Nestle refused FDA information, reports show | KOMO News – Seattle — This is interesting. When did the FDA become stooges. Why even have an FDA?

Inspection reports from a Nestle USA cookie dough factory released Friday show the company refused several times in the past five years to provide Food and Drug Administration inspectors with complaint logs, pest-control records and other information.

The records, which date back to 2004, were made public after Nestle’s Toll House refrigerated, prepackaged cookie dough was discovered to be the likely culprit in an E. coli outbreak that has sickened 69 people in 29 states, according to the latest estimates from the federal Centers for Disease Control. The CDC is investigating the outbreak along with the FDA.

Nestle voluntarily recalled all Toll House refrigerated cookie dough products made at the Danville, Va., factory late last week after the FDA informed the company it suspected consumers may have been exposed to E. coli bacteria after eating the dough raw.

According to the reports released by the FDA, the company refused to allow FDA investigators access to certain documents in at least 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek said the Glendale, Calif.-based unit of Switzerland-based Nestle SA had the right to do so.

Found by Aric Mackey.




  1. Brandon says:

    Quite frankly, I don’t see any problem here. Even the FDA said that Nestle was within their legal rights to refuse to divulge certain information. Presumed guilt is a pet peeve of mine.

  2. Li says:

    Um, their cookie dough had toxic varieties of E. coli in it. Where is the presumed part of the presumed guilt here? RTFA

  3. Mr. Fusion says:

    WTF ???

    It was Nestle’s legal right to refuse to reveal consumer complaints about health problems?

    No wonder these things happen so repeatedly. And now we can wait for Liberty Loser to tell us that is how the world should run.

  4. EvilPoliticians says:

    I do not understand the reluctance to share such basic information. I know it’s a hassle. But isn’t the potential PR and legal mess more of an issue?

  5. clancys_daddy says:

    Unfortunately most of the time, both state and federal agencies that perform the job of public health and environmental safety are not provided with the power that the general public thing they have. While they can document problems to death. When it comes to actually prosecuting a case, the politicians have the ability to shut that agency down by pulling funding. How do I know? I work for one. I have seen gross environmental blunders with initial penalties starting in six figures be whittled down to a few hundred and a promise not to do it again until next time. As one of my coworkers stated it once, we are a big ferocious dog we can bark and jump, but if we get too vocal or forceful we get our chain yanked. Makes it kind of tough to keep going to work every day. Guess thats why we have a high turnover to the private sector. Learn how the system works, get vested in the retirement system, then go to work for the competition. Just a few more years than its my turn.

  6. sargasso says:

    E. coli, the “other” secret spice.

  7. watson says:

    Assuming that the company keeps their records on computer, then the only records that they even have to keep are from the past 2 years, unless they have been specifically told to keep a record.
    That includes complaints.
    If they had paper records sitting right there in a cabinet in front of the inspectors, the company can look through the record and pull out anything that has not transpired in the last 2 years.

    The burden is on the FDA to find faults and discrepancies.
    They are not allowed to view proprietary documents.
    They have little to no ability to enforce the laws, only to inspect and report.

    The problem with the FDA is threefold:
    a) they don’t have enough inspectors to actually inspect every facility that produces foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices.
    b) they have no actual ability to enforce anything.
    c) companies can still sue the FDA (the US gov) for damages in case of a spurious report or concern that becomes public record.

  8. BrianS says:

    One small point:
    It is within our rights to NEVER buy another Nestle product ever again!

    Who needs them? No one.

    End of story………….

  9. MikeN says:

    OK, what’s that logo supposed to be?

    Most likely the agency didn’t really want to know. Regulatory agencies tend to end up working for the companies they’re supposed to regulate, all the way back to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the USDA.

  10. Ron Larson says:

    Sounds par for the course for the last 8 years of GW Bush. The lawyers knew that that Bush or Congress wouldn’t actually uphold the law.

  11. LibertyLover says:

    #3, Sigh. You should really get an education.

    http://tinyurl.com/ltcv8h

    From SEC. 704. [21 USC §374] Factory Inspection:

    […]In the case of any person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, holds, or imports foods, the inspection shall extend to all records and other information described in section 414 when the Secretary has a reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals[…]

    Combine that with a little known section of the Constitution called “Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.”

    Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If the inspectors don’t have probable cause then they have no legal authority to go through the records.

    However, if the poison can be traced back to the plant, like it was, then yes they can ask for it. And if you RTFA, you’ll see Nestle has since complied, as defined by the law.

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

  12. Mr. Fusion says:

    #13, Liberty Loser,

    So you parrot what I wrote. Yippee.

    First, the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable since a corporation is NOT a person. It does not have the same protections as a natural person does.

    The bigger question is WHY can an investigator NOT insist the corporation turn over all health complaints? The auto industry has to turn over all safety complaints and issues they become AWARE of. Drug companies must make the FDA aware of all reported side effects. So there is precedent.

    Never mind, the health and safety of Americans is secondary, in the Liebertarian mindset, to the trouble it would take to inform the government of any health issues.

  13. Rich says:

    Mr Watson Said …” companies can still sue the FDA (the US gov) for damages in case of a spurious report or concern that becomes public record.”

    Good God- with due respect, have you been paying attention to the shenanigans of Obama, etc., lately? What we don’t need right now is a government agency made immune to lawsuits. Give me the occasional tainted cookie roll.

  14. LibertyLover says:

    #14, First, the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable since a corporation is NOT a person. It does not have the same protections as a natural person does.

    They are considered a person. And that law builds on it:

    In the case of any person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures

    Since a “person” can be neither a farm nor a restaurant, it is only logical they are treating corporations as persons.

    Now, I don’t agree with that mindset — indeed, I don’t recall a defense of Nestle, only the facts (arguing with my brain and not my emotions).

    Here is an interesting article on just that subject, if you can stop your whining long enough to read it.

    http://tinyurl.com/l4f8eo

    IMO, that’s the root of the major problems in our country today — lobbyists and the reps and senators they own.

    In conclusion, corps are considered persons. Change it if you can. I’m trying I own one.

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #16, Liberty Loser,

    Thank you but I have no intereast in reading some propoganda Liebertarian piece.

    A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons that own it.

    Corporations exist as a product of corporate law…

    As an aside to that last piece, corporations are also required to perform certain things and requirements natural persons are not.

    Now you do bring up some good points. As I recall though, Blackwater failed to obtain a permit as they lied on their application (they failed to state there would be explosives and a gun range). The application was abandoned and was to be moved elsewhere. Thus, Blackwater did not win. their suit but they did get something they would have had anyway; the right to sue when they are damaged.

    My problem is not that Nestle’s exersized their right, but that they had that right in the first place. Every city has ordinaces that permit Health Inspectors to investigate any restaurant or food seller for health violations. They may even pull their permit without a court order if it is found to be unsanitary.

    I already pointed out that the auto makers must reoport all safety related complaints to NTSA and drug manufacturers must report all known adverse reactions to the FDA (although I am not sure of the total extent there). The point is there is plenty of precedent that allows the FDA and USDA to make regulations or even call for statute that would allow deeper inspections of food facilities.

  16. LibertyLover says:

    #17, I guess Wikipedia is a Libertarian newsletter now. Most of the stuff in my link talks about the same thing from your link.

    From your link: The well-known Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad talks about how the SCOTUS gave them that distinction — For these reasons, it is literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations

    My problem is not that Nestle’s exersized their right, but that they had that right in the first place

    Call and ask your congressman why that is. I can only tell you they’ve had it since the 1880s.

  17. Wretched Gnu says:

    Oh, so *this* is the “over-regulation” the right wing has been talking about!

  18. Mr. Fusion says:

    #18,

    Call and ask your congressman

    Good point. I will email him later.

    *

    Damn, I’m using an old computer and that has Opera w/o a spell checker. As anyone can see, I need a spellchecker.

    Well, looks like I’ll need to replace the M/B in mine. I just hate it when that happens!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5441 access attempts in the last 7 days.