks a day- some are going to be contaminated and some not 2) so they notify the FDA- then what? Wait for the FDA to get caught up on the paper work and tell them what to do? 3) Or they submit the notification to the agency and by the time the agency gets to it in the backlog its weeks or months old- by then the lot is long gone. Okay.. so lets just take a breath here- this is the kinda shit that gets legislated when the politicians are all yammering in a tizzy and then we all end up with another TARP.
"The products that initially tested positive were retested and shipped after a different test by a different firm came up negative."
I promise you this is not the first company that did this. You'd be surprised. This happens a lot. Initial sampling will fail, so they will do another increased sampling and it will pass and the lot ships.
Companies can in a lot of cases use composite samples to release product. Imagine pulling 3 samples. One comes up above the max specification, one below the lower limit, and one in the middle. 2 out of your 3 samples failed. But as a composite (add them all together divide by 3) the average is right in the specification.
When it goes this way, depending on the variation in the lot, you might be buying a item that is above the spec or below the spec.
Like the maximum number of rat dropping in hot dogs thing. That's probably a composite- so some hot dogs are going to have more rat droppings than others.
Manufacturing of things that don't have a large profit margin is where you are going to see this kinda stuff.. more cutting corners- not fixing things, not keeping things clean, not hiring personnel that are qualified and competent (they usually cost more), more general dishonest/unethical business practices, because "product of the door is what keeps the lights on."
They are plenty of good companies out there and there some that are not. Definitely, more than I think people actually realize judging by the latest media whipped frenzied outrage over the peanut butter incident.
I work with a guy who has a saying: "Companies are as ethical and they can afford to be."
There's a lot of truth to that.
Think about it.




