Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Peanut company owner refuses to testify to Congress

World Feb. 12, 2009 - 05:40AM JST ( 7 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

7 Comments

0

adaydreamFeb. 12, 2009 - 08:20AM JST

These guys are murderers. Took their 5th Amendments rights over and over again. And they walked out of the hearings and went home.

Utter madness. < :-)
0

likeitisFeb. 12, 2009 - 08:33AM JST

Well, so much for the argument that companies don't need regulation and that profit incentive is plenty to keep them good. Not saying we need to control their every move, but this case should make it clear that complete laissez faire is complete madness.
0

OssanAmericaFeb. 12, 2009 - 09:53AM JST

Who cares about testifying before Congress? How about a Grand Jury?
0

Taka313Feb. 12, 2009 - 11:19AM JST

This one goes out to my boy:

stewart parnell, prior to becoming famous for clamming up in front of Congress, was appointed to the USDA’s Peanut Standards Board in July 2005 and reappointed last October for a second term that was supposed to run until 2011.

The Dept. of Agriculture released this statement:

"The actions of PCA indicate that the company lacks business integrity and business honesty, which seriously and directly hinders its ability to do business with the federal government," said David Shipman, acting administrator of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.

Again, this guy was appointed a job with the USDA (as in the folks responsible of the safety of American food) in 2005 and again last October.

My only two questions are: is stewie an Arabian horse breeder too and was anyone driving the bus for the last 8 years?

Taka
0

bebertFeb. 12, 2009 - 11:26AM JST

“Their behavior is criminal, in my opinion. I want to see jail time,” said Jeffrey Almer, whose 72-year-old mother died Dec 21 of salmonella poisoning

Well, in China they have the death penalty incentive. My guess is that will prove a more effective incentive in the future than the profit incentive. Not so sure about America's "brief stint in prison" incentive.
0

aj2o1Feb. 12, 2009 - 03:37PM JST

"Well, in China they have the death penalty incentive. My guess is that will prove a more effective incentive in the future than the profit incentive. Not so sure about America's "brief stint in prison" incentive."

The death penalty in China now meets with approval, where it used to be unfailingly bashed as a human rights violation. American leniency for criminal CEOs sure do their part to help change attitudes.
0

MolenirFeb. 13, 2009 - 03:05AM JST

Do you guys actually know the facts of this case? They didn't just test for salmonella, then after getting a positive test, ship the stuff anyway. Thats not the way it worked. They got a positive test, went to an independent lab, got a second test done that came back negative. Only then did they ship the stuff.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying they didn't screw up. The 9 dead say pretty conclusively they did, but the question is whether or not what they did was deliberate. If they knowingly chose to endanger the public. If however they went to the independent lab, and that lab screwed up the tests, did they choose that lab because they could be counted on to produce the "right" results, or was this whole thing just a horrible accident. At this point its too early to tell.