"With the gutting of so many consumer protection regulators, I fear this is just the beginning of what we are going to see in the future."

______________

Oh, please....smh

Last year it was Boar’s Head brand meats. Many times it’s common in lettuces harvested by people who don’t wash hands or in the soils where it is grown. We would never eat if we worried about everything we purchased all the time without taking our own precautions. It happens, even with trusted brands, as more and more people who aren’t properly trained enter the workforce.

I do have to ask, why are people making every single issue political? I am rather tired of reading these types of comments.

Notice the FDA issued a level III recall? It's the least severe recall with exposure to the product not likely to cause adverse health consequences and involves minor product defects. So what heck is a defect? (click "food defect action levels handbook" below.)

The Food Defect Action Levels Handbook is a publication of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration detailing acceptable levels of food contamination from sources such as maggots, thrips, insect fragments, “foreign matter”, mold, rodent hairs, and insect and mammalian feces.

The FDA has a list of ALLOWABLE crapola in food, and with every mouth full you get a rodent hair, or insect part as a bonus! I'd take that butter, clarify and can it as ghee to use for many years, doesn't bother me as is, but boiling it to make ghee for one minute will kill all coliform bacteria.

I can believe it's not better.

FYI, studies have shown that contamination of vegetables is mainly from polluted irrigation & processing water, not anyone's hands.

And I agree this isn't likely a result of recent moves to eliminate the USA's regulatory systems, but it can be considered a harbinger of things to come, and an example of why such standards are important.

"Because things have changed drastically and it's only been a few short weeks."

This is like the "climate change" red herring in another thread.

Last time I looked, none of the staff who've assumed newly appointed posts are milking cows, processing sausage, collecting eggs in hen houses, producing or packaging food items, etc.

If wholesomeness and cleanliness standards in the food industry were higher and subject to higher levels of self-policing and administration, inspectors would have little to do. The number of them plus or minus doesn't make a difference.

This isn't a fairy tale, it's how things are done in Europe.

I agree 1000% with Outside Playing, I too tire of people finding one bogeyman and blaming that for everything under the sun. The problem isn't just the companies. It's the workers too, lax attention to whatever standards exist and "who cares" attitudes can be found throughout the American workforce.

Does the fact that there have been so many publicized food recalls reflect a poor job on the part of regulators, or a good one? I'd argue the increase in recalls indicates more vigilance by regulators over the past several years, not less.

I don't think anyone wants fecal bacteria in butter - or any other food.

The contaminated food you and I hear about isn't often discovered by inspectors because it's food that's out in stores for sale or already sold. It comes to light by reported illnesses that get passed along back to the source companies who then do their own after-the-fact investigations. As I understand it. That's why they can cite "Don't eat food with codes XYZ124" or with "Avoid products labeled ZZZ saying 'Good until X-XX-XX'". The government doesn't have this information, the producing companies do.

I often get messages or calls from European friends when "yet another" food recall or contaminated food problem here hits their press. The questions are usually the same - why does this happen so often in the US and since it does, why aren't food wholesomeness laws more stringent and more stringently enforced? (Because such events are much less common in Europe).

The inspection agencies (I forget which are involved) often talk about how THEY believe they cannot do the work Americans expect because they're underfunded and budget increase requests to do more aren't given proper attention.

Germans are proud of their Beer Purity Laws, Reinheitsgebot, that date back to 1516. Food safety is taken seriously over there, much less so here.

Edit to add:

Over 500 years later, the US today has nothing comparable.

carol, your starting this thread belatedly reminded me of something I've wondered about.

Let's move on from the specific topic of butter for a moment, that's just milk in a different form.

If there are any folks out there involved in dairy farming or otherwise so informed, I'd like to know - why isn't fecal contamination of milk a more common occurrence? I'm not an animal expert at all but any side photo of a cow shows that the milk delivery system is downhill from the poo delivery system. Cows don't live in clean conditions, they can be out in the rain, they can lie down in filthy pastures and pens. Why aren't there more instances of contaminated milk (and then resultant products like fresh milk, cream, butter, cheese, etc.)?

Pasteurization, perhaps?

Okay, duh for me for not thinking of that.

So how does the milk for butter get contaminated with fecal matter unless it's unpasteurized?

From the hands of employees who haven't properly washed and used clean gloves after visiting the restroom?

The whole point, Elmer, is that we already have issues with food contamination and that's *before* we had 20% of the FDA workforce axed...not to mention how many from the CDC who send out investigators to track the sources of such contamination. I agree that Europe does a much better job with their food supply in a lot of ways. But if achieving those levels of efficiency and effectiveness are your goal, you aren't going to get there by wholesale axing positions. Instead, it's logical to expect serious deterioration in the quality of our food over the next several years for many reasons, including issues around inspections.

Annie, I'm very happy to say I agree with much of what you've said but with one exception.

As with the specious comment made earlier by another person. And for your words, we had more than "issues" before. Our food system is more contaminated than arguably that of any other developed country. The party in power for the majority of the last 2 decades was in a position to improve things and didn't. If you don't expect the current gang to improve things, then recognize they're dealing with a longstanding problem not of their own making and deserve no blame for how things are TODAY. The worst of anywhere.

Please add some common sense to your concern.

Rational conduct doesn't always need government regulation to happen. When a food provider discovers a contamination event has taken place, do you think it would remain silent about it?

I don't. I think those concerned will conduct their own product recalls and hit the airwaves and other media to communicate details of the problem. Why? To avoid lawsuit damages and the risk of being accused of irresponsible conduct.

Commercial dairy cows are not milked by hand but by milking machines, and udders are cleaned before hooking them up

Then the milk is pasteurized.

If businesses always acted ethically, we would have no need for government regulations. Tobacco industry, coal mining, Oxycontin, Ford pinto anyone?

"Rational conduct doesn't always need government regulation to happen. When a food provider discovers a contamination event has taken place, do you think it would remain silent about it?"

Alan Greenspan learned his lesson the hard way and took the entire nation through the wringer for years because of his belief that rational conduct doesn't need government regulation. Why would financial markets sow the seeds of their own collapse? How is it rational to make no-doc loans ... loans without any documentation ... for mortgages on houses that are being flipped at skyrocketing prices? Because they can make money doing it... that is until they can't.

Why do we need circuit breakers in our homes? How is it rational that people will so overload a circuit as to lead to a fire that burn their entire house down? I remember the old fuse boxes where people would replace a blown fuse with a copper penny leading to a house fire. Is it rational? Maybe in the short term it's convenient. But no it's not rational.

As far as food safety, there's a reason why the FDA came into being...because people were getting not just ripped off (as many still do today with nonsense supplements) but seriously ill or dead as a result of foods and medicines containing things like arsenic, strychnine, and cocaine. Strep, typhoid, and botulism were far more common in the early 1900s than they are today due to food contamination. Is it rational for manufacturers to lose customers with their impure products? No, but people did it because they could make money doing it, certainly in the short run. And as long as there was no forcing mechanism to make them stop, they did it.

Good points, Annie. One of the big flaws in classic economic theory is that it overlooks the oh-so-common occurrence of irrational human behavior - one might even go so far as to call it magical thinking.

There is a highly refined process of cleaning that a cow goes through before the milking apparatus is attached. Years ago they used an iodine solution. I know because workers would come into the ER to have their eyes rinsed after getting the stuff in their eyes. We are a dairy area. Pasteurization is only part of the safety process.

Meat processors will still try and process downed cattle, the ones that die enroute. Without the threat of action against them they will sell that contaminated baby formula. There are also companies who would never do such a thing. They test and retest their products and some would do it even if it hurt their bottom line but history tells us that too many people will put brick dust in their cinnamon and chalk dust in their milk(common contaminants in the ancient past) because they make money doing it. We have government because too many people ignore right and will do wrong.

patriciae

My suspicion is that the comments immediately preceding this one, castigating the "evils of business" (which by the way is the largest employer in our country), have been made by people with little or no personal experience of any kind involved in C-Suite level deliberation, strategizing and decision making at large companies. The comments are political and emotional, not informed.

" One of the big flaws in classic economic theory is that it overlooks the oh-so-common occurrence of irrational human behavior"

I was an Econ major at a prominent university. While it was many years ago, this statement is discordant with what I remember learning and reading about.

Ah yes, "The Nutmeg State", so called because travelers coming through -- between NY and Boston, would often be sold "nutmeg," which was rare and precious at that time, at high prices. In reality they were sold sawdust.

Con artists and phonies are as old as human existence. These are normally individual perpetrators though a few exceptions do occur.

You forgot to mention your C-Suite experience, first hand participation or observations of the conspiracies that happen behind closed doors.

Don't I recall that you've sometimes mentioned having relied for "medical advice" from charlatans or other unqualified sources?

Ah, lose the argument and quickly attack your opponents. What exactly does that prove about what’s being discussed?

" My suspicion is that the comments immediately preceding this one, castigating the "evils of business" ........have been made by people with little or no personal experience of any kind involved in C-Suite level deliberation, strategizing and decision making at large companies. "

Are you talking about this one? Isn't my comment clear?

I can say it more clearly and can repeat the question - what personal experiences with nefarious doings at companies did you see yourself? Your comments and those of others suggest the source is not your own personal experiences. You paint a picture that conflicts greatly with what I saw pretty consistently myself from the inside.

It's not a personal attack in any way - I'm asking for what these extreme (and frankly, pretty commonly heard conspiracy-type) comments are based on.

No one owes you private information, no matter how many times you demand it. It must be so hard to feel you have 'superior' 'credentials' yet no one here recognizes them as such, nor cares. We are (most of us) exchanging ideas and opinions, offering info and not trying to tout ourselves as the authority on most subjects. I don't think I've seen much fawning over self described 'credentials' on this site, except a deference to medical doctors who chime in on something medical.

Every thread devolves, just like this one has.

You can't help yourself from insulting me. Is it not possible for you to express your opinions without the slurs and without thinking someone who disagrees with you is personally attacking you?

Here's my comment less obliquely. I don't think you know what you're talking about. I didn't mention my own credentials but I also don't slavishly repeat tired politically-motivated half-truth cliches.

Were you looking in the mirror to write this? Is this not the most common feedback you get on this site?

"You can't help yourself from insulting me. Is it not possible for you to express your opinions without the slurs and without thinking someone who disagrees with you is personally attacking you?"

Wow just chill peeps - this entire forum is out of control lately. Go outside, breathe the fresh air and be grateful to be alive with your loved ones and the flora and fauna.

Sheesh!

Olychick, it almost seems like you like to show off to the others. If so, that's not something to be proud of. Take the fresh air advice.

I'll go back to ignoring your unpleasant comments. Return the favor, you won't find the count of mine anywhere near approaching yours because that's not my out of the box reaction to people who disagree with me. .

" One of the big flaws in classic economic theory is that it overlooks the oh-so-common occurrence of irrational human behavior"

------

I was an Econ major at a prominent university. While it was many years ago, this statement is discordant with what I remember learning and reading about.

------

Then perhaps you should go back and review your Samuelson (I'm assuming you are too old for Mankiew) as one of the assumptions made is that people are rational actors who behave in a self interested way, seeking to optimize outcomes. It is challenging this assumption that has led to the rise in behavioral economics.

Why is that? (Why should I consult my elementary econ book, which wasn't either of the ones you mentioned?)

FWIW, I have noticed that some people seem very focused on calling out others for things they themselves are guilty of. IMO, self awareness is a valuable trait, and can foster humility - and wisdom.

The elementary economics book used at my university was written by two faculty members, Armen Alchian and Bill Allen. Referred to as "Alchian & Allen". I had the privilege of having two classes, one from each, taught by these terrific guys. One would often appear and contribute to lectures given by the other. Very motivational and entertaining teachers.

My comment that you and others pounced on had nothing whatever to do with economic theory of any kind as I can see. Not classical theories, not modern theories.

The comments made that I guess were intended to be in reply or counterpoint were political comments. Or maybe related to human behavior or business management? Certainly non-economic in nature.

I think my self awareness is reasonable. One manifestation is that one should have somewhat of a grasp of the subject matter before making statements to others.

OK, then, from google's AI summary of their book "Universal Economics" it includes:

Rational Choice: Alchian and Allen assume individuals are rational actors who make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis, striving to maximize their utility or well-being.

If what someone wants to do is get school learning to prepare to begin a career in management, Econ classes won't do it.

People who want a higher credential beyond a bachelors degree to start in business at a higher level get an MBA, not a MA/MS in Economics.

Keep going with your Google searches, you do it like throwing darts at a stock market listing to pick investments.

PS, talk about you and your buddy missing nuances! I pushed back on the "classical econ" words because econonomic theory isn't what I was talking about and I don't believe applies. The word "theory" is the tipoff that such notions are pie in the sky theoretical, not hands on practical.

Backpedaling?

Not at all. Maybe a little cat and mouse as a form of "Baloney Salami" (look at first letters only) detector. The flashing lights and ringing bells went off like on a pinball game.

The comments I pushed back on were political comments, things you and others want to believe but perhaps without enough actual firsthand experience to know.

You do understand that we all are allowed to make comments that you may disagree with, right? You are not assigned the role, except by you, to be the arbiter of truth (as you perceive it). You went from having a point of view to attacking others’ experience and ”credentials” demanding to know both. No one wants or appreciates that tactic. You’ve once again brought up people’s qualifications for holding an opinion or expressing them here.

Lose the debate and attack others when you can’t just state your position and back away. It’s an ugly look.

You can lead a horse to water, and all that...

" You do understand that we all are allowed to make comments that you may disagree with, right? "

Of course, no problem with that. You should be able to understand that for me, encountering opinions suggesting attitudes and actions that run completely counter to what I saw in a career's worth of relevant experiences, made me wonder. And triggered the thought "do they have personal experiences so different from mine? Do they have understanding of what they're talking about"?

I asked and it became apparent that No, such was not the case and what was being expressed was what I considered tired political cliches. That's all. Nothing more.

Thank you for the civil response. You can be sure that business decisions are not made by people in dark cellars, wearing black clothing, drunk from alcohol, frothing at the mouth, conspiring to figure out what will be the next thing they do to scr*w over the public that they can get away with.

Oh, and you can be sure they don't have copies of Samuelson or A&A in front of them to understand their options and alternatives.

Business decisions are made by people thinking about the bottom line and making sure they are maximizing the returns of their investors. How else do you explain RJ Reynolds.

patriciae

...or the opioid manufacturers.

And these were among many cases settled by the courts - presumably because there was enough evidence and proof of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt.

And mischaracterizing others positions won't help one prevail in an argument. Conspiracy doesn't require drama.

" Business decisions are made by people thinking about the bottom line and making sure they are maximizing the returns of their investors. "

The real world of the daily tasks of running a large business are far, far more complicated and nuanced than you suggest. It would appear to be an area you are unfamiliar with.

I don't need to explain RJ Reynolds but I can describe the tobacco industry, with help from Wiki.

Tobacco was the first cash crop of the first southerly settlements in the 1600s and helped finance their existences. Without it, the development of the colonies may not have been possible. It has remained an important economic crop in the same region to this day although obviously in decline.

RJ Reynolds was founded in 1875. The health dangers of tobacco were unknown through centuries of use. When mounting scientific evidence painted the now well-accepted picture in the later 20th century, what would you have suggested the existing tobacco companies (of which you may have been an investor if you own mutual funds) should do?

" And these were among many cases settled by the courts - presumably because there was enough evidence and proof of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt. "

I agree with you. All instances of provable and intentional wrongdoing should be pursued under the law to the greatest extent possible.

Mistakes are made by all of us in all things we may do. Some people make bad choices. Others deliberately do things that adversely impact others. That's what the law is for. Aren't such instances in the world of business rare exceptions among the thousands of companies providing goods and services we all need and use?

I think so. It's wrong to sully and cast aspersions about an important segment of our society, this or any other segment, for the misbehavior of a small minority.

Sigh. This is so tiring.

It is the fiduciary responsibility of managers and board members to look after the interests of the company and all the investors first. That is the standard in businesses with investors in this country. Pretty straight forward stuff and too many managers seem to think that cutting corners does just that. Also lying to the public as RJ Reynolds did for so many years as they killed millions of people with their product that they had ample evidence would do so. Opiods are another example. Millions dead and they knew it was maddly addictive. Oh well.

I agree that this is all tiresome. You never know when you arent going to be allowed an opinion by Elmer. I do not question the verasity of Elmer but I do feel moved to occasionally point out that if I cant quote an internt source per Elmer then why does he get to. We would have precious few conversations if no one but Elmer was allowed to look things up for verification. I routinely do that just to be sure my memory is accurate, or not. People stop posting and I feel responsible but what would be the point if the only opinion was Elmers? I have an opinion as well. Elmer wants to tell me what sort of weather I am allowed to like. When do I get to stop being polite about it. This is I think worth discussing at this table but that is just my opinion and I am ready to hear other people say it is not something they want to talk about.

patriciae

I tired of it long ago, but was just reading this morning about narcissism and contrarianism having a strong link. So, as so many others advocate (I am weak in this regard) ignoring and refusing to give attention is probably the best course to take.

olychick, you're really too much. Insults at every turn. As I said before, please do feel free to ignore my comments if you don't have been common courtesy to display.

Ah Elmer?

patriciae