E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

[kira]

But you can't confuse covering up a murder with accidental contamination with as few as ONE bacteria.

It's basically the same thing, it caused people died. One of the differences is that, in the case of this kind of outbreak, it is likely harder to prove.

Worse, considering the incubation time, and how long it takes to track back to the source, you are asking about investigation into what would have been totally unremarkable activities that happened many weeks ago.

In this case the outbreak was first noticed in Mid May, but given the time it takes to grow and ship sprouts and then the 3 to 4 days for the first symptons and a week till the first death, we are talking about a contamination event that probably occured around the end of April.

Now consider, if you were charged in the case (because a fecal test showed you harbored the strain of E Coli) how would you prove you washed your hands every time you went to the bathroom last April?

At present while the officials think they know where this originated (organic bean sprout farm in Saxony) but they still don't have a clue as how the E Coli bacteria got to the farm (worker or seeds).

Arthur

What you are saying above is that it is difficult to prove about who is the guilty one in this case (considering the time line and the nature of the contamination). However, the point in this thread is, should criminal charges be brought if the investigation will lead to the fact that the deaths and illnesses were turn out to be caused by poor hygiene of a couple of workers (knowing or unknowingly)? It means, it is assuming that the proof is positive. Please read the OP...

Btw, not trying to be pedant (as I, myself, not an English native speaker), but E. coli should be written in italics (E. coli). It is a scientific consensus.... I noticed that almost everyone in this thread ignore this...

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2005.htm
Binomial nomenclature

 

[Pete]

Here is a question for Asguard and Pete (if I am not mistaken about who's taking the no-punishment side). By ensuring no criminal punishment for intentional and non-intentional mistake in this outbreak (which has caused 29 people died and some 2500 others ill), can you guarantee that people will still come out clean? :shrug:

I don't necessarily think that "no criminal punishment" should be guaranteed. But I do think that it should be downplayed, and certainly not pursued unless malicious intent is suspected.

And no, this doesn't guarantee that people will be honest about their mistakes or failure to follow protocols, but it does make it more likely.

In my opinion, it is even counter productive, because:
* the guilty ones will not be afraid to lie. At least if police is involved, they will be afraid of giving false statement, because to lie to authority will cause them in an even bigger trouble.

What 'guilty ones'? What are you assuming?

The bigger problem is whether people are afraid to tell the truth.
If an investigation involves law enforcement from the beginning, then everyone involved is afraid to reveal the simple mistakes and protocol failures that most often cause incidents.

If someone is actually "guilty", they will only be afraid to lie under police investigation if they think that the truth will be discovered anyway. And if the truth can be discovered without the "guilty" party's cooperation, then their cooperation doesn't matter, right?

* even if there is no criminal punishment involved, the guilty ones will probably want to save themselves from other risks, like losing jobs (who want to continue to employ people who are careless to the point of causing many other people died and ill?), fear of getting revenged by people who lost their family members (I think it is possible), fear of losing credibility, fear of getting hated, etc etc. Why confess anyway when the alternative is safer?

Again, what are you assuming about the root cause of the outbreak? That it is solely due to some individuals' irredeemable carelessness?

You're still looking for people to blame. I think that's the wrong approach.

I suggest that incidents like this are mostly caused by process failures, and that the best prevention of future incidents is in fixing the processes rather than punishing the individuals most directly responsible.

Here is an analogy. Let say that you are a student living in a dorm where 200 other students live in the same building. One day you intentionally/ unintentionally caused fire and everything get burnt. Other people lose their passports, academic certificates, important papers, etc etc (btw, I think we could agree that our lives is the most valuable thing compared to belongings). Then the authority comes to investigate and ask everyone to give a testimony, ensuring that no one will get punished from this event. You, as the one who caused the fire, know, that if you don't confess, there is a possibility that no one will ever know, and can continue life as it is. On the other hand, if you confess, you know that you have caused other people belongings (or even lives) gone, you know that no one will feel save to live near you anymore, you might not find other place to live and your study will get disturbed and so on and so on. Don't you think it makes sense that you will prefer not to tell anyone that it is YOU causing the fire? Now, if police is involved, and you decided to lie, you know that by investigating the evidence, police will probably one day find out, that it was you who started the fire. If you lie to them, you know that you'll get even harder punishment, so why not telling the truth? You might got less punishment or even probably no punishment at all, because turn out that everything was only accident, everything was beyond your knowledge, and that you never did such mistakes before.

If the investigation is confidential, and I trust that non-malicious mistakes won't be punished, then why would I be afraid to tell the truth if my mistake caused the fire?
If I maliciously caused the fire, then surely I'd have more to gain by lying to the police then confessing?

My point is, by ensuring no punishment, I don't think it will help an investigation, it could even become counter productive!

I've been led to believe that in practice, non-punitive investigations get better results.

In fact, sometimes by ensuring that there is a punishment, people will do further steps to cover up their mistakes, which make them eventually caught.

It might, but generally when people try to hide information it makes that information harder to find.

There are a lot of examples of making false evidence which eventually giving important clue to investigation, because people aren't smart enough to cover up their mistakes. They think they can cheat police, but the evidence speak for themselves.

So why not rely on the investigation, rather than worrying about whether some hypothetical 'guilty' person isn't telling the truth?

It's basically the same thing, it caused people died. One of the differences is that, in the case of this kind of outbreak, it is likely harder to prove.

How is a food poisoning outbreak with an unknown root cause "basically the same" as murder?

What you are saying above is that it is difficult to prove about who is the guilty one in this case (considering the time line and the nature of the contamination). However, the point in this thread is, should criminal charges be brought if the investigation will lead to the fact that the deaths and illnesses were turn out to be caused by poor hygiene of a couple of workers (knowing or unknowingly)? It means, it is assuming that the proof is positive. Please read the OP...

The points I'm making are:

• The most likely cause of this incident is not individual malice, but multiple coincidental things, including process failures, human failures, and bad luck.
• An investigation that assumes individual malice as a cause is less likely to find the truth.
• It is reasonably likely that any individual negligence that contributed to the incident is not isolated to those individuals, but common practice (or at least not uncommon practice).
• Punishing non-malicious individuals is not likely to be the most effective approach to preventing future incidents.

E. coli should be written in italics (E. coli). It is a scientific consensus.... I noticed that almost everyone in this thread ignore this...

Yeah... we've had that mentioned a few times in classes. But no one seems to care much, so it's hardly worth typing the tags.

 

[kira]

Pete, thanks for your detail reply. I won't reply it block by block, because I am afraid of getting trapped in the details. I, however, will select some of specific quotes of your posts when I find it necessary.

I did not mean to equate it with murder. I gave the example of the Knox case only to show that sometimes for fear of being caught, people do further action to cover up mistakes which eventually gives clue to the investigation.

My analogy with the fire is probably not a good analogy. What do you think about the Bhopal disaster? The Bhopal disaster has caused thousands of deaths and disability, even to the new generation which were born after the disaster. It was an incident caused by gross negligence. They incidentally flush pipes with water and the water reacted with some chemicals producing gases which then caused over pressure and explosion.

Would you (and Asguard) agree that somebody should pay for the mistakes for the accident, which was the whole point of this thread? We are not talking about 1-2 deaths, it was a mass manslaughter, which is what also happens in this outbreak. Both disaster were likely accidents, but imagine if no legal action ever been taken for such gross negligence. Somebody should be responsible, in this case could be the producers or the workers, depends on the result of the investigation, and they should pay for it, so other producers and workers will be more aware and careful in the future. It's not about revenge. It's about ensuring that the safety improvement will be enforced, it's about giving people security so next time they buy vegetables, they will not fear that it will contain deadly stuffs. It's also about giving company awareness that their workers should be properly trained so they don't flush chemical pipes with water or they should properly wash their hands or wear gloves before packing up vegetables. They should pay money for training and buy gloves etc., or they would lose everything or stay away from the business.

In the case of outbreak, we think that it is difficult to prove, but it is not impossible. This outbreak is not the first time in history. There are people who work with this kind of stuffs and have their ways to evaluate things. Outbreak doesn't happen everyday, why it happens now, something must have been changed in the system. It will probably lead to the introduction of new workers who are not trained enough, or recent replacement of the water that they use to irrigate the crops, etc. The result of the investigation should be made transparent so other can learn from it. Somebody who are responsible should pay for the mistakes, so other will also realize that foods also serious business. That's what I think.

For a note, I live in Germany, and really, people are phobia over vegetables over here. Who is paying for this? I think the farmers, and I don't think it's probably fair for them. I want to know who is actually responsible and I want to feel safer when I buy vegetables in the future.

 

[Pete]

Would you (and Asguard) agree that somebody should pay for the mistakes for the accident, which was the whole point of this thread? We are not talking about 1-2 deaths, it was a mass manslaughter, which is what also happens in this outbreak. Both disaster were likely accidents, but imagine if no legal action ever been taken for such gross negligence. Somebody should be responsible, in this case could be the producers or the workers, depends on the result of the investigation, and they should pay for it, so other producers and workers will be more aware and careful in the future. It's not about revenge. It's about ensuring that the safety improvement will be enforced, it's about giving people security so next time they buy vegetables, they will not fear that it will contain deadly stuffs. It's also about giving company awareness that their workers should be properly trained so they don't flush chemical pipes with water or they should properly wash their hands or wear gloves before packing up vegetables. They should pay money for training and buy gloves etc., or they would lose everything or stay away from the business.

You're introducing different issues.
This thread and your argument began by discussing individual moral responsibility and consequential criminal punishment for individual people involved in this incident.
Now, you are discussing corporate responsibility and consequent financial burdens of safety management, as if they are the same thing.

Yes, victims should be looked after, and safety should be improved. Yes, that is a corporate or industry responsibility.
No, conducting a criminal investigation is not a good way to reach that goal.

In the case of outbreak, we think that it is difficult to prove, but it is not impossible. This outbreak is not the first time in history. There are people who work with this kind of stuffs and have their ways to evaluate things. Outbreak doesn't happen everyday, why it happens now, something must have been changed in the system. It will probably lead to the introduction of new workers who are not trained enough, or recent replacement of the water that they use to irrigate the crops, etc. The result of the investigation should be made transparent so other can learn from it. Somebody who are responsible should pay for the mistakes, so other will also realize that foods also serious business. That's what I think.

For a note, I live in Germany, and really, people are phobia over vegetables over here. Who is paying for this? I think the farmers, and I don't think it's probably fair for them. I want to know who is actually responsible and I want to feel safer when I buy vegetables in the future.

You're still assuming that "somebody" is responsible.
Why?
What if it's not anyone's fault? You still want it fixed, right?
Don't you want to know what is responsible, even if it's not a who?
Why do you need someone to blame?
And even if an individual act of negligence is the cause, don't you just want similar future acts to be avoided? Why does the fate of the individual matter?
Would you feel happy knowing that an individual was "held responsible", even if other people in similar positions continue to work in the same way that led to the outbreak?
If an individual is held responsible, how will they be "made to pay"? We're looking at hundreds of millions of Euros of economic losses. How will an individual pay for that? By going to prison? What good does that do anyone?
And how could anyone possibly be made to "pay" for the 30-odd deaths?


News:
A particular farm has been named as the origin, but not blamed (Reuters).
The naming has been criticized by some, because it is a de facto punishment. That producer will likely go out of business.
A funding package is being offered to farmers who financially were affected by the European Commission (Deutsche Welle)

 

[Asguard]

Kira, a better analogy would be any of the hundreds of plane crashes. By taking the aproch of not laying blame lives have been saved time and again because improvements have been made which have made flying safer

 

[adoucette]

It's basically the same thing, it caused people died. One of the differences is that, in the case of this kind of outbreak, it is likely harder to prove.

No it's not similar at all just because people died.
A murder is a deliberate act intended (or likely to) cause death.

In the contamination case, we will NEVER know how the contamination occured and indeed it could occur even if everyone involved followed proscribed standards of hygiene.

What you are saying above is that it is difficult to prove about who is the guilty one in this case (considering the time line and the nature of the contamination). However, the point in this thread is, should criminal charges be brought if the investigation will lead to the fact that the deaths and illnesses were turn out to be caused by poor hygiene of a couple of workers (knowing or unknowingly)? It means, it is assuming that the proof is positive. Please read the OP...

I did read the OP and all it says is that:

two workers on the farm have been identified as infected. This entire "epidemic" as well as 22 confirmed deaths may turn out to be the result of poor personal hygiene on the part of just one or two people. If so, I think criminal charges should be brought.

Which to me means proof will NEVER be positive.
You have two workers infected by the strain so you can never tell which of the two the bacteria originally came from, or indeed if they were infected from the bean sprouts themselves.

Even if you could find out which person the bacteria came from you could STILL not provide proof that their ACTIONS (or inaction) caused the infection.

The fact is that if the workers shared almost any common areas the bacteria could get transferred to other workers in ways that had nothing to do with food preparation. Such is the nature of E. coli, a bacteria that is very good at getting from one person to the next. It is a bacterium that can live outside of its normal environment of the lower intestine (37 C) and because it can grow under many different conditions and can avoid being washed off even with soap and hot water and then given a tiny amount of food it can multiply exponentially makes it very hard to kill.

Finally, I asked you a question, which is if it were you, how would YOU prove you were innocent? That your routine actions from over a month ago were not to blame?

Part of the modern criminal justice system is that someone doesn't have to prove they are innocent. That the burden of proof is on the State, and what I'm saying is since a defendent can't prove they didn't do something wrong, the State can't presume they did.

Arthur

 

[Bells]

Again, what are you assuming about the root cause of the outbreak? That it is solely due to some individuals' irredeemable carelessness?

You're still looking for people to blame. I think that's the wrong approach.

No.

We are saying if someone is responsible. As yet, we only know it is the bean sprouts. No one yet knows how this particular bug made it into the sprouts, since this bug is so rare. But lets say someone is responsible. Lets just imagine if someone was..

The death toll has risen to 35 in Germany's E. coli epidemic and health officials say about 100 patients have severe kidney damage.

The source of infection has been identified as bean sprouts from an organic farm in northern Germany.

At least 3,255 people have fallen ill, mostly in Germany, of whom at least 812 have a complication that can be fatal.

About 100 patients with damaged kidneys will need transplants or life-long dialysis, one health expert said.

(Source)
​

You'd be comfortable with patting them on the back and telling them 'you've made a booboo' without any legal sanctions whatsoever?

The laws in Germany deal with these situations. And yes, even if it was accidental or negligence by a person(s), they can still be held liable for endangering the public. We still don't know how this spread into the sprouts, but if it was caused by someone, accidental or not, they can still face legal santions as a result. We may never know how it got there.. and that is looking more and more likely.. but people died, around 100 are gravely ill and could still die and thousands others very sick as well, some of whom could also still die. If someone was responsible, then yes, they should face sanctions. It is a big if and it is a massive IF that we will ever know how or why.

 

[adoucette]

Kira, a better analogy would be any of the hundreds of plane crashes. By taking the aproch of not laying blame lives have been saved time and again because improvements have been made which have made flying safer

I don't understand your argument.

The NTSB most assuredly trys to figure out who or what is to blame for every crash.

Indeed I can't recall a recent NTSB report that didn't include the "Probable Cause", which names names and assigns blame.

Egypt Air - flight 990

Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm



American Airlines - Flight 587


The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

Arthur

 

[kira]

Well, well, well, guys, good arguments over there. I think we can agree to disagree (especially in my case, because like Pete's snot'wuh: I really should be studying ).

My final stance is fixed: I don't want to eat in a restaurant where there were people got diarrhea and no one held responsible; I don't want to go to a hospital where gross negligence causing deaths happened and no one ever held responsible; I don't want to use cars of certain brands where thousands got accident with them without knowing exactly why and no one ever held responsible; same here, I wouldn't trust to live in a society where gross negligence causing mass manslaughter happened and no one ever be held responsible. Simply because I can't possibly feel safe. For all I know, I or my family could be the next victims.

Edit: I haven't seen both posts above when I was writing mine, they are posted at around the same time with mine.

 

[adoucette]

No.

We are saying if someone is responsible. As yet, we only know it is the bean sprouts. No one yet knows how this particular bug made it into the sprouts, since this bug is so rare. But lets say someone is responsible. Lets just imagine if someone was... We still don't know how this spread into the sprouts, but if it was caused by someone, accidental or not, they can still face legal santions as a result. We may never know how it got there.. and that is looking more and more likely.. but people died, around 100 are gravely ill and could still die and thousands others very sick as well, some of whom could also still die. If someone was responsible, then yes, they should face sanctions. It is a big if and it is a massive IF that we will ever know how or why.

I think that is the problem though.

If YOU were charged with the crime, how would you prove your innocence?

You can't.

No one could.

As a prosecuter, would you be comfortable in charging someone with a crime for which they could offer no defense?

Indeed, since you can't SEE the E. coli bacteria and they can live outside your body, they could have gotten from you to the sprouts via many possible routes.

Again, it only takes one bacteria and they are very hard to kill, and so the bacteria could have originally come from you, and yet you could have been absolutely 100% hygenic in your bathroom habits.

Arthur

 

[kira]

I think that is the problem though.

If YOU were charged with the crime, how would you prove your innocence?

You can't.

No one could.

As a prosecuter, would you be comfortable in charging someone with a crime for which they could offer no defense?

Indeed, since you can't SEE the E. coli bacteria and they can live outside your body, they could have gotten from you to the sprouts via many possible routes.

Again, it only takes one bacteria and they are very hard to kill, and so the bacteria could have originally come from you, and yet you could have been absolutely 100% hygenic in your bathroom habits.

Arthur

Wait, this is not true. Go google for "EU guidelines (EEC Guidelines)" or "WHO guidelines" for the water quality for irrigation or the reuse of wastewater for irrigation, for examples. There are standards. I can't remember the exact number, but it was around 500 cfu/100 ml for E. coli and 2000 cfu/100 ml for coliform bacteria (which also includes E. coli). It's not the same with drinking water quality where universally there should be 0 cfu/100 ml bacteria. A certain level of E. coli or coliform bacteria are allowed to be existed in water and to be used to irrigate the crops in EU. And of course, you would know the exact amount when you do proper monitoring. This is just an example. It's not "one bacteria", there is standarised level for the maximum allowable bacteria. On top of that, before any foods can enter European market, they also must pass microbiological quality screening. So not just the water quality that is regulated, but also the final produces. I think it's the same thing with that in the USA.

Damn, I should be really studying. *I must finish an assignment *. Thanks for your input, guys. Bye for now

 

[Bells]

I think that is the problem though.

If YOU were charged with the crime, how would you prove your innocence?

You can't.

No one could.

As a prosecuter, would you be comfortable in charging someone with a crime for which they could offer no defense?

Indeed, since you can't SEE the E. coli bacteria and they can live outside your body, they could have gotten from you to the sprouts via many possible routes.

Again, it only takes one bacteria and they are very hard to kill, and so the bacteria could have originally come from you, and yet you could have been absolutely 100% hygenic in your bathroom habits.

Arthur

That is why I said "if"..

And it is a big "if"..

But a lack of defense does not mean someone is not guilty, if you know what I mean?

This is most probably something that came from irrigation or fertiliser that may or may no thave been used.. Unless someone stuck their hand up the backside of a cow or sheep and then handled the food products, it is most probably from fertiliser or water used. It could very well be that the water source itself way compromised. In which case, if that is the case, the investigation has to determine how it got into the water source and if human intervention was the cause - as on example.

At it's heart, I am saying that if you can prove that someone was directly responsible for this in some way or other, then yes, there should be repercussions for that person(s). And if it was deliberate, then yes, they should definitely face charges. But again, it is a big "if".

What I am curious about is whether samples are tested from each batch before it is sold? Is it even possible to test before it hits the market?

 

[Pete]

No.

We are saying if someone is responsible. As yet, we only know it is the bean sprouts. No one yet knows how this particular bug made it into the sprouts, since this bug is so rare. But lets say someone is responsible. Lets just imagine if someone was..

The death toll has risen to 35 in Germany's E. coli epidemic and health officials say about 100 patients have severe kidney damage.

The source of infection has been identified as bean sprouts from an organic farm in northern Germany.

At least 3,255 people have fallen ill, mostly in Germany, of whom at least 812 have a complication that can be fatal.

About 100 patients with damaged kidneys will need transplants or life-long dialysis, one health expert said.

(Source)
​

You'd be comfortable with patting them on the back and telling them 'you've made a booboo' without any legal sanctions whatsoever?

Yes, I would.
I take it you wouldn't? You'd lock them up until they learned their lesson?
Would you demand the same for any other workers who made the same boo-boo, but weren't so unlucky as to cause a major outbreak?

 

[adoucette]

Wait, this is not true. Go google for "EU guidelines (EEC Guidelines)" or "WHO guidelines" for the water quality for irrigation or the reuse of wastewater for irrigation, for examples. There are standards. I can't remember the exact number, but it was around 500 cfu/100 ml for E. coli and 2000 cfu/100 ml for coliform bacteria (which also includes E. coli). It's not the same with drinking water quality where universally there should be 0 cfu/100 ml bacteria. A certain level of E. coli or coliform bacteria are allowed to be existed in water and to be used to irrigate the crops in EU. And of course, you would know the exact amount when you do proper monitoring. This is just an example. It's not "one bacteria", there is standarised level for the maximum allowable bacteria. On top of that, before any foods can enter European market, they also must pass microbiological quality screening. So not just the water quality that is regulated, but also the final produces. I think it's the same thing with that in the USA.

Damn, I should be really studying. *I must finish an assignment *. Thanks for your input, guys. Bye for now

That's because normal E. coli are not harmful. You've got trillions of them in you right now.

But just one of the deadly E. coli strains, making it into the vat where the Sprouts are grown are sufficient to multiply over the time it takes the sprouts to sprout and grow to edible size to create this horrible mess.

Indeed, E. coli has a doubling time of just 20 minutes.
Sprouts take about 7 days from seed to full grown sprouts, which is over 500 doublings, or 2^500 bacteria starting from just one.

Arthur

 

[kira]

Last comment

What I am curious about is whether samples are tested from each batch before it is sold? Is it even possible to test before it hits the market?

Yes. Not just the bacteria level (which is a paramount criteria before it enters the market), there are many many other tests!! For example, for cucumber, there are even standardize sizes, when a cucumber is out of size range or shape, they are not allowed to enter the market. This is the same for orange juices concentration, baby foods, etc. Of course they don't test everything one by one, they take certain samples. If I have time later, I will post a link here. For now, I only know a German version.

bye!

 

[Bells]

Yes, I would.
I take it you wouldn't? You'd lock them up until they learned their lesson?
Would you demand the same for any other workers who made the same boo-boo, but weren't so unlucky as to cause a major outbreak?

Yes.

We have a responsibility to those around us.. If this is something that could have been foreseen (ie not an accident), then yes.

For example, lets say someone parks their car up a hill and does not engage the park break. The car rolls down and smashes into a day care centre, killing 35 children and injuring dozens more, leaving many with permanent injuries. That someone should be held legally responsible for their actions or lack thereof. Say it is a worker who parks a cement truck on a hill and doesn't engage the parkbreak. Same scenario. Then yes, that person should be held legally responsible for their actions.

Even if they just damage the building but do not kill anyone.

In this instance, we have 35 dead, over 100 who will either need transplants or dialysis (for the rest of their lives I'd assume) and thousands of others ill, many of whom may end up developing severe or fatal complications. To turn around and say 'well you've learned your lesson, now you know better'.. no, it does not work that way. May as well throw all safety standards out the window because people will just say 'meh, nothing's going to happen anyway, so who cares'..

 

[adoucette]

That is why I said "if"..

And it is a big "if"..

But a lack of defense does not mean someone is not guilty, if you know what I mean?

Yes I do.
But I also have a problem with charging someone with a crime for which there not only is no intent to commit a crime but there never would be proof positive that they caused the crime and finally that they could never offer proof that they didn't do it.

Pretty Kafkaesque if you ask me.

At it's heart, I am saying that if you can prove that someone was directly responsible for this in some way or other, then yes, there should be repercussions for that person(s).

And I guess I wouldn't have a big problem with that assuming you could also show that negligence was involved. In other words, that you could PROVE exactly how the contamination occurred and that a reasonable person following normal food handling procedures would not have allowed it to happen.

And if it was deliberate, then yes, they should definitely face charges. But again, it is a big "if".

Well if it's deliberate then we are talking about a different issue all together with charges potentially being murder.

What I am curious about is whether samples are tested from each batch before it is sold? Is it even possible to test before it hits the market?

Not for quickly perishable foods before they are sold, the testing takes too long.

They do test ground beef in the US, but the results are not in till after the beef has been sold. Sprouts have even a shorter shelf life.

In the USDA tests, the initial verification sample for E. coli O157:H7, the percent positive rate is around 0.45% and the follow-up percent positive rate is only about 1.12%. Meaning that even when they detect it, when they check again, it's only found again in about 1 out of 100 times.

Arthur

 

[Read-Only]

Yes.

We have a responsibility to those around us.. If this is something that could have been foreseen (ie not an accident), then yes.

For example, lets say someone parks their car up a hill and does not engage the park break. The car rolls down and smashes into a day care centre, killing 35 children and injuring dozens more, leaving many with permanent injuries. That someone should be held legally responsible for their actions or lack thereof. Say it is a worker who parks a cement truck on a hill and doesn't engage the parkbreak. Same scenario. Then yes, that person should be held legally responsible for their actions.

Even if they just damage the building but do not kill anyone.

In this instance, we have 35 dead, over 100 who will either need transplants or dialysis (for the rest of their lives I'd assume) and thousands of others ill, many of whom may end up developing severe or fatal complications. To turn around and say 'well you've learned your lesson, now you know better'.. no, it does not work that way. May as well throw all safety standards out the window because people will just say 'meh, nothing's going to happen anyway, so who cares'..

And THAT, people is *precisely* where I stand on this issue. (Thank you very much, Bells !!)

If there are NO repercussions there will NOTHING gained from the investigation.

 

[Pete]

Yes.

We have a responsibility to those around us.. If this is something that could have been foreseen (ie not an accident), then yes.

For example, lets say someone parks their car up a hill and does not engage the park break. The car rolls down and smashes into a day care centre, killing 35 children and injuring dozens more, leaving many with permanent injuries. That someone should be held legally responsible for their actions or lack thereof. Say it is a worker who parks a cement truck on a hill and doesn't engage the parkbreak. Same scenario. Then yes, that person should be held legally responsible for their actions.

Even if they just damage the building but do not kill anyone.

Same repercussions?

In this instance, we have 35 dead, over 100 who will either need transplants or dialysis (for the rest of their lives I'd assume) and thousands of others ill, many of whom may end up developing severe or fatal complications. To turn around and say 'well you've learned your lesson, now you know better'.. no, it does not work that way. May as well throw all safety standards out the window because people will just say 'meh, nothing's going to happen anyway, so who cares'..

No, people do not generally think that way.
Most people would consider 35 deaths serious repercussions, don't you think?
If you "made a booboo" that killed 35 people, would you be feeling happy about it? Would you chuckle to yourself as you reported your "booboo" to the investigation panel because you got away with it without "repercussions"?

And THAT, people is *precisely* where I stand on this issue. (Thank you very much, Bells !!)

If there are NO repercussions there will NOTHING gained from the investigation.

Rubbish.
I don't understand why you insist that you can't fix things without punishing people.
Do you honestly think that people only respond to threats?
Do you have kids?


Like I said before, in practice you get better results by not taking the hardline approach. You don't have to like it.

 

[Read-Only]

I don't understand your argument.

The NTSB most assuredly trys to figure out who or what is to blame for every crash.

Indeed I can't recall a recent NTSB report that didn't include the "Probable Cause", which names names and assigns blame.

Egypt Air - flight 990

Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm



American Airlines - Flight 587


The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

Arthur

You should pay no attention to Asguard's sloppy thinking (I don't).

Just as I said in another thread only minutes ago: His mind is made up, he doesn't want to be confused with facts.