Nestle refused FDA information

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Nestle should be tried for manslaughter for all the babies they've killed in third world countries.

They've killed the most in the U.S.? :shocked:

People in the US are educated about how breastfeeding is much better than formula (willful ignorance),

and we have adequate vaccination/water/medical.

Where?

There are more than 40 million in the U.S. with no access to vaccination and medical

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Nestle should be tried for manslaughter for all the babies they've killed in third world countries.

They've killed the most in the U.S.? :shocked:

People in the US are educated about how breastfeeding is much better than formula (willful ignorance),

and we have adequate vaccination/water/medical.

Where?

There are more than 40 million in the U.S. with no access to vaccination and medical

It's like riding a bike, proving you stupid. Welcome back!
CDC: Less Than 1% of Kids Get No Vaccination by Age 19-35 Months

And while we could improve on preventative/well baby for the uninsured, every person in the US has access to reactive health care.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

This isn't new. Food and drug companies have been paying off/dodging inspectors since the FDA's creation.

100% fruit juice is really only around 85%

Pepperoni pizza eaten with any soda forms a compound that is the recipe for a tumor.

I hope you're not suggesting that as a reason to excuse or overlook their actions. :Q

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

This isn't new. Food and drug companies have been paying off/dodging inspectors since the FDA's creation.

100% fruit juice is really only around 85%

Pepperoni pizza eaten with any soda forms a compound that is the recipe for a tumor.

I hope you're not suggesting that as a reason to excuse or overlook their actions. :Q

Oh not one bit. I'm just saying that its funny that people are in shock over it....this is business as usual for the FDA.

Just another corrupt part of government that we the people cant do anything about :frown:

 

[RightIsWrong]

What is the purpose of an agency that has oversight responsibilities of a company not being able to actually oversee them?

Something needs to change and the companies aren't going to like the direction that it should go.

 

[WHAMPOM]

"You're doin' a heckov'a job FDA!"

edit; the FDA used to have some bite, aw yes then came the Reagan era.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

"Companies have the right to make conditions on what they will or will not permit during an inspection," she said. "Some companies have a policy that they outline for the investigator at the beginning of an inspection."

Wow, techs self-owned himself with his own post.

:laugh:

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

I see alot of self ownage...the self ownage is strong in this one...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

"Companies have the right to make conditions on what they will or will not permit during an inspection," she said. "Some companies have a policy that they outline for the investigator at the beginning of an inspection."

Wow, techs self-owned himself with his own post.

:laugh:

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

Let me connect the dots for you, okay? Try and keep up.

The FDA's official policy is that the company can set the conditions for the inspections.

Thus, Nestle followed the rules as set by the FDA, the governing inspection body.

They are following the rules set by the regulators.

THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS SPECIFIED BY THE FDA.

Clear enough for you? Or should I draw pictures?



Faux outrage at it's finest.

"NESTLE IS FOLLOWING THE FDA RULES! :thumbsdown::frown:"

He's saying the FDA's rules are wrong.

so who exactly is he to say the rules are wrong....

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

"Companies have the right to make conditions on what they will or will not permit during an inspection," she said. "Some companies have a policy that they outline for the investigator at the beginning of an inspection."

Wow, techs self-owned himself with his own post.

:laugh:

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

Let me connect the dots for you, okay? Try and keep up.

The FDA's official policy is that the company can set the conditions for the inspections.

Thus, Nestle followed the rules as set by the FDA, the governing inspection body.

They are following the rules set by the regulators.

THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS SPECIFIED BY THE FDA.

Clear enough for you? Or should I draw pictures?



Faux outrage at it's finest.

"NESTLE IS FOLLOWING THE FDA RULES! :thumbsdown::frown:"

and to think people as stupid as you once ran this country. Holy shit.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

"Companies have the right to make conditions on what they will or will not permit during an inspection," she said. "Some companies have a policy that they outline for the investigator at the beginning of an inspection."

Wow, techs self-owned himself with his own post.

:laugh:

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

Let me connect the dots for you, okay? Try and keep up.

The FDA's official policy is that the company can set the conditions for the inspections.

Thus, Nestle followed the rules as set by the FDA, the governing inspection body.

They are following the rules set by the regulators.

THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS SPECIFIED BY THE FDA.

Clear enough for you? Or should I draw pictures?



Faux outrage at it's finest.

"NESTLE IS FOLLOWING THE FDA RULES! :thumbsdown::frown:"

and to think people as stupid as you once ran this country. Holy shit.

who Techs? yes i agree

 

[OutHouse]

how in the hell does E.coli get into cookie dough?

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I personally wouldn't eat raw cookie dough unless it was freshly made.

Ya do know that there are raw eggs even in freshly made cookie dough, don't ya. And raw eggs can be contaminated too.

I have bought that brand in the past(too lazy to mix my own), I hope they change the rules so they cant refuse info any more. we need an FDA with claws, not the declawed one we have now. And make sure that the regulators have no ties th the companies that they regulate.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Citrix
how in the hell does E.coli get into cookie dough?

I guess someone took a dump on it.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Citrix
how in the hell does E.coli get into cookie dough?

water?

 

[techs]

Let me guess.
If somehow the nuclear power industry makes more nuke plants in America, they'll just tell the Federal Inspectors what they can and cannot inspect?
And when the nuke plant melts down, you'll support the industry for not allowing inspectors to see what they don't want them to see?

This will turn out well.....

 

[trenchfoot]

Deregulation run amok. But let's not get the "pro-deregulation crowd" all up in arms about that. I mean, they wouldn't blame/sue ANY company that killed/crippled their children and loved ones from using/consuming these companie's deregulated products........now would they? So why should the rest of us?:roll:

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: techs
Let me guess.
If somehow the nuclear power industry makes more nuke plants in America, they'll just tell the Federal Inspectors what they can and cannot inspect?
And when the nuke plant melts down, you'll support the industry for not allowing inspectors to see what they don't want them to see?

This will turn out well.....

A lot of the current nuclear plants will have a report prepared for the inspector upon arrival if they know they aren't up to the standards. "Hey look, we did your job for you. Enjoy!"

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: techs
FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

"Companies have the right to make conditions on what they will or will not permit during an inspection," she said. "Some companies have a policy that they outline for the investigator at the beginning of an inspection."

Wow, techs self-owned himself with his own post.

:laugh:

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

I see alot of self ownage...the self ownage is strong in this one...

CELLPHONED

 

[minendo]

They are not required by law to provide that information.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What is the purpose of an agency that has oversight responsibilities of a company not being able to actually oversee them?

Something needs to change and the companies aren't going to like the direction that it should go.

If you look at the history of the food industry you will find that most programs, implementations were developed by the industry itself. Not some governing body.

For those of you that know shit about the food industry and think the FDA is all powerful you would be quite amazed at how little the FDA actually does. In five years in the industry at FDA inspected facilities I have yet to see an inspector or even talk to one. The FDA does not inspect and/or audit facilities anywhere near what the USDA does.

It is up to the companies who are registered by FDA to basically self-regulate through internal audits, customer audits, and third party audits such as Silliker, AIB, Cook and Thurber, etc.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What is the purpose of an agency that has oversight responsibilities of a company not being able to actually oversee them?

Something needs to change and the companies aren't going to like the direction that it should go.

If you look at the history of the food industry you will find that most programs, implementations were developed by the industry itself. Not some governing body.

For those of you that know shit about the food industry and think the FDA is all powerful you would be quite amazed at how little the FDA actually does. In five years in the industry at FDA inspected facilities I have yet to see an inspector or even talk to one. The FDA does not inspect and/or audit facilities anywhere near what the USDA does.

It is up to the companies who are registered by FDA to basically self-regulate through internal audits, customer audits, and third party audits such as Silliker, AIB, Cook and Thurber, etc.

And that's working out so well. Which one of those companies "inspected" the plant that pumped out the poisonous peanuts?

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What is the purpose of an agency that has oversight responsibilities of a company not being able to actually oversee them?

Something needs to change and the companies aren't going to like the direction that it should go.

If you look at the history of the food industry you will find that most programs, implementations were developed by the industry itself. Not some governing body.

For those of you that know shit about the food industry and think the FDA is all powerful you would be quite amazed at how little the FDA actually does. In five years in the industry at FDA inspected facilities I have yet to see an inspector or even talk to one. The FDA does not inspect and/or audit facilities anywhere near what the USDA does.

It is up to the companies who are registered by FDA to basically self-regulate through internal audits, customer audits, and third party audits such as Silliker, AIB, Cook and Thurber, etc.

And that's working out so well. Which one of those companies "inspected" the plant that pumped out the poisonous peanuts?

The CEO of that company knowingly shipped the tainted product. The example of PCA is a wash simply because the CEO continued to have the product tested until he received a result that met his needs.

As for the PCA facilty in Plainview, TX it was inspected by the AIB and I'm not sure who else inspected the facility. The findings in that facility were discovered in an area that had been partially sealed off and the auditor was unaware of its existence.

If you think the industry itself needs a revamp what do you suggest be done? And how is it going to be paid for?

 

[Patranus]

Here is an idea....Cookie dough is meant to be cooked...common sense.

When you buy products containing raw cookie dough to eat that product under goes a process to ensure it is safe. When you buy a product that is meant to be cooked it undergoes different manufacturing processes.

Would you blame Foster Farms if someone at a big slab of raw chicken and then got salmonella?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: minendo

They are not required by law to provide that information.

As I replied, previously, that was the OP's point was that there's a problem with the rules, and he's right. In a subsequent reply, he said:

Originally posted by: techs

No, the fact that companies can make conditions for an inspection is the problem
Geez, are you watching Fox News again?

Originally posted by: Patranus

Here is an idea....Cookie dough is meant to be cooked...common sense.

When you buy products containing raw cookie dough to eat that product under goes a process to ensure it is safe. When you buy a product that is meant to be cooked it undergoes different manufacturing processes.

Here's another idea or two. If you have contaminated cookie dough, and you roll it out on a board, you can transfer the contaminant to the cutting surface. If you have kids or pets around the kitchen when you're cooking, being kids and pets, they could grab a bite of cookie dough, and you've got a sick or dead kid or pet.

And don't give us crap that we're supposed to keep our kids and pets away from food preparation. It happens, and within the bounds of reasonable and practical inspection, it's easier to prevent such problems than to deal with them after the fact.

Would you blame Foster Farms if someone at a big slab of raw chicken and then got salmonella?

Absolutely. Accidental contamination happens, but its spread can be significantly reduced by competent food inspection.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: minendo
If you think the industry itself needs a revamp what do you suggest be done? And how is it going to be paid for?

We pay for it by selling the meat of 3 week old infants. Seriously though lets take .0001% of the defense budget. done. Or we could add it to the debt.

the real question is as someone who works in that industry do you think it's regulation needs a revamp?