PDA

View Full Version : "Clerical error" responsible for failure to report that wheat gluten was shipped to Canada?


MaryL
April 12th 07, 02:45 PM
According to this article, Menu Foods now says a "clerical error" was
responsible for the company's failure to be aware that it shipped
potentially contaminated wheat gluten to Canada. Look at this quote:
"Humans are not perfect. Someone made a mistake," spokesman Sam Bornstein
said in an e-mailed response to questions from USA TODAY. "We were shocked."

That's outrageous! By the time they discovered the "clerical error,"
several weeks -- and untold numbers of deaths and illness -- had gone by.
Given the tragic (and *very well publicized*) nature of this problem, they
should have been making meticulous searches. Detailed records should be
available for this type of situation.

The full article can be read here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2007-04-12-pet-food-thur-usat_N.htm

MaryL

Sherry
April 12th 07, 03:17 PM
On Apr 12, 8:45 am, "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER>
wrote:
> According to this article, Menu Foods now says a "clerical error" was
> responsible for the company's failure to be aware that it shipped
> potentially contaminated wheat gluten to Canada. Look at this quote:
> "Humans are not perfect. Someone made a mistake," spokesman Sam Bornstein
> said in an e-mailed response to questions from USA TODAY. "We were shocked."
>
> That's outrageous! By the time they discovered the "clerical error,"
> several weeks -- and untold numbers of deaths and illness -- had gone by.
> Given the tragic (and *very well publicized*) nature of this problem, they
> should have been making meticulous searches. Detailed records should be
> available for this type of situation.
>
> The full article can be read here:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2007-04-12-pet-food-thur-usa...
>
> MaryL

Absolutely outrageous. It still makes me wonder if, or how,
differently the whole situation would have
been handled from the beginning if the potential contamination
involved "People food". Call me a
conspiracy freak, but I still think all parties involved knew much
more about, much earlier than
they admit.
It sounds like Menu is probably completely wrecked as a pet-food-
supplier. As well they should be.

sheelagh
April 12th 07, 04:10 PM
On 12 Apr, 14:45, "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER>
wrote:
> According to this article, Menu Foods now says a "clerical error" was
> responsible for the company's failure to be aware that it shipped
> potentially contaminated wheat gluten to Canada. Look at this quote:
> "Humans are not perfect. Someone made a mistake," spokesman Sam Bornstein
> said in an e-mailed response to questions from USA TODAY. "We were shocked."
>
> That's outrageous! By the time they discovered the "clerical error,"
> several weeks -- and untold numbers of deaths and illness -- had gone by.
> Given the tragic (and *very well publicized*) nature of this problem, they
> should have been making meticulous searches. Detailed records should be
> available for this type of situation.
>
> The full article can be read here:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2007-04-12-pet-food-thur-usa...
>
> MaryL

This is dreadful news & must be very worrying for you all.
I sympathise with you all.....
S..

CatNipped
April 12th 07, 06:55 PM
"Sherry" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 12, 8:45 am, "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER>
> wrote:
>> According to this article, Menu Foods now says a "clerical error" was
>> responsible for the company's failure to be aware that it shipped
>> potentially contaminated wheat gluten to Canada. Look at this quote:
>> "Humans are not perfect. Someone made a mistake," spokesman Sam Bornstein
>> said in an e-mailed response to questions from USA TODAY. "We were
>> shocked."
>>
>> That's outrageous! By the time they discovered the "clerical error,"
>> several weeks -- and untold numbers of deaths and illness -- had gone by.
>> Given the tragic (and *very well publicized*) nature of this problem,
>> they
>> should have been making meticulous searches. Detailed records should be
>> available for this type of situation.
>>
>> The full article can be read
>> here:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2007-04-12-pet-food-thur-usa...
>>
>> MaryL
>
> Absolutely outrageous. It still makes me wonder if, or how,
> differently the whole situation would have
> been handled from the beginning if the potential contamination
> involved "People food". Call me a
> conspiracy freak, but I still think all parties involved knew much
> more about, much earlier than
> they admit.
> It sounds like Menu is probably completely wrecked as a pet-food-
> supplier. As well they should be.

What has not been mentioned (except for on instance) in the news is the
possibility of people eating the contaminated food. Older people on
medicare and the homeless routinely eat pet food because (shamefully for our
country) that's all they can afford. And what about babies and toddlers who
eat a pet's food from the dish on the floor (I've seen this on shows like
"America's Funniest Videos" and "The Planet's Funniest Animals" as well as
seeing it with my own eyes. What will they say if they were the cause of a
child's death because they wanted to save their company a few bucks!!???

Hugs,

CatNipped

Sherry
April 12th 07, 11:57 PM
On Apr 12, 12:55 pm, "CatNipped" > wrote:
> "Sherry" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 8:45 am, "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER>
> > wrote:
> >> According to this article, Menu Foods now says a "clerical error" was
> >> responsible for the company's failure to be aware that it shipped
> >> potentially contaminated wheat gluten to Canada. Look at this quote:
> >> "Humans are not perfect. Someone made a mistake," spokesman Sam Bornstein
> >> said in an e-mailed response to questions from USA TODAY. "We were
> >> shocked."
>
> >> That's outrageous! By the time they discovered the "clerical error,"
> >> several weeks -- and untold numbers of deaths and illness -- had gone by.
> >> Given the tragic (and *very well publicized*) nature of this problem,
> >> they
> >> should have been making meticulous searches. Detailed records should be
> >> available for this type of situation.
>
> >> The full article can be read
> >> here:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/2007-04-12-pet-food-thur-usa...
>
> >> MaryL
>
> > Absolutely outrageous. It still makes me wonder if, or how,
> > differently the whole situation would have
> > been handled from the beginning if the potential contamination
> > involved "People food". Call me a
> > conspiracy freak, but I still think all parties involved knew much
> > more about, much earlier than
> > they admit.
> > It sounds like Menu is probably completely wrecked as a pet-food-
> > supplier. As well they should be.
>
> What has not been mentioned (except for on instance) in the news is the
> possibility of people eating the contaminated food. Older people on
> medicare and the homeless routinely eat pet food because (shamefully for our
> country) that's all they can afford. And what about babies and toddlers who
> eat a pet's food from the dish on the floor (I've seen this on shows like
> "America's Funniest Videos" and "The Planet's Funniest Animals" as well as
> seeing it with my own eyes. What will they say if they were the cause of a
> child's death because they wanted to save their company a few bucks!!???
>
> Hugs,
>
> CatNipped- Hide quoted text -

I had not thought about it in that context, but you are right.
What I was thinking about, wondering about, is that somewhere, someone
had the attitude "It's only pet food." and that's
why the contaminated product was sent to Menu. Well, not exactly
*why*, but the reason that safeguards were so
lax and the thing just mushroomed across board affecting so many
foods. Was someone saving a buck for the
company *buying* suspect product in the first place? Oh well. We'll
never know.
I"m very well aware, every time I look in the pantry, that it's just
by sheer luck we didn't feed some of those foods. I switch
foods a lot with this picky crew, and try new things often.
I hadn't heard about the CFO selling his shares. *half* his shares.
That's a substantial amount, and yeah, it's
hard to believe it's a coincidence.

Sherry

Sherry