I am loving this Web Archive Site. I received an email from one of my subscribers asking, “Bill, the CDC and FDA have linked nearly 650 illnesses and nine deaths to PCA’s facility in Blakely, Georgia and the Colorado Department of Health may have linked some of the illnesses to the Plainview, Texas Plant.
Where Peanut Butter Web Pages Go to Die
In a good example of whatever you put on the internet or in emails may come back to haunt you (hey, note that this stuff was "organic certified"), I found this choice quote by Stewart Parnell, President (a.k.a. “I’ll take the fifth Parnell") on this web archive site link:
At Peanut Corporation of America, we’ve
Peanut Corporation of America Bankruptcy News
I do not pretend to fully understand the secret codes of the bankruptcy lawyers and the Court. However, I have hired the same firm that helped me and my clients manage both the Chi-Chi and Topps Bankruptcies. The bottom line is that the victims must be protected from PCA’s and Mr. Parnell’s criminal acts, other
So, why no Salmonella Typhimurium cases in Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico or South Carolina?
Last week, I was hired by the one case in Florida, so Florida is now on the map. So, why no cases in Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico or South Carolina? They eat no peanut butter? Someone should call the states’ health departments.
The CDC numbers as of last Wednesday are 636 persons infected
Six Colorado cases of Salmonella Poisoning traced to Texas plant
Lynne Terry (aka “peanut girl”) of the Oregonian continued to break the story yesterday that Colorado Health Officials have traced six Salmonella illnesses to the now closed Peanut Corporation of America’s (PCA’s) Plainview, Texas plant of Peanut Corporation of America. Efoodalert posted on her blog on the 10th that at least three folks from Colorado
Peanut Corporation of America Files for Bankruptcy
Not really unexpected. Hartford Insurance, however, has $12,000,000 per policy period – perhaps as much $40,000,000 total to cover claims of victims of this tragedy. Also, manufacturers like Kellogg and King Nut are morally and legally responsible for the products they manufactured and sold.
.png)
Stewart Parnell and King Nut, if you have access to the internet, please look at the video
We provided this video clip to the Congressional Subcommittee investigating this Salmonella outbreak that has sickened over 640, hospitalized 150 and killed nine. Clifford’s son, Lou, offered his testimony to the Subcommittee as well. Clifford was a hero, who should not have died from eating King Nut peanut butter.
Should there be Department of Food? Or, perhaps a single Food Safety Agency?
I was asked the other day by the Editors of the NYT to join in a discussion at “Room For Debate,” about a single food safety agency and to post a 300-400 word position. After whacking away at it, I finally got it down to size. Here was my original submission:
Perhaps it was Nicholas
Guest Blog – Denis W. Stearns – “THE MARKET FOR PEANUTS: WHY FOOD IN THE U.S. MAY NEVER BE SAFE”
.jpg)
In the ongoing political (and legal, and historical, and economic) arguments about the regulation of social and economic activity by governments and government agencies, one of the dominant theoretical controversies has been over the answer to this question: Do regulations “interfere” with the market-place by creating unnecessary inefficiencies and higher costs, or are regulations a necessary corrective for the inevitable “failures” of an unregulated (or “free”) market? While this controversy remains justifiably open in the context of the markets for many products and services—e.g., transportation and energy, there is no rational justification for an argument in favor of a “free” market for food.
To begin with, there is no such thing as a “free” market for food because such a market is defined by an almost perfect asymmetry of information. In other words, when it comes to the safety of the food being considered for purchase, the manufacturer and seller knows the relative care that went into production, but the buyer purchases the product based mostly on trust. The inability of consumers to discern the relative safety of their food purchases limits all but a generalized demand for safer food. This is because:
For the most part, food safety is a credence attribute, meaning the consumers cannot evaluate the existence or quality of the attribute before purchase, or even after they have consumed [it].
This generalized demand for safer food, which is applicable to an entire industry or product-category, is thus ineffective in causing the market to enhance food safety. As a result, there is little economic incentive for producers to manufacture food that is safer than that which is required by government regulations. Such regulations therefore tend to act as a ceiling not a floor, and effectively suppress most competition in the realm of food safety. In economic terms, the regulations thus act as a “negative incentive” that prompts a manufacturer to invest what is necessary to avoid non-compliance, but nothing more.
In the case of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), you can perfectly see this dynamic in work. Faced with infrequent and ineffective inspections, PCA was free to do what it wanted in its pursuit of higher profits. This included, according this week’s article in the New York Times, Michael Moss, Peanut Case Shows Holes in Safety Net, Feb. 9, 2009.Continue Reading Guest Blog – Denis W. Stearns – “THE MARKET FOR PEANUTS: WHY FOOD IN THE U.S. MAY NEVER BE SAFE”
It is good to be back in the “other” Washington
I was honored to be in Washington DC to hear victims testify before the House subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations about the illness and death caused by tainted peanut butter. Lou Tousignant spoke about his father, who survived the Korean War with three purple hearts, only to be killed by peanut butter. Peter Hurley spoke