Cargill Recalls 1 Million Pounds of Beef Possibly Tainted by E coli

November 5, 2007

  • November 5, 2007 at 8:35 am
    nebcat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bush and his neo-con cronies want to spend all the money for the oil war and nothing to make sure the food supply is safe. Just look at the toy fiasco. Only a small handful of people to test products, DUH!!

  • November 5, 2007 at 11:59 am
    TC Edwards says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It appears these recalls are happening more frequently. Whilst it is unfortunate that tainted products still make it to market it is impressive that industry is getting better at actually recalling the products. However, can you imagine the magnitude of the costs involved?
    We provide a specialist insurance mechanism to cover the recall expense and cost of rehabilitating the brand. Crisis Management is included so as to get things fixed fast. Products Recall insurance is something food processors should not be without in order to keep our food safe.

  • November 5, 2007 at 2:42 am
    SFOInsuranceLady says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What I can’t understand is why don’t they test the products before it gets to market? You would think there would be better inspection procedures before the meat gets out.

  • November 6, 2007 at 10:51 am
    SP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nebcat, We rely so much on the federal government to take care of us when there is a problem, but expect the same government to leave us alone when we are fine.

    The food safety testing and toy safety testing and the like should be left to the manufacturers and distributors with federal standards. The manufacturers and distributors are the ones that end up paying for the recalls and the lawsuites that ensue because the recall was too slow. I think it is a great incentive to them to pay attention to what they are doing.

    SFOInsuranceLady, I agree that testing should be much quicker. Why wait until the product is in American markets and households before testing is done?

    The upside to E.Coli is if you cook your food thoroughly you kill the bacteria. I guess no more rare meat for me.

  • November 6, 2007 at 11:57 am
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My mom always cooked hamburger well-done and I was in my twenties before I could choke down rare beef at all. And then the latest haute cuisine was “steak tartare”; but as a matter of common sense, I never had to worry about e-coli because I don’t care for raw or rare hamburger; those who eat it that way deserve what they get, as far as I’m concerned.

  • November 6, 2007 at 2:22 am
    Compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey Stat Guy, just cause you like to eat shoe leather, doesn’t mean we who don’t deserve to get sick. If you knew anything about E. Coli, it is only present on the surface of unground beef, so you can sear the meat and still have it medium rare and be completely safe. But with ground beef, it goes all the way thru, so it does need to be cooked more.

  • November 6, 2007 at 3:19 am
    Mr. Obvious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are several types of bacteria present in uncooked hamburger, of which e. coli is but one. All can be neutralized by thorough cooking. This does tend to reduce some of the flavor of the burger.

    However, most of us are risk managers at heart. Why risk illness merely to get a slightly better tasting meal?

    The truth of the matter is that hamburger has been sold for decades with e. coli present. It has only been in the last 10-20 years that procedures have been in place to detect it. We ate e. coli contaminated meat for years before anyone told us it was bad. We just thought we got food poisoning, we didn’t know the name of the culprit.

  • November 6, 2007 at 3:40 am
    another guy named Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Despite SFOInsurance Lady’s concerns and nebcat’s (neo Rosie???)idiotic shot at W…the issue in food testing relies on our ability to develop accurate tests that provide results faster. Driving this need is the desire of consumers to bring product to market quickly while it is still “fresh”. If it takes 4-5 days to get results back on a batch of processed ground beef…..where do think the meat is?? In your grocery meat case.

    My PhD friend spent several years working for a McDonnell Douglas division that developed new, more accurate and faster (results) testing for bacteria.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*