Former employee blows whistle on baby formula production plant tied to outbreak
foodsafetynews.com
foodsafetynews.com
In-house labs are notoriously subject to corporate pressure to pass product through (consider the expense of having to toss an entire production run), and this leads to the promotion of those who don't back up production by waving red flags when product fails tests.
One solution is aggressive testing and auditing by the FDA, i.e. swooping in and grabbing samples of product, but this is where political pressure to deregulate industries comes into play, and again, anyone at the FDA promoting this approach won't get promoted up the government ladder.
Another solution might be legislation requiring independent accredited labs to be involved in the testing process, but again you can have massive problems here as the labs that pass questionable product are the ones who get their contracts renewed. It's probably the best option - but my advice is to just avoid highly processed foods as much as possible.
Got me through the late nights with two kids
Excess money would go to a relevant non-profit of a judge's choosing.
Of course you could argue that the threat of meaningful class action is a check against it happening in the first place, but profits from illegal activities are quarterly and the punishment will be a decade away. If anything is consistent in the US, its that we can't rely on enough executives to act morally or with long-term interests in mind when their compensation hinges on them not doing so.
Not all class actions are like that, but a lot are.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...
There are many hedge funds, public equity firms etc. with easily as many resources as an average mega-corp.
It still won't be perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
My impression is that they trust anything that is not from mainland China will be better than what they can get domestically.
I have long suspected years ago that in the US mysterious, sporadic local news reports of a Wal-Mart, CVS, Target, or similar store getting wiped out of all baby formula or all of a certain brand/SKU were simply rings of people scooping it up for this arbitrage over eBay, similar resale/auction sites or even WeChat. It doesn't seem systematic, and was very arbitrary which towns/cities they hit and when, but I've always wondered what the real story was.
Short of shooting both the c-suite, and their families, I don't think this will align their interests with those of the public as well as you hope.
I'd bet on improvement if we enforced the law and actually sent people to jail.
In pharmaceuticals, a executive needs to sign off, under penalties of imprisonment, if prices reported to the US government are incorrect.
Fraud still happens and nobody goes to jail because hell , people don’t jail for more severe crimes so no court would impose the punishment.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-ille...
Today pfizer is one of the most trusted companies and many people will be mad at you if you criticize pfizer in any way.
I don't buy that for a second. I see plenty of criticism of pfizer, for both what they've done before the pandemic and what they've done after it. This includes criticism from what many would consider "left-wing" sources. Whoever told you that they were beyond criticism lied to you, and you may want to reconsider trusting them in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/08/pfizer-covi...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/01/13/after-year-vacc...
So it seems that everyone (or at least many) have an inherent bias to view the "other" as much less nuanced then they are themselves. The thought that a left-winger might oppose Pfizer in some ways while supporting the vaccine[1] is as unexpected as a left-winger opposing Obama's drone policies to someone who doesn't see the detail of the other side.
And the same goes in reverse, I hasten to add. And the same goes for every other A Vs B situation: the other side are all humans too and humans are complicated.
[1]: how is this even a left-right thing?
The right can't view the left as entirely monolithic either. They get a lot of mileage out of phrases like "The left eats their own" and "Democratic civil war" which, again, not unfair.
I think it's just easier to demonize a caricature so that's what ends up in heavily repeated talking points which then get regurgitated even when they're demonstrably false or ridiculous.
More likely: people stop making baby formula entirely and women have no choice but to breastfeed, which is a problem if baby is lactose intolerant, among other things.
She wrote up a set of safety guidelines for the beef industry and McDonald's adopted her recommendations. You couldn't sell beef to McDonald's without following her guideline.
McDonald's buys so much beef, this became the de facto industry standard.
You can't put a gun to someone's head and force them to love you. You can't get blood from a turnip. And draconian measures generally fail to get real results.
Carrots and stick sometimes work. But "the beatings shall continue until morale improves" is generally counterproductive. It doesn't supply the necessary competence for setting a higher standard and usually actively disincentivizes trying to solve the problem.
I might be willing to stipulate the above. However there is a different mechanism at work when actors in the system have skin in the game.
And so, I will see your Temple Grandin (who I admire) and raise you a Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Specifically: these producers need to be feeding their own children and raising their own families with these very same products.
Ironically, wealthy-global-north consumers (like foodco CEOs) are almost certainly not consumers of infant formula[1] (or lunchables or scent sprays or Monster drinks) so it is difficult to establish "skin in the game".
... and therein lies a tremendous amount of information. It should give consumers pause to learn that these products are not used - and likely disdained - by the stakeholders that produce them.[2][3]
[1] https://qz.com/1034016/the-class-dynamics-of-breastfeeding-i...
[2] http://www.freebooks8.com/Fiction_Library/3308/37.html
[3] “I don’t think my kids have ever eaten a Lunchable,” she told me. “They know they exist and that Grandpa Bob invented them. But we eat very healthfully.”
You're at the same time arguing "meat producers had to adapt to external guidelines to be able to continue selling their products"
and "government imposing external guidelines for producers to be able to continue selling their products would be inefficient".
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
She provided a better method. Market forces took care of the rest.
A gun to someone's head doesn't magically make them capable of coming up with better solutions.
In your example, for instance, even if the law said Ronald McDonald would face the firing squad if their beef didn’t meet the legal minimum standard it wouldn’t matter because they are already exceeding it. The stick is not causing the carrot any trouble.
It’s really that simple. We know how to make baby formula safely. We have known how to do that for a long time. It’s clearly profitable enough that companies are willing to do it.
But if you cut corners to boost profits and you end up poisoning babies you should be punished. There’s no need to tie yourself into knots reasoning that it’s actually not possible to enforce safe production of baby formula.
When in reality, the worker who's not maintaining the machine properly, isn't doing so because he was never instructed in it's operation, his supervisor who's "been doing this job for years, never had a problem with this", the manager of the department loves how many run hours they're getting from that machine and "it hasn't killed anyone" is said when the dangers of not cleaning it are mentioned in meetings, and after all they don't want to look bad to the executives who are saying serious things like "the economy is tightening, we need to find savings!" a lot.
In that chain, pick out who is directly responsible for the situation? Better: pick out who can be told to fix this problem, and they'll actually know how to do it? Pick out who you kill as a lesson to the others that will actually be learned?
Suppose you kill all of them: great, so what are you now doing to make sure the next group actually do their jobs properly?
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/us/salmonella-peanut-exec-sen...
I'll give congress some credit for being vocal about the problem at least. In a congressional report last year about the dangerous levels of heavy metals in baby foods they repeatedly concluded that the FDA's polices were "designed to be protective of baby food manufacturers" and they recommended more regulation, but still, I haven't seen any action that would address the underlying issues that allow a regulatory body to prioritize the profits of industry over the health and safety of the population.
If you're curious, that report can be read here: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....
There was also a follow up report on the issue you can read here: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....
I mean, I know that the lawyers and finance people would create such convoluted ownership structures that forcing a company out of existence and liquidating its assets would be meaningless, but apart from that detail, it has a certain appeal in the way many ideas that fit on a bumper sticker do.
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/leafy-greens.ht...
Those that don't want to should probably reconsider having kids.
> Mothers are not always available when babies need to be fed.
This is why pumps exist. No problem.
> Any supply chain for secondary breast milk is going to have similar contamination and cold chain management issues.
It's often frozen.
And I wonder, how does it matter if the milk is frozen? (Can't they put it in the micro? I guess I'm misunderstanding something)
Those that don't want to should probably reconsider having kids."
How well does that work for their first baby if it's some unanticipated problem the mother has??
Modern civilization starting with agriculture is also a repudiation of the "survival of the fittest" philosophy you're pushing.
Some babies are orphans. You gonna pump a corpse? Or force the child on some other new mother?
You have provided no good reasons to think your position on this is correct and you have said a number of other things which are just reprehensible. I am only responding because I hope you will see this.
Buddy I got some news for you r.e. the availability of that option
And some babies need the special formulas. And some non-babies need the special formulas.
It may not be scientifically 100% "perfect" but why wouldn't it be "close enough"?
Not to mention other mammals have different micro and macro element needs than humans.
But formula is effectively a safer and more filling endpoint of improvements that started with animal milk and some other foods.
Cow's milk is absolutely inappropriate [1]: it has way too much protein for babies and the wrong nutritional profile - even when they start being able to drink it you have to be careful about how much since they're not great at digesting it yet. It's missing all sorts of things - i.e. not enough iron.
It is really surprizing that stakeholders manage to create that kind of pressure in corporations. Maybe what is needed are much stonger labour laws, so that if you actually stand up to your boss, they cannot just fire you the next day.
As an individual entrepreneur, you're the sole decision maker and responsible for everything.
In a large company, you can always blame someone else, your boss, your employee, the HR guidelines, the unclear safety guidelines, the shareholders, boss implied you should ignore the law, ... there's often conflicting formal (e.g. "compliance training") and informal (e.g. promotion/commission) incentives as well.
Since you would be subject to much more distress upon loss of your job than those higher up the food chain.
Here's a suggestion: companies are allowed to use in-house testing, but as soon as defective/substandard products are found in the market, the company loses its in-house testing license and must have its products validated by external agencies. Only after X number of years/batches/volume of fault-free product can a company request to reinstate its in-house testing license.
And those external agencies may charge whatever they want, of course. And if a competitor finds a fault in an agency's testing procedures, they win said agency's existing contracts.
That model creates all the adversarial business relations that small-government aficionados seem to salivate over, I think.
the problem is in testing and just how statistically unfeasible it is. case in point, we had a line that passed every QA test but we would still get back 1 product every now and then from a customer with spoilage. we'd test thousands of samples each year and they're all fine but still something was the problem. on top of that, we had "nearly identical" lines that never had any problem.
luckily we found the problem in the line and how to push the failures alway the way down to zero for little cost instead of corporate wanting to pay $10 million to fix it.
so no, corporate isn't some boogy man.
I'd love to spend a few months crawling in and around the QA problems your industry faces in production, and how your industry tackles it. There are many echoes of only-happens-at-scale and statistical quality control that software folks think are the first time anyone has ever solved, but are really process engineering problems old hands in industries like yours have long since codified into practices.
This is part of the reason I like going on factory tours and see "How It's Made". The US lost a hell of a lot more than the ability to make goods when we shipped off our manufacturing infrastructure. We lost the capacity to cross-fertilize between industries and create compounding innovation effects.
If you can share as many interesting stories of production line QA as hits your whimsy in as much detail as you care to share, it would be greatly appreciated.
Crowdsource/co-op the funding of such a lab, those who fund it get the results first, and choose their own private, independent decisions based upon those results. Route around the damage caused by lobbying and regulatory capture, and own up to self-policing of quality instead of relying upon accreditation and the agency problem of running a for-profit QA lab constantly bidding upon contracts.
We should be trying to do this for everything, but formula in particular: ideally tin-by-tin we would be testing samples and barcoding the accreditation data onto them. That's the challenge here.
Contaminated soil, use of pesticides containing dangerous metals, and leaching from manufacturing equipment and packaging are the main sources of heavy metals in baby formula. We should be testing those aspects like soil down to the per square meter samples, production line sampling, and packaging sampling, all as an integral part of the supply chain quality assurance process. The better testing methodologies for heavy metals in food are atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS), inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES), or inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the operational details to understand whether those methodologies can be packaged into a reliable, accurate, precise miniaturized form factor aimed specifically at testing formula to simplify the sampling aspects. I imagine sampling contamination might be a big issue with a miniaturized tester, along with an entire host of other challenges. There might even be limits of physics I'm unaware of that entirely prohibit miniaturization; the test equipment I'm aware of are benchtop at best in size, not handheld with maybe a smartphone front-end (to leave a screen out of the BOM).
But I agree, even if you don't go all the way to the point of executing offenders, making more execs personally liable when there are gross cases of neglect would be an improvement.
Read through and carefully notice things like:
> Cronobacter sakazakii is commonly found in the environment and a variety of areas in the home.
> It's important to follow the instructions for proper preparation, handling and storage of powder formulas.
...and paragraphs of text explaining how they test for this stuff and found no evidence of contamination.
It's also pretty infuriating that companies get to claim their recalls are "voluntary" when they're anything but. The agency comes to them, says "recall or we will" and the company gets to save face and call it voluntary and act like they're heroes.
By the time the FDA is involved, it's because the company didn't act voluntarily when it had evidence of product contamination.
I was as well. I don't know what the "Chinese Fedex" rate's were but maybe it's because most of the volume they move is from China -> US and the return trips are empty.
This resulted in small post office pushing two or more 2TEU containers every day filled majorly with powdered milk, sent as normal international post package to China.
The important question is why are they blocking European formula? Is there a nutrition deficit? Are there contaminants or is it adulterated? A failure to follow Good Manufacturing Processes? [1] Or is it just that approval is still in process?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practice...
Highly unfortunate that their are families in the “greatest country in the world” who now have to literally scavenge for formula.
How smug are you now?
I feel the most protected as a consumer when I don't get shocked plugging something in.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/13/how-bad-government-poli...
Quote from the article:
"Bad U.S. policy surely didn't cause the infant formula crisis, but it just as surely made the situation worse than it needed to be."
Much of the article seems to be making the argument that the FDA is preventing importation of formula from other nations during the crisis because the FDA hasn't done all its bureaucratic work wrt certification of those sources. This seems a relevant point to raise when we're talking about food shortages for infants.
Which isn’t to say the current POTUS shouldn’t tell them to relax that rule. They should. I’m objecting to laying so much blame on the FDA - our federal agencies are acting on laws and policies enacted by our politicians.
The NPR story yesterday made it sound like this was just supply chain issues. Not a single fucking word about a recall or contamination incident causing a plant shutdown.
I'm guessing this is the result of the finest public relations money can buy?
From https://datasembly.com/news/out-of-stock-rate-in-april-2022-... (referenced from https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/baby-formula-shortag...), we can see out of stock rates were already climbing to the 20-30% range in Feburary. It really ignites in April, as the recall affects products with expiry date after April 1 2022.
Their IT systems have been abysmal, last year I placed an order for one of their specialty products. They had replaced the IT system and not even ported over the account data, I had to set up a new account. Well, welcome to the modern age, on-line ordering is actually functional! However, I was limited to ordering one case. At the time I didn't think much of it, just figured it was applying some dollar limit to what a new customer could order. Earlier this year I found it was still only possible to buy one case and an error code was configured for trying to order more than one--no explanation.
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/big-bottle-the-baby-formu...
https://www.marlerblog.com/files/2022/04/Redacted-Confidenti...
Quality control is hard. I'm fully convinced you could have a "whistleblower" on any given facility in The world. And any perfection is an invitation to complacency.
Some things are obviously overstated or cited for propaganda value. For example with our ability to detect elements in parts per billion or less, it matters very much how much arsenic etc. is in them, I doubt it makes any sense to reduce those to 1 part per trillion or less.
TL:DR:
Demonstrably the existing big three, Abbott Labs and Mead Johnson produce(d) 80% of the US market share, Nestle another 18% are very weakly regulated by the FDA.
The hurdles for starting up in the US market are astronomical, and there's only one contract manufacturer Perrigo Nutritionals which not surprisingly has a large minimum order size. ByHeart became the 4th brand to have its own factory, first in 15 years.
Half of all formula is bought by the Federal WIC program, and states negotiate a monopoly with one firm.
All of the above results in prices double that in Europe, although I'd add we and the FDA are generally much more paranoid than they are, be it thalidomide long ago or COVID vaccines in the last couple of years.
The regulatory hurdles for starting a brewery are even more intense (likely one of the most regulated of any consumable product short of marijuana), yet there's not been a shortage of new ones of those starting even during this current pandemic.
I think the article leans too heavily on "heavily regulated" as a blame for lack of new players in the game and ignores the economic aspects are probably the bigger player.
That division of a mature market seems fairly standard for a consumer food product. I suspect you could say much the same about peanut butter or cream cheese (both of which have had some shortages).
What I was able to find just now says that's a qualitatively different thing, mostly pertaining to Prohibition and its end and taxes, and does not require a proctological safety exam of your supply chain, manufacturing, etc.
As in, get a lawyer and jump through various hoops, as well as maybe some lower level government food safety licencing. It obviously makes a difference when you're selling something that's intrinsically poisonous to microbes by what a chemist once told me was merely the least toxic alcohol. Plus the difference in risks we're willing to have adults vs. babies take.
And of course this is just one of many issues in the market, some of which I outlined, see also the subthread starting with a _Reason_ Volokh Conspiracy column and its links.
The allegations are damning. Falsification of records, lying to auditors, releasing tainted batches... the list goes on. This is criminal. Unfortunately, no one will see jailtime, lawyers will settle out of court, and Abbott will continue it's bullshit ways.
So…no. No way in hell anyone goes to jail.
This relates directly to what I do for a living. Product tracking in the manufacturing process can be very difficult & expensive, depending on how complicated the process is, but is very important and is critical to product safety & recalls. If you don't get it right babies could literally die, like what happened here. I work in the pharma/med-tech area but I'm sure this applies to food as well. They're both under FDA. Whether traceability is given the proper resources to get done right goes directly to company culture which is set at the top. The money to get it done comes from the top. You can't blame the peons, because all we can do is either blow the whistle or work for free. Those are the choices.
Product tracking starts with data acquisition at the PLC/sensor level, gets stored in a database somewhere, and retrieved these days usually with a web-based interface.
Not to mention we don’t actually want the govt working at maximum efficiency. That implies that in an emergency there isn’t any slack left in the system to offer help where it is needed.
The availability of landlines to remote locations is in large part due to government subsidies. There are programs at both the state and the federal level to help offset the costs of providing services in areas that wouldn't otherwise be as profitable or indeed bring in any profit at all. If the government hadn't been helping to ease the burden on telecoms for providing those services we wouldn't see nearly as much copper being strung/buried/maintained in rural or difficult to reach locations.
As for police, I think most everyone agrees that it's not an ideal situation to have areas too dangerous for police to effectively respond, but at a certain point it becomes a matter of safety. Private companies also won't deliver services in extremely dangerous neighborhoods and have a long history of using "discretion on whether to provide service" based on much less.
Well unless they decide not to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/us/usps-mail-attacks-cali...
Hmmmm
IMHO, the civil servants that do the work of government don't get enough credit. Without them, our elected officials wouldn't have options.
A wildly successful FDA + private company partnership which directly contradicts OPs comment that “republicans hate the FDA”
Goat and sheep cheeses are viable options for some adults who don't tolerate cheese from cow's milk.
* as in "the go to answer before we had commercial baby formula."
This certainly doesn't look good, but as far as we know it didn't make anyone sick.
Risk calibration by the government seems significantly off when contamination that doesn't make anyone sick causes a nationwide baby formula shortage, but any number of things that could mitigate covid, which is killing hundreds of people per day, aren't being done.
please stop being horrible people and own up to mistakes, we all make them.
"Clean-in-place" has not always been a thing, and when it arose it was kind of expected to become a more feasible approach as newer facilities were built which had the concept in mind to begin with.
So, they shut down the lab for nothing, rather than merely taking corrective action.
This is beyond crazy and it is not good science.
Considering that bacteria is everywhere, if it was an actual outbreak it would be the same strain.
Now, there should be as little contamination as possible, but the reality is that levels of sterility always vary, and it is a certain amount of contaminants in PPM or PPB.
What we appear to have instead is an unfortunate tragedy. While the facility may need some better procedures and a cleanup, it apparently is not a contamination issue starting at the facility, and being linked through the identical strain to the deaths.
From a practical standpoint we normally do not care if our hands touch an apparently clean container and then have contact with food but that is a possible route of contamination. A clean, dry container is very unlikely to harbor a pathogen that poses a threat so we do not normally act as if it's a contaminated surface--but that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to pose a hazard.
There was a strain detected in the lab, and there are 2 dead infants. There was no match of strain type between ANY of them.
No outbreak.
If it was an outbreak you'd see the same strain in the lab, in the infants, and getting cultured from more sick babies. It isn't happening. Non-event.
Guidelines.
* capitalism (to leverage the profit motive to pressure companies to keep quality high enough that a competitor can't take their market share), * government (to fund centralized agencies that develop subject matter experts who act as OSS maintainers of vital public infrastructure and OSINT researchers who are authorized to explore a lot of ~~CSS~~ close sourced situations and enforce quality requirements for the American project), and * journalism (to listen for problems and sound the alarm when appropriate)
to liberate myself from the need to evaluate the safety of each product. If even a small fraction of US consumers lost that trust and had to think about the safety of every product before putting it in their cart, it would shake up at least tens of billions of dollars of annual food spending (a ~$1.7 trillion per year sector), redirecting spending towards less processed foods. The added fear and decision fatigue could even cause consumers to simply end up buying less.
Empirically, the capitalism mechanism works pretty well most of the time, but when it fails, ideally a government agency would be sufficiently empowered to A) accurately identify such situation and B) intervene in time to prevent harm to people or markets, but even there, there has to be some level of trust, because the cost of regulations strong enough to overcome the most skillfully engineered fraud would be paralyzing to productivity and starve consumers. In this case, the FDA was notified of the issues and audited but the facility's management was actively hostile to oversight and falsified records to conceal their dangerous failures. From here, there are two reasonable ways to proceed, and a sad and unreasonable way I fear we'll go:
Reasonable way 1. Treat these deaths as negligent homicides, open very well resourced federal investigations into the situation, federally fund criminal prosecutions at whichever level is most painful (municipal or federal), pierce the corporate veil if there's even a whiff of C-level culpability, and generally make a loud and public example of the consequences for evading oversight through fraudulent means. Reasonable way 2. Significantly expand the resources available to federal agencies and rework incentive structures so that failures like this will taint involved bureaucrats (thereby impeding their career progression both within their agency and as a lobbyist). Politicians who starve agencies of resources or authority will also be held to account for the impacts of their actions in a sufficiently public way that it will stain their wikipedia page forever. Sad and unreasonable way: news coverage of this topic will focus on shortages, angry consumers, and Joe Biden's poll numbers, while coverage of the crimes at the root of the shortage go unmentioned in major reporting.
Breastfeeding. This is one of the best things that can do for the infant's health, and benefits include preventing many kinds of infections. Reports Cronobacter infections among infants who were fed only breast milk and no formula or other foods are rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_food_safety#Infection_p...
I wonder how long we will continue with this whack-a-mole debugging of systems regulating systems regulating systems before people broadly realize that evolution has already done a damn fine job--one that is awfully hard to improve upon.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby...
Was scary. When second child was same. Decided to adopt after that.