Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available at
http://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps: http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?


A company should live and die by its own quality program. Those people that
lost their jobs likely were part of the problem so they deserve what they
got. At least no one died this time.

The USDA is there to protect us, not the company.

I don't have any problem with the results. Actions have consequences.

Wes

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ps.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:27:35 -0400, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

Yes. (In other words, "All of the above.") The company should be
doing their own daily testing, and the proper cleaning and sanitation
methods to keep the bugs out of the end products.

And the Feds should be making sure the companies do the tests and
sanitation as called for, and do spot checks to catch lab errors or
omissions.

And you can't "schedule" a surprise inspection with the company
being inspected, because then it isn't a surprise. The annual
inspections at a packing plant shouldn't be the same day every year,
it's too easy to do a "special" cleanup the day before.

A company should live and die by its own quality program. Those people that
lost their jobs likely were part of the problem so they deserve what they
got. At least no one died this time.

The USDA is there to protect us, not the company.

I don't have any problem with the results. Actions have consequences.

That attitude covers what should happen to the top executives, but
it's a bit hard on the rank and file employee who has no input into
the work conditions and the safety measures taken.

As long as the employees followed the safety and sanitation
processes and procedures they were given to work under, they really
don't deserve to have their life shot out from under them - I'll bet
they'll be getting the "ENRON Treatment" where the hourly workers'
retirement and pension funds are either totally going bye-bye or will
end up getting hacked way back.

Meanwhile the Executives that had their Golden Parachutes packed...

All companies need to go through and do a realistic risk assessment
of their operations every once in a while. Because every once in a
while "What could go wrong?" turns into "Oh, ****!"

Just a guess, but I'll bet there were big problems in the Topps Meat
Co.'s operations sanitation and safety testing regimens that they
either didn't actively go looking for, or they "put on the blinders"
(See no evil, hear no evil...) so they would not see them. They
figure "That's the way we've done it for 50 years..." is sufficient.

-- Bruce --

On Oct 5, 10:05 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT

Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available athttp://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps:http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

Well here is another recall....for a similar problem that they had
before.

Maybe there should be a "three strikes and you are out" when it comes
to selling merchandise.

TMT

U.S. says Razor recalling 20,000 electric scooters Fri Oct 5, 2:10 PM
ET



Razor USA LLC, a California-based importer, is recalling about 20,000
of its E300 electric scooters over concerns the handlebars can break
off, the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Friday.

Razor has received 25 reports of welds breaking on the handlebar,
including three reports of injuries, the safety agency said.

The battery-powered scooters were sold at Pep Boys stores and various
Internet retail sites in 2006 between January and October.

The Chinese-made blue or silver scooters were sold for between $190 to
$230 and the recall covers those with barcodes beginning 100620-03
through -09.

In 2005, Razor announced a recall of 246,000 electric scooters for a
similar problem.

Consumers were asked to stop using the scooters immediately and to
contact Razor USA for a free repair kit. For more information,
consumers can go to the company's Web site at www.razor.com/recall.

On Oct 5, 10:05 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT

Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available athttp://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps:http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

And yet another beef recall....

Sam's Club beef recalled after illnesses 2 hours, 45 minutes ago



The Sam's Club warehouse chain pulled a brand of ground beef patties
from its shelves nationwide after four children who ate the food,
produced by Cargill Inc., developed E. coli illness, company and
health officials said Friday.

Cargill has also asked customers to return any remaining patties
purchased after Aug. 26 to the store or destroy them.

The children became ill between Sept. 10 and Sept. 20 after eating
ground beef patties that were bought frozen under the name American
Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties from three Sam's Club stores in
the Twin Cities area.

Sam's Clu voluntarily removed the product from its stores nationwide
after the illnesses were reported, the company said.

"We can't be certain that meat from other stores is not involved,
since the brand ... was likely sold at other Sam's Club locations,"
said Heidi Kassenborg, acting director of the dairy and food
inspection division of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

The patties were produced by Cargill and had an expiration date of
Feb. 12, 2008, Sam's Club said in a statement. They were coded UPC
0002874907056 Item #700141.

A Cargill spokesman contacted by The Associated Press said the company
would have no comment until Monday.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is working with the federal
Agriculture Department to determine the source of the contamination.

Two of the children were hospitalized; one remains in the hospital and
the other has been discharged, the Health Department said.

Symptoms of E. coli illness include stomach cramps and diarrhea.
People typically are ill for two to five days but can develop
complications including kidney failure. People who have developed such
symptoms should contact their doctor, the Health Department said.

Sam's Club warehouse is owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's
largest retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark.

Cargill, based in Wayzata, Minn., is one of the nation's largest
privately held companies and makes food ingredients, moves commodities
around the world and runs financial commodities trading businesses.

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ps.com...

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT



Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.




You mean like maybe - Chrysler?

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

I don't have any problem with the results. Actions have consequences.

That attitude covers what should happen to the top executives, but
it's a bit hard on the rank and file employee who has no input into
the work conditions and the safety measures taken.

As long as the employees followed the safety and sanitation
processes and procedures they were given to work under, they really
don't deserve to have their life shot out from under them - I'll bet
they'll be getting the "ENRON Treatment" where the hourly workers'
retirement and pension funds are either totally going bye-bye or will
end up getting hacked way back.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps_Meat_Company

Up to a few years ago it was a private company. The meat being recalled
covers a period of 12 months. That is a crushing blow financially.

As far as golden parachutes and such, Topps is owned by this holding
company:

http://www.sihi.net/


These people are going to likely loose their shirts. This company privately
held.

http://www.sihi.net/principals.html

They own the whole enchilada, er hamburger.

Wes

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ps.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

But who will pay for it? Given a choice between buying from Beef-Cheep
and their demise-insured competition (which is VERY expensive to pay for
the insurance), most consumers will opt for Beef-Cheep.

There is another way. We already have businesses that are immune to the
financial consequences of mismanagement. In fact, these businesses
actually get bigger every time something goes wrong; they grow even
faster when it is clear that they caused any particular problem.
Customers make up the difference, because the business has subsidiaries
that do things like: eliminate competition; mandate the use of the
business' products; set prices for the products; collect data on
customers; use said data to threaten, coerce and punish customers who do
not use the business' products.

These businesses are of course known as governments.

It can really suck to work for a company that gets clobbered by what
might be a random screw-up. However, bankruptcy is not all bad. It is
a mechanism that allows a free market to heal itself. Buildings,
equipment and intellectual property have value, and get sold to settle
debts. Sometimes all that really happens is that poor management gets
squeezed out to make room for those who end up doing a better job.
Individuals often get hurt, but IMHO, freedom is a good thing. We
should try it.

Bill

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ps.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

In general I would say the federal government should stay out of corporate
business. Food would be an exception that falls under the public safety
umbrella. Another proper area for federal government involvement is
polution control. Note that the constitution does NOT grant this authority
to the Feds. The state governments should have a more involved role than
the Feds.

Carl Boyd


I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available at
http://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps: http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

My apologies for top-posting...
1. If the hamburger was cooked to the recommended temperature,
it would no longer be dangerous. Canada requires product labeling,
I believe, stating that ground meat should be cooked to at least 160F.
Doesn't apply to unground meat, as e.coli is a surface contaminant,
and in unground meat, the surface doesn't get scrunged into the body
of the piece (patty) being eaten, and presumably, the surface does
rise above that temp....

Makes me wonder if the consumer doesn't bear at least SOME
responsibility.

2. I seem to recall that Jack-in-the-box with their tainted soy-and-beef
burgers managed to stay alive - how 'bout their supplier(s)?
/mark

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available at
http://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps: http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

"Mark F" wrote in message
news:L9NNi.6430$_K.2599@pd7urf3no...
My apologies for top-posting...
1. If the hamburger was cooked to the recommended temperature,
it would no longer be dangerous. Canada requires product labeling,
I believe, stating that ground meat should be cooked to at least 160F.
Doesn't apply to unground meat, as e.coli is a surface contaminant,
and in unground meat, the surface doesn't get scrunged into the body
of the piece (patty) being eaten, and presumably, the surface does
rise above that temp....

Makes me wonder if the consumer doesn't bear at least SOME
responsibility.

But how in the hell do you measure the temperature in a 1/4"-thick "burger"?
Those frozen burgers can be pretty thin.

I've never bought frozen burgers. I hate overcooked burgers but I overcook
them a bit these days. I'm just gunshy about e. coli and so forth. I have
good meat thermometers but I can't imagine how I'd get an accurate
temperature measurement even on a burger that cooked up 5/8" thick, like
mine.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
...
It can really suck to work for a company that gets clobbered by what might
be a random screw-up. However, bankruptcy is not all bad. It is a
mechanism that allows a free market to heal itself. Buildings, equipment
and intellectual property have value, and get sold to settle debts.
Sometimes all that really happens is that poor management gets squeezed
out to make room for those who end up doing a better job. Individuals
often get hurt, but IMHO, freedom is a good thing. We should try it.

Bill

Bill, right on!!! The right to fail is one of the most important parts of
capitalism and a free society. This minor blood letting is what makes our
country strong and improves the performance of employees. The strong get
right back up and do a better job the next time.

Conversely, without failure, you can crank out toilet paper (like under the
communist system) forever, whether somebody buys your product or not.

Ivan Vegvary

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT
After reading all the responses to this point:
I agree with the poster that said (paraphase)
"At least part of the responsibility is with the consumer."
I grew up with meat being cooked at least till it quit
bleeding on your plate. I ALMOST go so far as to say if you
insist on eating raw meat OR fish OR fowl you got comming
what ever you get.
On the other hand if a company screws up by not having
adequate quality control they deserve what ever they get
also.
What ever happened to personal responsibility??????
...lew...

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:24:48 -0400, Bill Schwab wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ps.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

But who will pay for it? Given a choice between buying from Beef-Cheep
and their demise-insured competition (which is VERY expensive to pay for
the insurance), most consumers will opt for Beef-Cheep.

There is another way. We already have businesses that are immune to the
financial consequences of mismanagement. In fact, these businesses
actually get bigger every time something goes wrong; they grow even
faster when it is clear that they caused any particular problem.
Customers make up the difference, because the business has subsidiaries
that do things like: eliminate competition; mandate the use of the
business' products; set prices for the products; collect data on
customers; use said data to threaten, coerce and punish customers who do
not use the business' products.

These businesses are of course known as governments.

Boy, that's a nice paranoid spew, there. But unless you live in Burma the
running of your government ultimately devolves down to _you_, and if _it_
isn't doing its job, it's because _you_ aren't doing _your_ job, either
during the time you're in the voting booth or before.

Now you (and others) will whine about how uncontrollable "big government"
is. Well, yea, get over it or get something done. The right wingers are
taking big bloody chucks off of the US government -- it pains me to see
the lack of elegance of it, and the fact that Washington seems to be
straight with the idea of hiring mercenaries to fight our wars for us
(just like the Romans in 300AD!) scares the pants off of me, but you can't
argue that it isn't getting smaller in spite of the will of the voting
populace.

It can really suck to work for a company that gets clobbered by what
might be a random screw-up. However, bankruptcy is not all bad. It is
a mechanism that allows a free market to heal itself. Buildings,
equipment and intellectual property have value, and get sold to settle
debts. Sometimes all that really happens is that poor management gets
squeezed out to make room for those who end up doing a better job.
Individuals often get hurt, but IMHO, freedom is a good thing. We
should try it.

Better than having the government come in and prop up incompetent
management, for sure.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I don't
mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I wanted to do
that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors are required to
live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a bunch of regulators
who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants" sitting in on my design
reviews, questioning my innovations.

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have to
take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food or
safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so weak
that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Oct 6, 8:24 am, Bill Schwab wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT

Any business is like a barn with nothing but doors instead of walls. It's
hard to make sure they are all closed. Yes, quality needs to be primary and
take full focus. But, something can ALWAYS go wrong, even with the best
efforts of management. It just happens! I KNOW this first hand. Maybe
there should be an insurance available to prevent the demise of a company.

But who will pay for it? Given a choice between buying from Beef-Cheep
and their demise-insured competition (which is VERY expensive to pay for
the insurance), most consumers will opt for Beef-Cheep.

There is another way. We already have businesses that are immune to the
financial consequences of mismanagement. In fact, these businesses
actually get bigger every time something goes wrong; they grow even
faster when it is clear that they caused any particular problem.
Customers make up the difference, because the business has subsidiaries
that do things like: eliminate competition; mandate the use of the
business' products; set prices for the products; collect data on
customers; use said data to threaten, coerce and punish customers who do
not use the business' products.

These businesses are of course known as governments.

It can really suck to work for a company that gets clobbered by what
might be a random screw-up. However, bankruptcy is not all bad. It is
a mechanism that allows a free market to heal itself. Buildings,
equipment and intellectual property have value, and get sold to settle
debts. Sometimes all that really happens is that poor management gets
squeezed out to make room for those who end up doing a better job.
Individuals often get hurt, but IMHO, freedom is a good thing. We
should try it.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It can really suck to work for a company that gets clobbered by what
might be a random screw-up.

Sorry but I do not believe a moment that this was a "random screw-up".

This company spent a year making hamburger mixed with sh*t and sold it
to consumers and restrurants.

Some of the buyers were likely nationally recognized hamburger chains.

We all likely ate some of it.

Hmm..hmm...good.

TMT

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.



On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I don't
mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I wanted to do
that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors are required to
live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a bunch of regulators
who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants" sitting in on my design
reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.


And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have to
take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food or
safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so weak
that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.


Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.



John

On Oct 6, 8:25 am, "Carl Boyd" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

ps.com...

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

In general I would say the federal government should stay out of corporate
business. Food would be an exception that falls under the public safety
umbrella. Another proper area for federal government involvement is
polution control. Note that the constitution does NOT grant this authority
to the Feds. The state governments should have a more involved role than
the Feds.

Carl Boyd



I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT

Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available at
http://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps:http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why should food be an exception?

Lead laced toys will injure as easily as poisoned food.

It would seem either all or none...no exceptions.

TMT

On Oct 6, 9:42 am, Mark F wrote:
My apologies for top-posting...
1. If the hamburger was cooked to the recommended temperature,
it would no longer be dangerous. Canada requires product labeling,
I believe, stating that ground meat should be cooked to at least 160F.
Doesn't apply to unground meat, as e.coli is a surface contaminant,
and in unground meat, the surface doesn't get scrunged into the body
of the piece (patty) being eaten, and presumably, the surface does
rise above that temp....

Makes me wonder if the consumer doesn't bear at least SOME
responsibility.

2. I seem to recall that Jack-in-the-box with their tainted soy-and-beef
burgers managed to stay alive - how 'bout their supplier(s)?
/mark



Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT

Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
Fri Oct 5

Topps Meat Co. on Friday said it was closing its business, six days
after it was forced to issue the second-largest beef recall in U.S.
history and 67 years after it first opened its doors.

The decision will cost 87 people their jobs, Topps said.

On Sept. 25 Topps began recalling frozen hamburger patties that may
have been contaminated with the potentially fatal E. coli bacteria
strain O157:H7. The recall eventually ballooned to 21.7 million pounds
of ground beef.

Thirty people in eight states had E. coli infections matching the
strain found in the Topps patties, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported. None have died.

"This is tragic for all concerned," said Topps chief operating officer
Anthony D'Urso, a member of the family that founded the company in
1940.

The Topps recall raised questions about whether the U.S. Agriculture
Department should have acted quicker to encourage a recall. On
Thursday, top USDA officials said they would speed warnings in the
future.

Topps conceded that much of the recalled meat had already been eaten,
and on Friday expressed regret that its product had been linked to
illnesses. "We hope and pray for the full recovery of those
individuals," D'Urso said in a statement.

Topps, which halted production Sept. 26, is not the first meat company
shuttered by a recall. Hudson Foods Co. closed its plant in Columbus,
Neb., after it agreed in 1997 to destroy 25 million pounds of
hamburger in the largest U.S. meat recall after E. coli was found in
the ground beef. The plant later reopened with new owners.

Topps faces at least two lawsuits filed since the recall, one from the
family of an upstate New York girl who became ill, and one seeking
class-action status on behalf of all people who bought or ate the
hamburgers. The family of a Florida girl who suffered kidney failure
sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is among chains that sold Topps
patties.

The closing, or any subsequent bankruptcy, does not derail the
lawsuits, said William D. Marler, a lawyer for the family of 8-year-
old Emily McDonald, of North Colonie, N.Y. She was hospitalized for
two days after eating a hamburger Aug. 17 at a barbecue.

"Bankruptcy will slow the process down, but it does not mean that
people will not be compensated," Marler said.

The Elizabeth-based company had initially recalled 331,582 pounds of
its frozen hamburgers on Sept. 25, acting only after the New York
State Department of Health issued an alert linking its patties to
illnesses.

Topps on Sept. 29 recalled 21.7 million pounds of its frozen
hamburgers - a year's worth of production - after further evidence
from the New York State Department of Health indicated a wider
problem.

D'Urso said that a few employees will remain at the site to help USDA
scientists investigate the source of the E. coli outbreak.

The bacteria, which can be fatal to humans, is harbored in the
intestines of cattle and can also get on their hides. Improper
butchering and processing can cause the E. coli to get onto meat.

Thorough cooking, to at least 160 degrees internal temperature, can
destroy the bacteria.

Topps gets beef parts from slaughterhouses, grinds them, forms the
meat into patties and freezes them.

Privately held Topps, which claimed to be the leading U.S. maker of
frozen hamburger patties, said it sells its products to supermarkets
and institutions such as schools, hospitals, restaurants and hotels.

The CDC reported the number of linked cases in these states:
Connecticut, 2; Florida, 1; Indiana, 1; Maine, 1; New Jersey, 7; New
York, 9; Ohio, 1; and Pennsylvania, 8.

The recall represents all Topps hamburger products with either a "sell
by date" or a "best if used by date" between Sept. 25, 2007 and Sept.
25, 2008. All recalled products also have the USDA establishment
number EST 9748, which is on the back panel of the package or in the
USDA legend. A full list of the recalled products is available at
http://www.toppsmeat.com.

___

On the Net:

Topps:http://www.toppsmeat.com/

USDA:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess one real issue is should the consumer expect a product that
doesn't contain sh*t as an ingredient.

I mean consumers can be such a demanding lot.

And while examining the product deciding as to whether to purchase it,
how do they determine if it contains the percentage of sh*t that they
are willing to accept.

I hear lead testing kits will be a popular seller at toy stores this
year....should supermarkets sell sh*t testing kits next to the
hamburger?

Excuse me....I have to go flip the cowpies...err I mean burgers that I
am grilling.

TMT

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT


Beef recall forces Topps to shut down By JEFFREY GOLD, AP Business
Writer
snip
===========
As usual you pose very important and appropriate questions.

The problem in this case is that the respondents [including me]
are like the "blind men" examining the elephant;
[to see explication of this reference click on]
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant

To put it politely, "Opinions are like belly-buttons: Everybody
has one, and they are all full of lint."

While I am not a supporter of additional governmental spending,
in this case spending a few dollars up-front, will more than
likely prevent the loss of many more dollars in the future, quite
likely with loss of life, illness, disability, etc. particularly
when food, drugs and vehicles are involved. As in the case of
Topps, the total consequential and collateral damages to the
economy/society will far exceed the book value of the company,
and the bills for this will be presented to the taxpayers for
many years to come.

IMNSHO what is critically needed is an analog to the NTSB Major
Accident Review Board, which will look at these types of [major]
incidents in totality, without ideological bias, and establish
the facts, as super case studies.

Indeed, a financial analog to the CDC's epidemic/pandemic early
warning system is urgently needed. The court records for ALL
bankruptcies, personal and business, should be reviewed, coded
and summarized in a publicly accessible database, with
exceptional [large, circumstantial] cases referred to the Major
Financial Incident Review Board [MFIRB] for
evaluation/investigation.

These MFIRB reports can then be used to establish accountability
standards for managerial performance under the "reasonable
prudent man" standard, because the "reasonable prudent man" would
be expected to review, understand, and act on, the prior
debacles, disasters, bankruptcies, catastrophes, calamities, and
general f**k-ups in their industry.

The reason this has now become critical is the enormous growth,
integration and consolidation of many of our most
important/critical economic sectors, so that a failure, for
whatever reason, of a *SINGLE* company now has national/macro
consequences.

In the past, the size of the organizations was generally small,
and the misconduct/incompetence/failure of a local or even
regional company did not imperil the existence of an entire
economic sector or society.

To be sure, in many cases, common and accepted business
practices, such as adulteration of food, were regional/national
problems, but this was successfully dealt with by addressing the
specific problem, with after-the-fact enforcement, such as
putting people in jail for putting chalk dust in the milk or
copper sulfite in the pickles they sold.

It is impossible to reach firm conclusions without an in-depth
and critical review, but it appears to me that Topps and many of
the other recent fiascos have things in common, which should/must
be prevented from recurring.

1. The business grew in size / market-share far beyond the
managements ability to understand, manage and control.

2. The business grew in complexity far beyond the managements
ability to understand, manage, and control.

3. The business was re-engineered/right-sized, possibly as the
consequence of a merger or acquisition, and the older employees
were "RIFed" thus eliminating most "organizational memory" and
industry specific knowledge.

4. The pre-existing management with considerable industry
specific knowledge was replaced with "generalists" recently
graduated from b-school.

5. The emphases of the company, possibly as the result of a
"leveraged buy-out," has been shifted from "an organization that
provides a needed good or service which thereby makes a profit,"
to an "organization that makes a profit, which has to provide a
good or service to do so." (This is closely related to, but not
the same as the next item.)

6. The organizations leadership/management have lined their
pockets with the assets of the organization, and just as
burglarized buildings are frequently burned to conceal evidence
of a crime, the organization was "torched" via chapter 11/7 to
destroy the specifics.

Unfortunately, without in-depth investigation by qualified
experts with full authority for discovery [search warrants,
mandatory testimony under oath, subpoenas, etc.], all of this is
simply speculation, although seemingly plausible.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:01:26 -0400, Wes wrote:


These people are going to likely loose their shirts. This company privately
held.

http://www.sihi.net/principals.html

They own the whole enchilada, er hamburger.

Wes

Wow......all economics and finance degrees. One engineering degree in
the bunch.

"Things like sanitation and quality control are overhead costs and
must be minimized so that profits can be maximized."

Ooops.....until our MBA school book learning collides with reality.
Dave

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.

True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.


On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.


Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

On Oct 6, 9:51 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I've never bought frozen burgers. I hate overcooked burgers but I overcook
them a bit these days. I'm just gunshy about e. coli and so forth. I have
good meat thermometers but I can't imagine how I'd get an accurate
temperature measurement even on a burger that cooked up 5/8" thick, like
mine.

I grind my own, seriously reducing the chance of having contaminated
ground meat.

I can't find any statistics, but all the news listings I see for E
coli seem to be linked to pre-ground.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks

TMT
snip
=======

An additional thought.

I am assisting in the evaluation of the potential of adding a
masters program in "Knowledge Management." As part of the
evaluation, a fairly comprehensive review of the literature is
being done.

One item that a [very] few writers mention is the expected life
span and life cycle of corporations and other organization.

A google search disclosed this data:
Average life spans of companies listed on the S&P index for the
years cited.
60 Years in 1958
35 Years in 1978
25 Years in 1998
10 Years in 2018
SOURCE: MCKINSEY & CO.

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

The importance of this is that "for profit" corporations and
(other organizations) may have natural "life spans" and "magic"
programs such as "Knowledge Management" can do no more to extend
the allotted life span of a corporation than a goat gland
transplant [or Viagra] can extend the human lifespan.

Indeed, it may well be that Topp's, GMC's, Ford's, Chrysler's,
etc. "problems" are simply those of corporate senility and
senescence rather than diseases to be cured, are unavoidable, and
the terminal stages or phases for corporations that survive long
enough.

FWIW -- this appears to support the proposal to put a strict time
limit on all corporate charters of 50 years or so, after which
the corporation would have to be liquidated, all bonds paid off,
etc.

Some URLs of interest on this topic a

http://www.learning-org.com/01.08/0054.html

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10....2480XADS0501_5

http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/papers/con...iihara/02.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=ctA...hEQ5YbC4sk_ETA

http://books.google.com/books?id=XZk...kelsgLkaxz_akk

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...ziff16893/pg_6

Watch the wrap on the long URLs.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

We all likely ate some of it.

Well, it was sold to Michigan based Meijers. I bought a lot of it up to a
few months ago when I cut way back on meat as part of a diet.

Wes

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity. If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.

Wes

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:24:45 -0400, Wes wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity. If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.

Wes
============
This seems plausible, and indeed likely is the case. The problem
is that without an "inquest" the facts will never be established,
and even if an "inquest" is held in this particular case, it is
not valid to extrapolate from a sample of one.

Given the devastation the failure of a major employer/supplier
causes to all it's stake/share holders, and thus the foundational
importance to the American economy/society/culture of adequate
corporate governance, IMNSHO it is far past time to mandate
public inquests/autopsies into all major business failures, for
example over 10 million dollars and/or involving the loss of
life.

As indicated in another posting, the total/aggregate societal
cost of these debacles far exceeds the book value of the
corporation. Thus, the public/society has a legitimate interest
in and "right to know" what went wrong, be it simple mischance,
incompetence or fraud.

If no information is forthcoming, be assured the fix is in, and
the pols got their "cut" of the action, ala the S&Ls.

I continue to be amazed that we require anyone that drives a
vehicle as part of their employment to have special licensure
such as a CDL, back-ground checks, and pass periodic physicals
examinations and drug tests, while we let anyone with only a good
line of BS, pointy-toed shoes, and a sharp suit, (capped teeth
and styled hair optional) run our major corporations.

Somebody [most likely the employees and taxpayers] is going to
wind-up holding the big "pooper-scooper" bag on this. Does
anyone know who the major creditors/owners/execs of The Topps
Corporation are?

I have no evidence of this, but one typical scam is when
management borrows heavily, piling on corporate debt [including
local economic development funds], while declaring special
dividends/bonuses and stuffing the pension funds and 401ks with
restricted stock [no voting rights / no dividends] and IOUs.
When the pickle is sucked dry, all the documents are shredded,
and the corporation "torched" via chapter 11/7.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Absolutely it is the COMPANY that needs to do its own QC. You
can't trust the government to be check everything, decide how
many items per hour to sample, etc. The government should be in
on setting minimum standards in most cases, but a company should
be free to exceed those quality standards if they choose, and
that certainly requires your own inspectors. Then, the gov't is
mostly responsible to see that nobody is cheating on the system.

Let the gov't do all QC, and pretty soon everything is going to
fall apart. As for food, do you know how FEW food inspectors
(or drug inspectors, that's even a worse case!) there are in the US?

Jon

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
snip
Beef recall forces Topps to shut down
snip
some URLs of interest

Topps meat company urls

http://www.toppsmeat.com/

http://www.toppsmeat.com/Final_10_5_...ps_Release.pdf

http://www.toppsmeat.com/Topps%20Mea...20Sa fety.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps_Meat_Company

parent corporation of topps [strategic investments & holdings]
Clear why they bailed, they have the deep pockets.

http://www.sihi.net/contact.html

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Wes wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

Topp's age is given as 67 in the article, thus it existed between
two and three times the normal/average corporate life span.

Up until 2003 if was a family held business and not a 'corporate' entity. If
the owners that know the business are on site keeping an eye on things it is
amazing how things that may get blown off in the corporate world are
addressed immediately.

I wonder if they sold because no one in the family wanted to take over the
reins? That seems like a common problem with family businesses.

Wes

Some big investment company made the owners an offer they couldn't
refuse.

Scene 2.... Investment company sqeezes the operation to get the money
out of it.


scene 3 belly up.


Harley davidson.... well almost.

Bridgeport machine

fellows gear.

J & L

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Why should food be an exception?

Lead laced toys will injure as easily as poisoned food.

TMT


WELLL! Toys are not suppose to be eaten. Teach your kids
not to eat them.
...lew...

On Oct 6, 7:29 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, wrote:

snipBeef recall forces Topps to shut down

snip
some URLs of interest

Topps meat company urls

http://www.toppsmeat.com/

http://www.toppsmeat.com/Final_10_5_...ps_Release.pdf

http://www.toppsmeat.com/Topps%20Mea...0Expands%20Gro...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps_Meat_Company

parent corporation of topps [strategic investments & holdings]
Clear why they bailed, they have the deep pockets.

http://www.sihi.net/contact.html

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Yeah...it occurred to me that they pulled the plug to limit
losses...that have yet to occur.

Think of the lawsuits that are coming.

Most cases of E.Coil are never reported.

TMT

On Oct 6, 9:42 pm, Lew Hartswick wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Why should food be an exception?

Lead laced toys will injure as easily as poisoned food.

TMT

WELLL! Toys are not suppose to be eaten. Teach your kids
not to eat them.
...lew...

You apparently have never been around children...or puppies.

TMT

John wrote:
Some big investment company made the owners an offer they couldn't
refuse.

Scene 2.... Investment company sqeezes the operation to get the money
out of it.

scene 3 belly up.

Harley davidson.... well almost.

Bridgeport machine

fellows gear.

J & L
It seems the obvious solution is "de-establish" holding companies.
Sort of like the monopoly prohibition. A company should only
be in business to "do something" buying and selling other
companies isn't "doing something" in my book.
...lew...

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:49:21 GMT, dav1936531
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:01:26 -0400, Wes wrote:


These people are going to likely loose their shirts. This company privately
held.

http://www.sihi.net/principals.html

They own the whole enchilada, er hamburger.

Wes

Wow......all economics and finance degrees. One engineering degree in
the bunch.

"Things like sanitation and quality control are overhead costs and
must be minimized so that profits can be maximized."

Ooops.....until our MBA school book learning collides with reality.
Dave


Some companys do not deserve to exist.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.


And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

True, and I probably sounded like I (as a consumer) want more protection
than I really do. Please nothing rotten, and I'll make sure that what I
get is thoroughly cooked anyway. Please don't adulterate it in a way I
can't tell. If it's really bright freaking red then I'll know that
there's either dye or CO involved, if you sell me a used car that has
struts missing from the engine compartment I'll know it's been totalled
even if the title isn't branded, if you sell me a new car I'll have looked
it up in Consumer Reports, etc.

I do try to buy meat that looks like it's been ground a few feet away from
the counter, but I'll bet that doesn't work 100% at any rate.


On the other hand, when I step onto a manufacturing floor I don't want
government inspectors (with some exceptions, based on gender, age,
appearance and attitude) sticking their hands down my shorts. No, I
don't mind too much that I am required to make a safe product -- I
wanted to do that anyway, and I like to know that my sleazy competitors
are required to live up to my standards. But I _would_ mind having a
bunch of regulators who barely passed "Physics for Civil Servants"
sitting in on my design reviews, questioning my innovations.

I hate to say it but lawyers keep things safer than any government will.

Yes, but it's the government (in the larger sense -- not a huge executive
branch) that gives the lawyers scope to work in. Without a balance of
power, and a constitutional right to redress, what could the lawyers do?

And if I screw up? Well, in a free world giving someone the freedom to
screw up means letting them feel the pain of it afterwards. If I have
to take a bunch of stuff back because I misrepresented it as safe food
or safe children's toys, then that's life. And if my business is so
weak that doing so puts me under -- that's life too.


Here is a problem, intentionally screwing up a product to save a buck
should be punishable civilly and criminally. If it is an accident the
lawyers will take their toll.

I would extend that 'intentional' to being negligent -- if you're working
on something that's safety related and you're not dotting all the 'i's and
crossing all the 't's then a consequent accident is your fault, even if
you didn't intend for something to go wrong. It may not be as bad as if
you deliberately cut corners _knowing_ that it would cause a problem, but
cutting corners and not _looking_ to see if it would cause a problem is
almost as bad.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:24:15 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Absolutely it is the COMPANY that needs to do its own QC. You
can't trust the government to be check everything, decide how
many items per hour to sample, etc. The government should be in
on setting minimum standards in most cases, but a company should
be free to exceed those quality standards if they choose, and
that certainly requires your own inspectors. Then, the gov't is
mostly responsible to see that nobody is cheating on the system.

Let the gov't do all QC, and pretty soon everything is going to
fall apart. As for food, do you know how FEW food inspectors
(or drug inspectors, that's even a worse case!) there are in the US?

Jon
Likely about 20 times as many as in Canada. Or more.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

That's what China is hoping

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:50:09 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:53:11 -0400, john wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my
food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping,
is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.

LOL You know what they say about the word ' assume

Rule # 1 on buying ground meat.... don't get any from a big packing
house. Fresh ground local meat is the only way to go.


And did you know E-Coli is a MAJOR problem in corn-fed beef and almost
unheard of in range fed or grain finished range fed beef?
American beef is virtually100% corn fed or corn finished beef.

And shot full of hormones and antibiotics, just to keep them alive.

--
Ed Huntress