FDA: Plant knowingly sold salmonella-laced food

FDA: Plant knowingly sold salmonella-laced food

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – As far back as 2007, salmonella-laced products were shipped by a Georgia peanut company that knew the peanuts probably were tainted and sometimes after tests confirmed that contamination, inspection records show.

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

"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.

Well if this isn't a sign of corporate greed I don't know what is, knowlingly shipping food before test results confirmed it safe? I hope they are found liaible for this.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7-2-2009 by alyosha1981]

reply to post by alyosha1981


I really don't think much will happen. Even when they do prove that it was intentional.

Do you remember when BAYER got caught spreading AIDS within the hemophiliac medicine. After the FDA found out, they suggested that BAYER get rid of the medicine overseas. They did and it spread.

Bayer's profits were up that year and the next and I don't think much was done... don't find much to reflect any type of punishment that would deter it happening again. That's why it will.

I remember seeing something on the peanuts being tainted earlier..... Another incident?

Thanks

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


Yes I do remember that, hopefuly the same will not happen here. Some of the peanut butter went into FEMA food packs I wonder how much tainted packs are still out there?

I think the only way to keep things like this from happening in the future is to punish not just the corporations found liable, but also the employees who made the decisions that led to the outcome. You see, this is where we screwed up in the creation of the corporation. We allowed the corporation to be an entity in and of itself. By doing so we shielded the owners and employees from being held liable for actions undertaken by the corporation. At the same time we made it law that a corporation's sole responsibility is to "increase shareholder wealth." The combination of these two factors, decreased liability and the pursuit of profits, creates a business environment that cultivates the kinds of decisions that lead to this type of scenario.

Personally, I feel that when a person knowingly makes a decision from within a corporation that leads to the harm of another person, the decision maker should be held personally responsible for the decision. I also feel that anyone from within the corporation who knows about the decision and its implications should also be held liable. Essentially, if you knowingly sell a product that causes harm to an individual, it should be no different than if you yourself caused this harm. Thus, anyone from within this peanut corporation who knew they were sending out tainted or untested peanuts should be charged with negligence, manslaughter, or in extreme cases, murder.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]