Industry will regulate itself ? Sure here is proof

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
FDA: Ga. plant knowingly shipped tainted products


Feb 6, 8:22 PM (ET)

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR



WASHINGTON (AP) - A Georgia peanut plant knowingly shipped salmonella-laced products as far back as 2007, at times sending out tainted products after tests confirmed contamination, according to inspection records released Friday.

Food and Drug Administration officials earlier had said Peanut Corp. of America waited for a second test to clear peanut butter and peanuts that initially were positive for salmonella. But the agency amended its report Friday, noting that the Blakely, Ga., plant actually shipped some products before receiving the second test and sold others after confirming salmonella.

Federal law forbids producing or shipping foods under conditions that could make it harmful to consumers' health.

In 2007 the company shipped chopped peanuts on July 18 and 24 after salmonella was confirmed by private lab tests. Peanut Corp. sold products "on or after the positive salmonella results were obtained," the FDA report states.

In other cases, the company didn't wait for a second round of salmonella tests.

"In some instances, peanut products were shipped by (the company) prior to having assurance that the products were negative for salmonella," said Michael Rogers, head of field investigations for the FDA.

Rogers said the FDA made the discovery after a more detailed analysis of records submitted by the company.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090207/D966E6HO1.html
 
yep, self regulation and policing works so well

fraud, theft, poor product testing - wth

of course the opposition will say it is just one rogue company and only a few deaths and sicknesses resulted

bushco AND congress have gutted the irs investigative arm so that they only have the means to go after the little folk because the big folk have tax lawyers and it costs the irs too much to enforce its regulations on the big folks...like those that make large donations to politicians
 
I notice that some tests were conducted by a private lab. I read earlier today, concerning this case, that under the law a testing lab is not required to report findings of salmonella. This should be changed as it is clearly a definite public health risk.
 
WE seem to have the means to keep the little people in their place. But the upper class just run amok under the guise of self regulation.'

How many celebs get probation for drug use, vs how mny lower class go to prison.
Teddy Haggard did not go to prison and I think not even charged for buying drugs for his gay massage boy. Heck that is dealing.
Bob nobody gets 10-15 for robbing a gasngo, but the 50 bill ripoff guy stands to walk

liberty and justice for all .... if you can afford it.
 
Last edited:
Where's damo to defend this? He'll say something along the lines of:

"Well, when they get caught the consumer holds them accountable."

This ignoring (willfully) the fact that better regulation could have prevented them from getting away with it to begin with.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Where's damo to defend this? He'll say something along the lines of:

"Well, when they get caught the consumer holds them accountable."

This ignoring (willfully) the fact that better regulation could have prevented them from getting away with it to begin with.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like dano than myself. I support laws against companies deliberately making other people victims. I don't argue against better regulations on drugs and/or food. Even toys... I argue against less regulation of recreational drugs, but only because the cost of the "war on drugs" is insanely stupid.

You imagine a different me than the one that is.
 
uscitizen said:
IB, I thought he said the shareholders would take care of everythig?
Click to expand...
That is also wrong, I said the shareholders can take care of the company acting against their best interest. Paying CEO's too much, etc.

Of course everybody here said it would be a waste of time for shareholders to vote in a different board if the company acted against what they believed to be the best interest of the company.
 
The irony is, there was no "self regulation" in this case. The article states: Federal law forbids producing or shipping foods under conditions that could make it harmful to consumers' health. The FDA failed to protect the consumer, simple as that.

The point is that food safely regulations, while necessary, aren't going to make the problem go away. Government isn't the one-stop solution to every problem.
 
Tabasco said:
The irony is, there was no "self regulation" in this case. The article states: Federal law forbids producing or shipping foods under conditions that could make it harmful to consumers' health. The FDA failed to protect the consumer, simple as that.

The point is that food safely regulations, while necessary, aren't going to make the problem go away. Government isn't the one-stop solution to every problem.
Click to expand...
Hmm... Well, the company failed to follow the law. But like almost any other thing the government can only take action after the company makes them a victim or add more inspections which, of course, would cost more money...

It depends on what level of authority you want the government to have in what areas.
 
Tabasco said:
The irony is, there was no "self regulation" in this case. The article states: Federal law forbids producing or shipping foods under conditions that could make it harmful to consumers' health. The FDA failed to protect the consumer, simple as that.

The point is that food safely regulations, while necessary, aren't going to make the problem go away. Government isn't the one-stop solution to every problem.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but inspections that work should be the province on the government since we are the government and hence, should choose to protect ourselves

what good is a law with no way to enforce it
 
It seems to me that the manager who is responsible for allowing the tainted product to be shipped should be charged with attempted murder or more aptly should be charged as a terrorist. Obviously he/she shipped the product in order to keep up production despite the risk to human lives. Whoever it was that said, "screw the safety precautions, ship those peanuts", should be facing a jury by the end of the year and praying they have mercy on his/her soul.

This was a management decision and it was made to keep production up. Someone made the decision to send potentially dangerous product out to the public knowing that the product was possibly dangerous. Whoever made that decision should be put on trial.

Immie
 
Damocles said:
That sounds more like dano than myself. I support laws against companies deliberately making other people victims. I don't argue against better regulations on drugs and/or food. Even toys... I argue against less regulation of recreational drugs, but only because the cost of the "war on drugs" is insanely stupid.

You imagine a different me than the one that is.
Click to expand...

I meant to say Dano.
 
to actually self regulate, every manager and above should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. maybe by actually imposing prison sentences, people would begin to take their shit more seriously.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
to actually self regulate, every manager and above should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. maybe by actually imposing prison sentences, people would begin to take their shit more seriously.
Click to expand...

Maybe by actually regulating things, this wouldn't happen in the first place? That's too common sense for a libertarian to understand. He prefers collective punishment, which is a good, individualistic, libertarian idea.
 
Damocles said:
That is also wrong, I said the shareholders can take care of the company acting against their best interest. Paying CEO's too much, etc.

Of course everybody here said it would be a waste of time for shareholders to vote in a different board if the company acted against what they believed to be the best interest of the company.
Click to expand...

See. Even the board takes a calculated risk; they consider the extra profits earned by selling tainted food versus their perceived risk of regulatory fines or catastrophes which would hurt them long term, as indiviuals. They don't really CARE about the company getting a bad name. That can go belly up and they start over again with a new corporate entity, including perhaps even more well connected partners to shield them from actual consequences.
 
Watermark said:
Ever heard about the Pinto memo's from Ford?

That's how a corporation thinks. And Damo wants to let these criminals run wild.
Click to expand...
Total PRCD (political reading comprehension disorder).

What Damo says:
"I support laws that prevent companies from making victims of others."

What the PRCD sufferer hears:
"Damo thinks there should be no laws and that companies are the bestest!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top