Listeria & Tainted Meat

[August1991]

You think if companies monitored their own that things would be better? What evidence is there that this is true?

Incentives.

[jdobbin]

Incentives.

What if the incentive is to make a quick buck, disappear if things go bad and go back into business again?

Edited August 28, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Incentives.

August it's a nice theory, but we all know that short-sighted management can focus on the immediate bottom line, and ignore safety concerns. It's happened in almost every industry, from makers of children's toys to nuclear power plants.

[madmax]

August it's a nice theory, but we all know that short-sighted management can focus on the immediate bottom line, and ignore safety concerns. It's happened in almost every industry, from makers of children's toys to nuclear power plants.

I recall an industry where the new US owner decided it would be cheaper to send out a product not heat treated and take their chances because they were running behind on a product that they had no capacity to produce on lines running fullout 24/7. Pure suicidal decision making from short sighted bottomline feeders. While this could result in a defective product, these kinds of decisions are deadly/catastrophic when its food, childrens toys or Nuclear related industries.

[lusher36]

I have read pretty well all of this thread.......

And i sit here in my home mulling over the fact that I have just finished feeding my husband and myself, for over the past 2 weeks, bologna sandwiches for work lunches. The exact packages that I come to find out are on the recall list.....

And I am now sitting in my home with a temperature of 102, nausea, and a severe headache....debating about whether I should go to the doctor or that I may be over reacting to some other illness.......

When it comes right down to it.........it happened.....and people got hurt by it.

Maple Leaf as accepted the responsibility, and therefore will ultimately pay the price.......

Will I buy their products again? Right now, the answer is probably not......in six months from now (if i'm not sick from the food I have been eating the past 2 weeks.....) may be a different answer.......

[Argus]

I recall an industry where the new US owner decided it would be cheaper to send out a product not heat treated and take their chances because they were running behind on a product that they had no capacity to produce on lines running fullout 24/7. Pure suicidal decision making from short sighted bottomline feeders. While this could result in a defective product, these kinds of decisions are deadly/catastrophic when its food, childrens toys or Nuclear related industries.

Wasn't it Ford which disocovered that a certain make (Pinto?) had faulty gas tanks, then decided it would be cheaper to settle individual wrongful death lawsuits rather than recall and replace the tanks?

[GostHacked]

You think if companies monitored their own that things would be better? What evidence is there that this is true?

Simple fact is that Maple Leaf Foods is owning up to it and taking things into their own hands. It was not government inspectors that found the problem. It was MLF themselves. This is a credit to them. Sue your government for not being more diligent in this process.

Trust me, MLF is having the worst nightmare they could ever have. It is possible MLF will not even exist after all is said and done. This cascades into quite a few people being out of a job.

At first they did not know if it was widerspread. That is the reason they did more testing, then MLF made the decision to recall everything made at that plant.

Seriously, this could have been a lot worse.

Food distrobution on the scales that happen today would blow most of your minds.

[jdobbin]

Simple fact is that Maple Leaf Foods is owning up to it and taking things into their own hands. It was not government inspectors that found the problem. It was MLF themselves. This is a credit to them. Sue your government for not being more diligent in this process.

I don't know enough to come down on Maple Leaf foods one way or the other. They seem to be reacting as fast as they can and listeria is a tough infection to combat.

It is perhaps poor timing that the government indicated they were thinking about companies monitoring themselves when this infection broke out.

I think my biggest issue of self inspection is conflict of interest. Even with the best intentions, it is difficult for some organizations to scrutinize their own work. For the same reason I don't think it is good that police investigate themselves, I don't know that companies monitoring themselves is ideal. I have no doubt that some companies would do a good job while others could and might act unscrupuoulsy.

[capricorn]

The listeria bacteria was found in cheese manufactured in Quebec.

Health authorities said Wednesday that nine people in Quebec currently have the strain associated with the contaminated cheese.

Auclair, the department’s director of food inspection, said it’s a coincidence the cheese recall comes at the same time as the outbreak linked to Maple Leaf.

“Right now, it appears bigger than usual because of the Maple Leaf case in Ontario, but each year we do a few recalls because of the presence of Listeria,” he said in a phone interview.

Auclair said inspectors used information provided by people who contracted listeriosis to zero in on the stores.

His department issued one warning last Friday and another Tuesday that Riopelle de l’Ile brand cheese purchased at Aux Petits Delices in Quebec City between Aug. 6 and Aug. 11 should not be consumed.

A similar release was distributed Tuesday for cheese named Mont-Jacob that was sold with an Aug. 29 best before date at Octofruit Maitre Gourmet in Ste-Therese.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Consume...6597001-cp.html

I wonder if they will be able to establish with certainty which product caused the listeria cases in Quebec. Apparently the bacteria has a long incubation period in the body.

[blueblood]

I don't know enough to come down on Maple Leaf foods one way or the other. They seem to be reacting as fast as they can and listeria is a tough infection to combat.

It is perhaps poor timing that the government indicated they were thinking about companies monitoring themselves when this infection broke out.

I think my biggest issue of self inspection is conflict of interest. Even with the best intentions, it is difficult for some organizations to scrutinize their own work. For the same reason I don't think it is good that police investigate themselves, I don't know that companies monitoring themselves is ideal. I have no doubt that some companies would do a good job while others could and might act unscrupuoulsy.

The one problem I have with gov't inspectors is that they can't be fired. In my opinion that puts them on the same level of accountability as the company inspectors themselves.

I know in the grain industry the privately owned elevator companies do a good job of screening as contaminated grain will cause the whole load to be dumped outside. I've heard of an entire ship being dumped because of a couple of mouse droppings in the load. With millions of dollars at risk of being dumped, the grain companies run a tight ship.

A combination of both company inspectors and government inspectors who can be fired would be best.

[jdobbin]

The one problem I have with gov't inspectors is that they can't be fired. In my opinion that puts them on the same level of accountability as the company inspectors themselves.

Who says they can't be fired? If there is cause, anyone can be fired.

I know in the grain industry the privately owned elevator companies do a good job of screening as contaminated grain will cause the whole load to be dumped outside. I've heard of an entire ship being dumped because of a couple of mouse droppings in the load. With millions of dollars at risk of being dumped, the grain companies run a tight ship.

A combination of both company inspectors and government inspectors who can be fired would be best.

However, you see the risk of conflict of interest? I find it is the same way in regards to police investigating police.

There has to be some independence.

[August1991]

August it's a nice theory, but we all know that short-sighted management can focus on the immediate bottom line, and ignore safety concerns. It's happened in almost every industry, from makers of children's toys to nuclear power plants.

By that logic, no one would buy a Mercedes and they would never coonsider resale value. Short term thinking? A Mercedes is more expensive than a Hyundai because a Mercedes has a higher resale value.

McDonald's did not pay a dividend for the first 20 years of its existence yet its share price generally rose. Why did anyone buy its share in 1963? (They were thinking of the future dividends eventually paid in 1976.)

Argus, why are you honest in your daily life? Why don't you go for the quick buck or the cheap rip-off? Is it because you are by nature honest or is it because your reputation and name mean something? Why would someone steal $50 today and destroy their reputation when they could be honest now and make a profit of $500 next year.

----

Government bureaucrats do not have the appropriate incentives to inspect our food and make the right choice in the difficult trade-off between safety and cost. Their livelihood is not on the line. A young cattle farmer wants to be in business for a long time, or wants to leave a viable business to his children. His reputation acutely matters to him.

A trademark is valuable because it signals one's reputation.

Government bureaucrats have a suitable role in a civilized society but inspecting a product available in a market is not one of those roles. [And BTW, as a former civil servant, I was disheartened how the civil service twisted this whole notion of "reputation". In general, a successful bureaucrat is one who has a reputation for being obsequious to those above and a reputation for being a tyrant to those below. In Russia, if someone in the room swears and uses abusive language, then that person must be the boss. The polite people are underlings.]

Edited August 29, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Why would someone steal $50 today and destroy their reputation when they could be honest now and make a profit of $500 next year.

His reputation acutely matters to him.

Why would someone steal $50? Sometimes people do it because they don't care about their reputation and they move on quickly as grifters. The incentive for these type of enterprises is that things can be set up as quickly as snake oil salesmen and disappear when people realize they've been taken.

For some large businesses, it is a numbers game. They care about their reputation and would rather pay out damages than order a recall which they believe is more damaging to them.

Edited August 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[August1991]

Why would someone steal $50? Sometimes people do it because they don't care about their reputation because they move on quickly as grifters. The incentive for these type of enterprises is that things can be set up as quickly as snake oil salesmen and disappear when people realize they've been taken.

For some large businesses, it is a numbers game. They care about their reputation and would rather pay out damages than order a recall which they believe is more damaging to them.

And of course, in your view, the customers are equally short-sighted. For example, are you so short-sighted or do you consider yourself smarted than others?

You clearly have an incentive to buy safe food and a rancher clearly has an incentive to raise safe beef. I trust these incentives far more than I trust some bureaucrat who ostensibly is hired to protect the public interest under politicians chosen in a democratic regime.

I think that it is fair to say that most Canadians are more careful with the water they drink and the meat they buy. They are cautious when they walk into a public hospital. Canadians do not trust their politicians when they make announcements and they are now increasingly sceptical of even senior bureaucrats.

Let me make this more plain: we all complain about the dishonesty of politicians but we also believe that the State has limitless power. Well, it doesn't. If there's any lesson of the 20th century, that's it. Nature limits the power of the State.

----

I'll return to my idea of incentives. I think the power to decide should fall where the incentives rightly appear. We should place incentives where they can do the most good.

Government bureaucrats should not be checking/verifying products available in markets. The next big scandal? Pensions. Tainted meat will be minor compared to a pension scandal due to government inspectors, or government managers.

[August1991]

To avoid any risk of appearing to be a Libertarian (or a Right Wing fanatical neo-con fascist or whatever the Leftist epithet is nowadays), I happen to think State environment inspectors and a State environmental agency make sense. As opposed to food, I can't always buy "environment" in a market.

For local pollution, I can choose the air I breathe by choosing where I live - city or the country. But I cannot choose my atmosphere unless I leave the planet.

[jdobbin]

And of course, in your view, the customers are equally short-sighted. For example, are you so short-sighted or do you consider yourself smarted than others?

I think the truth is that a lot of people don't know how safe their food is and that is why there is a variety of government safety and security measures to protect those who produce food and those who consume.

Who in the private sector can afford a Level 4 lab to help ascertain Mad Cow or anthrax? Are you suggesting private sector?

Not all businesses operate ethically. There is a reason why government inspections became the norm or do you not recall why?

You clearly have an incentive to buy safe food and a rancher clearly has an incentive to raise safe beef. I trust these incentives far more than I trust some bureaucrat who ostensibly is hired to protect the public interest under politicians chosen in a democratic regime.

You don't have trust in inspectors. They are important for food and for drug safety. They have to be independent of the companies in some way or they are in conflict of interest.

Here is one inspector that saved many people in the U.S. from harm: Frances Oldham Kelsey.

Edited August 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[Pliny]

Who says they can't be fired? If there is cause, anyone can be fired.

Yes, true. It is better said they won't be fired. After all, they are only responsible for meat that is not tainted. If there is any tainted meat, the producers are responsible for that.

[Pliny]

To avoid any risk of appearing to be a Libertarian (or a Right Wing fanatical neo-con fascist or whatever the Leftist epithet is nowadays), I happen to think State environment inspectors and a State environmental agency make sense. As opposed to food, I can't always buy "environment" in a market.

For local pollution, I can choose the air I breathe by choosing where I live - city or the country. But I cannot choose my atmosphere unless I leave the planet.

Too bad, I was enjoying your posts.

[August1991]

I think the truth is that a lot of people don't know how safe their food is and that is why there is a variety of government safety and security measures to protect those who produce food and those who consume.

But people are prefectly capable of identifying a label, or a trademark.

I think Dobbin that my point is how the trademark/label is obtained.

A government bureaucrat has the power to place the "Canada Grade A" label. If intellectual property rights are respected (ie. there's no fraud), only Maple Leaf has the right to use its trademark on a product.

I'm arguing that incentives will lead a corporate employee to place that label accurately. A government bureaucrat does not have the same incentives.

In Canada, we have confused this question terribly. Most Canadian food products have two labels: private and State. Which label is more trustworthy? In advertising, corporations can argue that their label is best unless there's problem. Then, the corporation can point at the State label and say: "The State approved us."

(To be non-partisan, the Conservatives under Harper want to bring in even more complicated State labeling of food.)

-----

IMV, there's a neglected aspect to this tainted meat tragedy.

All of the meat seems to have come from a processing plant near Toronto? Why? Because our federal government restricts the import of foreign processed meat. People in BC cannot buy sliced ham from Idaho. They must buy it from Manitoba or Quebec.

If we make foreign trade difficult, we put allour eggs in one basket. That's risky.

Edited August 29, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Yes, true. It is better said they won't be fired. After all, they are only responsible for meat that is not tainted. If there is any tainted meat, the producers are responsible for that.

If the inspectors let the tainted meat get into the market, they are responsible.

I would not want what happened in the U.S. to happen to Canada.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ting/mckee.html

For 13 years, meat and poultry inspector Patricia McKee received top performance ratings with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in southern California. When a new supervisor arrived in 1998, though, her ratings fell amid complaints from a handful of plant owners that she was too strict. Two years later, she was fired.

[jdobbin]

But people are prefectly capable of identifying a label, or a trademark.

Not if the business keeps changing their name or operates under several names. All legal and all hard to track.

I think Dobbin that my point is how the trademark/label is obtained.

A government bureaucrat has the power to place the "Canada Grade A" label. If intellectual property rights are respected (ie. there's no fraud), only Maple Leaf has the right to use its trademark on a product.

I'm arguing that incentives will lead a corporate employee to place that label accurately. A government bureaucrat does not have the same incentives.

And I keep saying the numbers might indicate to a company that it is better to pay off sick people than order a recall. It is a conflict on interest. There has to be some independence in the inspection process. What you propose doesn't allow for it.

All of the meat seems to have come from a processing plant near Toronto? Why? Because our federal government restricts the import of foreign processed meat. People in BC cannot buy sliced ham from Idaho. They must buy it from Manitoba or Quebec.

If we make foreign trade difficult, we put allour eggs in one basket. That's risky.

That is a separate aspect. As some more right wing columnists have noted, farmers and producers are given special protection by all parties but especially by the Tories.

When the Tories do try to end something like the Wheat Board though, they do so by breaking the law.

[August1991]

And I keep saying the numbers might indicate to a company that it is better to pay off sick people than order a recall. It is a conflict on interest. There has to be some independence in the inspection process.

Pay off sick people? Well, I guess if it's cheaper to pay you to die - or cheaper to pay your family for your death, then why should still be alive.

The conflict of interest is, as Argus argued, a corporate CEO seeking the quick buck. But corporations live forever and CEOs, like the rest of us, leave something for our children. If people took the money and ran, if they only cared abpout the short run, a Mercedes 600 would be a cheap car and Microsoft shares (never paid a dividend) would be trading at zero.

Dobbin, there is no conflict of interest between the work you do and the people who pay you for your work. The incentives fall accurately.

If I buy meat at my local Loblaws, there is no conflict of interest. It is in Loblaws interest to sell me good meat and it is in my interest to buy it.

Government food inspector? Now there's a conflict of interest. Her/his promotion is unlikely connected to ensuring safe food. (As an ex-government bureaucrat, I can attest to the fact that the public interest is not a factor in promotion.)

What about bribes? Above, I said that the issue is one of labels: "Canada Grade A" or "Maple Leaf Meat". Who has an incentive to avoid bribes in the use of a label?

----

I ask everyone to take the long, "progessive" view of this question. In the far future, what will society/people do? Will government inspectors check our food or will corporate employees do this? Who has the right incentives to do this correctlly?

[jdobbin]

Pay off sick people? Well, I guess if it's cheaper to pay you to die - or cheaper to pay your family for your death, then why should still be alive.

You'll have to re-word this. I'm not following.

The conflict of interest is, as Argus argued, a corporate CEO seeking the quick buck. But corporations live forever and CEOs, like the rest of us, leave something for our children. If people took the money and ran, if they only cared abpout the short run, a Mercedes 600 would be a cheap car and Microsoft shares (never paid a dividend) would be trading at zero.

Not all businesses care about the short run. However, there have always been unscrupulous operators.

I ask everyone to take the long, "progessive" view of this question. In the far future, what will society/people do? Will government inspectors check our food or will corporate employees do this? Who has the right incentives to do this correctlly?

This doesn't answer the question of whether you think any business can possibly have a true independent inspection process.

If being an inspector at a company means "not being too strict" and "not making waves" like it seems in a lot of places, what public good is it serving?

[August1991]

Not all businesses care about the short run. However, there have always been unscrupulous operators.

...

If being an inspector at a company means "not being too strict" and "not making waves" (like it seems in a lot of places), what public good is it serving?

For what follows, forget terms like "public good".

Dobbin, think of incentives in all this, because that's all we've really got.

An unscrupulous operator can make a few quick buckes, but then what? And would you buy meat from a short term operator? For how many years would this unscrupulous operator operate to gain your confidence? And then, for half a pound of sliced turkey, he rips you off and moves to the Cayman Islands with his kids? (Would he, ambitious, competitive, forfeit his kids chance in life in North America?)

[Topaz]

The news is reporting that the Maple Leaf plant will be closed indefinitely. Probably until after election. I wonder if this company supports the Conservatives?