• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ag Supply Chain Slip-Ups

Mike

Well-known member
Manufacturing slip-ups provide food for thought
Author: T.D. Clark, ThomasNet


Peanut butter, rib meat and chocolate — whoa! Major American food manufacturers ConAgra, Tyson and Hershey are dealing with significant supply chain slip-ups right now, and while their efforts to turn things around sound ambitious, only time will tell if they will actually work.

The Associated Press initially broke the news that The Hershey Company is cutting 1,500 jobs, closing plants and outsourcing a portion of its production to Mexico. Hershey said the three-year blueprint would reduce the number of production lines by more than one-third while saving the company as much as $190 million a year.

“We recognize this will involve considerable change over the next three years, and intend to make this transformation of our supply chain as smooth as possible for our employees and customers,” said Richard H. Lenny, Hershey’s president, chairman and CEO.

The reason for the restructure? Hershey, the nation’s largest candy maker, reported a 10 percent drop in fourth-quarter earnings last month on lackluster sales. Results lagged due to weak merchandising and a recall of products made at a plant in Canada last year after salmonella bacteria was discovered.

Wachovia Securities analyst Jonathan P. Feeney said Hershey’s plan isn’t so sweet:

"We are skeptical that pulling capacity out of the system while allocating capital away from the core business accomplishes the critical mission, which is to reinvigorate consumer response to its core chocolate products," Feeney wrote.

Feeney poses an interesting point. Why shouldn’t Hershey do all it can to remain on top in the U.S.? While a part of its turnaround strategy involves attention to product innovation and more aggressive marketing tactics, it does feel like Hershey might be spreading itself too thin. Speaking of spreading …

ConAgra Foods announced last week it would recall all Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter made at its Sylvester, Ga., plant as federal officials have linked the peanut butter to a salmonella outbreak that has sickened almost 300 people nationwide since August. That isn’t all:

The company's Sylvester plant remains closed while the FDA investigation continues, ConAgra spokesman Chris Kircher said Tuesday. All of the jars of peanut butter involved have a product code on the lid beginning with "2111," which denotes the plant. ConAgra said customers may return the lids or full jars of peanut butter to the store where they bought them for a refund.

Reports indicate that the recall will cost ConAgra up to $60 million. How did this dangerous outbreak happen to such a beloved brand that earns ConAgra some $150 million per year? Aren’t there already stringent measures in place to prevent these types of things from happening? While we wait to learn came to be (if it ever becomes known), it would indeed be interesting and helpful for the entire industry to learn the details.

Also, Tyson Foods inadvertently forgot to add some very important details to a couple boxes of rib meat sent to Japan. As a result, Japan has suspended beef exports from one of Tyson’s seven U.S. beef packing facilities since it was assumed the meat exceeded Japan’s age requirement on beef. Here’s more:

The beef was from cattle under 30 months of age, Tyson said. The boxes, which had a total of 95 lbs of boneless short ribs, did not contain any materials considered a possible risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called mad cow disease, Tyson said.

Tyson says it is currently working with the USDA to get back on track. It is quite the revelation to learn that such a small stipulation could get one of the world’s largest meat producers into so much hot water. At the same time, it is nothing short of terrifying to think of the outcome — had those cases been infected and reached their final destination.

So, three very different supply chain slip-ups are making headlines and headaches. Have these companies handled the situations appropriately?
Technorati tags:
food manufacturing recalls restructuring

A
 

mrj

Well-known member
Lurid headlines sell media space.

Facts are pretty dry and boring.

Some 5000 people die each year from apparent food poisoning in the USA.

With a population of more than 300,000,000 that seems a very small number of deaths when looking at numbers only and not the emotional pain each death causes.

Would it be possible to spend enough money to eliminate all such deaths?

Certainly not until we can consider and test the food handlers, including in the home, to find sources of bacteria causing food borne illnesses.

Is it possible to eliminate all cases of foodborne illnesses without banning ALL foods known to cause deathly allergic reactions in some people?

Are we willing and able to do all the above in order to eliminate ALL deaths from food sources?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Lurid headlines sell media space.

Facts are pretty dry and boring.

Some 5000 people die each year from apparent food poisoning in the USA.

With a population of more than 300,000,000 that seems a very small number of deaths when looking at numbers only and not the emotional pain each death causes.

Would it be possible to spend enough money to eliminate all such deaths?

Certainly not until we can consider and test the food handlers, including in the home, to find sources of bacteria causing food borne illnesses.

Is it possible to eliminate all cases of foodborne illnesses without banning ALL foods known to cause deathly allergic reactions in some people?

Are we willing and able to do all the above in order to eliminate ALL deaths from food sources?

MRJ

MRJ, as you were writing this, the undersecretary of agriculture was talking about the new expanded HACCP program that basically allows companies to manage their own risks and inspection criteria.

The processing companies should have to manage their companies as to food borne contamination and the USDA should just test the end product.

You are right about eliminating food borne illnesses. Don't you think the USDA should start there?

Do you think checkoff dollars should be used to identify and help remedy the contamination at the processing plants?
 

mrj

Well-known member
I'm aware of the new expanded HACCP program and approve of it. Unless the people are willing to bear additional taxes to pay for ever increasing inspectors and their union demands, we are going to have to rely on the plants that have historically committed to doing things right so far as inspections go. There surely are some honest and honorable people in industry, or no progress would have been made in cutting foodborne illness.

Which companies do you KNOW are not doing what they should to aleviate/prevent food pathogens?

When have you demanded that unions allow their members to be checked personally for pathogens needed to find the source?

I know that USDA instituted HACCP in order to improve the food safety factors.

I KNOW that some Beef Checkoff money is used to improve food safety, and properly so.

I also know the packers and processors spend huge amounts of money to aid food safety. I'm curious as to why you never mention that fact.

So, what are you getting at with that question.

I do not believe innuendo and implication do a darn thing to improve anything!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
I'm aware of the new expanded HACCP program and approve of it. Unless the people are willing to bear additional taxes to pay for ever increasing inspectors and their union demands, we are going to have to rely on the plants that have historically committed to doing things right so far as inspections go. There surely are some honest and honorable people in industry, or no progress would have been made in cutting foodborne illness.

Which companies do you KNOW are not doing what they should to aleviate/prevent food pathogens?

When have you demanded that unions allow their members to be checked personally for pathogens needed to find the source?

I know that USDA instituted HACCP in order to improve the food safety factors.

I KNOW that some Beef Checkoff money is used to improve food safety, and properly so.

I also know the packers and processors spend huge amounts of money to aid food safety. I'm curious as to why you never mention that fact.

So, what are you getting at with that question.

I do not believe innuendo and implication do a darn thing to improve anything!

MRJ


MRJ, if HACCP sounds good to you and is more efficient, why not expand the concept in another area? We have huge costs in education. Why not allow all students to grade their own papers? With this we could surely have higher class sizes and cut some teachers. Test scores would go up and everyone would benefit. We would have a higher high school graduation rate. Heck, they all might get As.

Beef checkoff money should be used for producers only. Unless you are going to do a per head checkoff on packers, keep the checkoff money working for producers, not packers. If packers can't produce a good product, they should get out of the business. If they are cutting corners to improve profitability and it comes at the expense of illegal activity, or food safety, they should pay the price and let those who can compete fairly do it.

Do you often co-mingle funds at your bank? If not, why should producers do that with their checkoff funds and packer interests? Shouldn't packers kick back some of the benefits they gain back to producers or do you believe they automatically do that as SH does? If you believe this, have you been to Tyson's home in the Virgin Islands? I mean, we are all talking about sharing aren't we?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Lurid headlines sell media space.

Facts are pretty dry and boring.

Some 5000 people die each year from apparent food poisoning in the USA.

With a population of more than 300,000,000 that seems a very small number of deaths when looking at numbers only and not the emotional pain each death causes.

Would it be possible to spend enough money to eliminate all such deaths?

Certainly not until we can consider and test the food handlers, including in the home, to find sources of bacteria causing food borne illnesses.

Is it possible to eliminate all cases of foodborne illnesses without banning ALL foods known to cause deathly allergic reactions in some people?

Are we willing and able to do all the above in order to eliminate ALL deaths from food sources?

MRJ

Certainly not until we can consider and test the food handlers, including in the home, to find sources of bacteria causing food borne illnesses.

So, MRJ, did you read the post I made about Tyson not wanting to pay its people for wearing protective clothing? They even fought the lawsuit all the way up after the Supreme Court ruled on this already. If you don't pay for food safety just to cut corners, do you need to be in business?

Please quit claiming to be a beef advocate when your actions show you to be nothing more than a packer apologist.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Econ said:
MRJ, if HACCP sounds good to you and is more efficient, why not expand the concept in another area? We have huge costs in education. Why not allow all students to grade their own papers? With this we could surely have higher class sizes and cut some teachers. Test scores would go up and everyone would benefit. We would have a higher high school graduation rate. Heck, they all might get As.

Good analogy.


Increasing inspectors and giving them more power is the surest way to more safe meats.

MRJ, haven't you learned that 'the people' pay for everything...whether directly or through taxes!!! :? :???:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Not a SLIP UP;

Supervalu mislabeling meat, lawsuit alleges

23.feb.07
Meatingplace.com
Tom Johnston
Two grocery shoppers have sued Supervalu Inc., accusing the supermarket chain of mislabeling beef at Cub Foods stores in Minnesota.
The lawsuit, filed in an Anoka County district court by Michael Olson and John Wylde, claims Cub Foods labeled ordinary beef as a more expensive Black Angus cut. The plaintiffs' attorney, Guy Burns, said two meat cutters who worked at several Cub Foods locations have professed that the practice was widespread and dated back at least five years, the Associated Press reported.
Burns declined to identify the meat cutters, who no longer work for Cub Foods. They also weren't named in the complaint, which seeks class-action status.
Based in Eden Prairie, Minn., Supervalu is the nation's third-largest supermarket chains behind Kroger Co. and Safeway Inc. In addition to Cub Foods, its stores include Jewel-Osco, Save-A-Lot and Albertsons.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Tainted broth found here
21.feb.07
Riverhead News-Review (NY)
Tim Gannon
http://www.riverheadnewsreview.com/NR/index/307349602424458.php
Two Riverhead residents were cited as saying they discovered a lime green color last month when they opened containers of newly purchased College Inn chicken broth.
Bob Banfelder was cited as saying he was later told by the FDA that the package contained a solvent.
Mr. Banfelder didn't taste the broth or even smell it. He did pour it into some pasta fagioli soup he had spent hours preparing on Jan. 3, and he was not happy about that.
Mr. Banfelder said he called College Inn's headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pa., and they offered him $15 to compensate for the tainted product and the ruined soup. But Mr. Banfelder said he was more concerned with protecting the public, in light of the recent e-coli outbreak at Taco Bell.
He tried to make arrangements to have College Inn pick up the contaminated broth, but the College Inn rep said she doubted they could do anything, according to Mr. Banfelder.
He then contacted the county health department but was told the state Department of Agriculture handles such complaints. The state agency told him the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was the agency to contact, Mr. Banfelder said. He left a message with the FDA but then College Inn called to say they would send someone to pick up the green broth.
Next the FDA called back, telling him it was the state he should be contacting. The FDA did eventually assure him they would follow up on the situation, he said.
Shortly afterward, he got a call from a firm called Retrieval Quality Assurance looking to set up a pick-up time for the broth. The man who was supposed to pick it up had to cancel twice, however, because he had an intestinal virus, Mr. Banfelder said.
Eventually, the green broth was collected.
The story says that the News-Review contacted the corporate office of Del Monte Foods, the parent company of College Inn, and received the following response from said Del Monte spokesperson Michelle Faist.
"We are obviously very concerned about this isolated incident. We consider the safety of products to be of utmost importance. Whenever there is any suggestion that there may be a product safety concern, our policy is to immediately notify the producing plant and our Quality Assurance Management in order to begin a thorough investigation. We also request the object for examination to help determine the cause of the problem. This policy was completely adhered to in this case, as the notifications and investigation began on the same day that we received the complaint from Mr. Banfelder.
"We have since completed our timely internal investigation of the incident and have determined that the substance he found could not have been introduced during our manufacturing process. This is an isolated report involving only this single carton. We found indications that the packaging had been compromised, but not during our manufacturing process.
"Considering these findings, we turned this matter over to the appropriate authorities at the FDA for further investigation, as the FDA has primary responsibility for investigating product issues that arise after the manufacturing process. The FDA is currently looking into the matter."
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The FDA has announced that starting in April, a risk based inspection system will begin at 254 meat processing plants across the United States

It is being reported that the US will begin to use a risk based inspection system in order to examine 254 meat processing plants beginning in April of this year. The plan focuses on paying more attention to plants that the government feel are at a greater risk of contamination, and plants that have had past breeches in their safety records.

The American Meat Institute, is not in favor with the decision by the FDA to invoke the risk based inspection plan: "USDA is forcing 250 plants that produce branded, trusted meat and poultry products into a new and controversial program with little notice or buy-in," said AMI President Patrick Boyle.

"I think it is a mistake for (USDA) to move forward with risk-based inspection at this time, and I will be monitoring what happens very closely," said Rep. Rosa Delauro, the Connecticut Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees USDA.

In total, there are more than 6000 slaughter and meat processing plants across the United States. Officials state that slaughter houses will not be included in their inspection plan, but plans will be made down the road to include them.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Again, sensationalism sells!

The implication that most or all large businesses are out to cheat and steal their way to obscene profits plays well to many audiences.

Did Tyson forget to add details to the packages of rib meat? Or were the packages of rib meat accidentally included in the shipment? Whichever the case may be, they are acting diligently to correct the error from happening again. Hopefully, they will consider the possibility of worker sabotage, as well as carelessness, in the incident.

The real attention grabber in that statement is the ridiculous comment that the meat might have contained materials at risk of carrying BSE! That is outrageously inflammatory. Following SRM removal practices removes that danger according to the best science available.

Obviously, the companies have handled something correctly......or we would never have known about these incidents!!!!!

Econ, why do you disparage HACCP, which demands use of actual testing for bacteria, etc., hazard analysis (to remove hazards) and care in critical control points in the particular food producing systems, instead of the old see and smell methods of determining dangers. Inspectors were not eliminated, they were augmented with testing and better oversignt. Of course, the unions don't like it.

Your riduculous arguments re. education are typical, and useless, as usual. HACCP is more like elevating the Inspector to an oversight position of overseeing requirements that the company to do the best possible job of managing the food safety in the plant.

What, specifically would you want the Beef Checkoff to do for producers? And, do you mean individually, or collectively? Do you want packers to control the Beef Checkoff, because they would be enough money to gain control if they paid at the same rate producers do.

What makes you think "producers beef checkoff dollars are co-mingled with "packer interests"? What do you mean?

BTW, are you aware that packers have invested some of their own money, by their choice, into some Beef Checkoff projects? Have you ever visited the web sites of the CBB and NCBA Federation Div. to see what is being done with checkoff money?

Obviously, packers pay what they have to to buy the cattle they need. What caused the prices for feeder cattle to go up to the highs of recent years? What has raised those prices again recently, after the declines last fall?

No, I didn't happen to see your post re Tyson now wanting to pay for protective clothing for workers. You failed to present documentation of your allegations re. the Supreme Court and the facts of what Tyson did or did not do to enhance worker safety, so am not sure specifically what you reference with your accusation.

Do you also believe ranchers in severe winter climates should provide winter clothing necessary to the safety of someone working for us in winter? Should ranchers provide and require riders to wear helmets when working cattle horseback? There are some things workers must decide for themselves and take some responsibility for their own safety. And what, specifically, have you done to advocate for the cattle producer, at your own expense and time?

I'm not a "packer apologist" and have never said any guilty of a crime should not be punished.

You are a packer attacker who presents very little validation for your claims, and you don't like it when anyone questions your veracity and biases on the subject.

RobertMac, do you really believe the old system of inspectors simply looking at the system and products, maybe smelling them, was better than the current HACCP system of continuously searching the plants to see where problems would be likely, then correcting the process, along running actual tests for dangerous pathogens? The unions would get 'fat and happy' with your scenario, though.

Certainly, I've seen the claims that "the people pay for everything, directly of through taxes". Logically then, we may as well just let government take care of all financial transactions and just give us what they think we need.

NO matter how much money was spent, how can we assure an absolutely safe food system if humans touch food in processing it and we still are allowed to store, prepare and cook our own food at home? We will always need to be vigilant, and improve systems for food safety, but there is a point where more money simply won't produce better results, and be financially damaging to the food production systems.

Surely, the Democrats like Ms. DeLauro wouldn't play politics with our food, would they?????


MRJ
 
Top