Net Cooking Talk




Go Back   Net Cooking Talk > Cooking Talk Forums > Food Safety Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-03-2009, 07:57 PM
waybomb's Avatar
waybomb waybomb is offline
Pizza Chef
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: St Joe, Mi + Trenton, MI
Posts: 1,287
Thanks: 2
Thanked 300 Times in 257 Posts
waybomb is on a distinguished road
Style: Gonzo
Default Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

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.
__________________
Thanks
Fred
Plain Vanilla here:
http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/waybomb/
NASA says I am not warming the globe, 24 cylinders at a time
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-03-2009, 09:30 PM
RobsanX's Avatar
RobsanX RobsanX is offline
Potato peeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sauk City, WI
Posts: 2,117
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
RobsanX is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

That's a lot of chili. Will they just be able to relabel it?
__________________
Some people bring joy when they enter a thread, and others when they leave..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-04-2009, 06:18 AM
Adillo303's Avatar
Adillo303 Adillo303 is offline
*****

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,444
Thanks: 104
Thanked 473 Times in 318 Posts
Adillo303 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-04-2009, 07:16 AM
JoeV's Avatar
JoeV JoeV is offline
Dough Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mentor, OH
Posts: 4,741
Thanks: 109
Thanked 382 Times in 267 Posts
JoeV will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Adillo303 View Post
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.
__________________
Always searching for the perfect loaf of bread.
I still don't know what I don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-04-2009, 09:37 AM
RobsanX's Avatar
RobsanX RobsanX is offline
Potato peeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sauk City, WI
Posts: 2,117
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
RobsanX is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

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.
__________________
Some people bring joy when they enter a thread, and others when they leave..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Adillo303's Avatar
Adillo303 Adillo303 is offline
*****

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,444
Thanks: 104
Thanked 473 Times in 318 Posts
Adillo303 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Recalling approximately 153,698 pounds of a "Chili no beans"

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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Ground cherries" or "Husk Tomatoes" QSis Gardening Forum 8 06-15-2010 05:55 PM
Chili Con "Corny" Luckytrim Stews Forum 2 07-18-2009 05:12 PM
Cameco, Inc., a Verona, N.J., establishment is recalling approximately 79,312 pounds waybomb Food Safety Forum 0 06-08-2009 08:01 PM
"Spicy" chili con carne Locutus Ethnic Foods Forum 4 10-21-2008 06:38 PM
"Quick Chili" Locutus Ethnic Foods Forum 1 10-17-2008 05:58 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright NetCookingTalk.com