Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with consent. Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market. The biggest entities often become part of an initial agreement and then the law is a fact and various parties now negotiate exceptions and some of them not so kosher. I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no good. As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for all involved. I think David is correct about the peanut scandal. Reality is that the company probably had dealings (agreements) that gave them OK to not have the zero tolerance level enforced (zero tolerance is common in the food industry - but not possible). At some point in time the test probably became a joke as it was always OK even if it was not. Perhaps they just abandoned the test. Why spend time on testing when their is no limit. I think like David that nobody believed the product was dangerous. It was good for years - of course it is good today also.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case. I hope and believe that he > did not think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any > deaths. I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has > been around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to > the public. > > I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during > production as well. Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and > did not make a conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a > callous way. Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was > dangerous during that time frame? How many other foods were equally or > more dangerous? > > Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a > businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too > far. People make similar errors in judgement all the time. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details > > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > >> >> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is >> practical if one is not prepared to pay the price. >> > > The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the > leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules > that have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That > is not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries > they regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that > regulations are always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the > corporations being regulated. They reflect the best practices of > responsible companies. > > In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the > regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by > making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but > effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today. > > If the government were to try to force through regulations without > industry consent, there would be a hue and cry. > > One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking > over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you > can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart > Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible > peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by > salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that > happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It > is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have > to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts. > > > >> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can >> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place. >> > > I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile > companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will > destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though. > > - Jed > >
