PDA

View Full Version : Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"


waybomb
06-03-2009, 07:57 PM
The Wornick Company, a Cincinnati, Ohio, establishment is recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans" product because the product was mislabeled with the incorrect nutrition facts information panel.

The following product is subject to recall:

Brushy Creek Brand:

11.25-ounce pouches of "Brushy Creek Chili no beans." Each case contains 24 pouches and bears the establishment number "EST. 19076" and "Best By Dates" of "7/22/10; 08/26/10; 10/01/10 and 10/22/10" printed on the reverse side of the pouch; the opposite side bears the USDA mark of inspection.

The chili product was produced and packaged on various dates in January 2009 through April 2009 and was distributed to correctional institutions nationwide. The distribution of the chili product was limited only to correctional institutions.

The problem was discovered by a routine quality assurance check by the establishment.

Media and consumer questions regarding the recall should be directed to the company's Senior Vice President of Business Development, John Kowalchik, at (513) 552-7406.

RobsanX
06-03-2009, 09:30 PM
That's a lot of chili. Will they just be able to relabel it?

Adillo303
06-04-2009, 06:18 AM
Sometimes, I just do not get it. I can completely understand recalling a product that is contaminated or dangerous in some way. In this case the product is not dangerous, it is mislabled. Since the product was distributed only to correctional institutions, it seems logical that the consumer fo the product will never see the label, correct or not. Why could this not be covered by a simple meno to all that purchsed the product? As RobsanX said a lot of money is being spent here for no good reason.

To answer my own question, I am sure the law states that ti must be done this way. Just makes me shake my head.

JoeV
06-04-2009, 07:16 AM
Shame on you for even thinking there could be a logical way to handle this. Don't you know some health conscious inmate on death row could get an additional micro-gram of assholius gotohellius inahandbasketus into their diet, which would throw their whoremoans into a tizzy causing them to have fitful dreams of owning a business picking up dog crap in people's backyards? I didn't think you knew that. Our all knowing and all caring benevolent gubment, at the urging of miniscule special interest groups who pumped untold billions of dollars into the lawmakers campaigns have mandated these labels to protect the general population from themselves. God knows there's not enough common sense in the general population (because they didn't have to pay attention in school because you get promoted to the next grade regardless of performance so your self esteem is not bruised) to figure out that processed foods are bad for you due to the preservatives, so there must be a label on everything to let you know just how bad it is for you.

Not only does there need to be a recall of the product, but there needs to be a gubment oversight team in place to witness the destruction of said labels. Once the company goes bankrupt from all this gubment intervention into its business, the gubment will give it some stimulusintherectumuswithoutlubricantus money to get the business back on its feet, with 3/4 of the Board of Directors replaced with gubment employess who never did an honest days work in their lives, making day-to-day decisions on how to run your business. Ain't it great?

This is the same gubment that soon will be remaking Amerika one Skoda and one Trabant at a time.

I digress before I let my true feeling escape and cause an uproar.




Sometimes, I just do not get it. I can completely understand recalling a product that is contaminated or dangerous in some way. In this case the product is not dangerous, it is mislabled. Since the product was distributed only to correctional institutions, it seems logical that the consumer fo the product will never see the label, correct or not. Why could this not be covered by a simple meno to all that purchsed the product? As RobsanX said a lot of money is being spent here for no good reason.

To answer my own question, I am sure the law states that ti must be done this way. Just makes me shake my head.

RobsanX
06-04-2009, 09:37 AM
The only reason it would matter to me is if it didn't contain all allergy warnings. I think they could just slap a sticker on it and reship it.

Adillo303
06-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Joe - Joe - Tell us what you really think (LOL)

Unless this is a new product, the institutions have been serving it for while. Therefore the kitchen staff should be aware of what it is.

Just a thought - Glad it's no beans. Can you imagine the green glow that would srround the correctional facility after the cons ate 153K# of chili?