Labels: New Hampshire, salmonella lawyer

Sell by/pull by date: This is the date that stores pay attention to. If an item hasn't sold by this date, they're supposed to pull it from the shelves. Don't be afraid to buy something on or right before its 'sell by' date; it'll still be good for a while if it's stored properly. How long? That depends on the item. More on that in a minute.

Best if used before/by: Until this date, your food's guaranteed to be at peak freshness if it's been properly stored. After that date, it'll still be safe to consume for a while but the quality won't be as high. So your OJ won't have that "fresh-squeezed taste" anymore. And if you've ever taken a swig of diet soda after the 'best by' date stamped on the bottle, you're familiar with the unmistakable taste of decomposing artificial sweetener. Yum.

Expiration date: This is your food's last hurrah. If you haven't consumed it by this date, toss it. It could make you sick if you try eating or drinking it.

• Cold Storage Chart
• Foods Purchased Refrigerated Chart

Labels: California, pistachio salmonella recall, salmonella lawyer

The recent Salmonella outbreak linked to Peanut Corporation of America peanut butter and peanut paste resulted in recalls of thousands of products (3,863 as of March 27, 2009).

In the following opinion piece, food safety attorney Fred Pritzker discusses the responsibility of retailers and others to get recalled products off of the shelves. According to Mr. Pritzker, "To promote food safety, everyone up and down the stream of commerce has to act and bear responsibility and should be held accountable for failing to do so."

Upstream, Downstream: Everyone Has to be Responsible

by Fred Pritzker

The whole point of a food recall is to prevent additional foodborne illness after producers and their adulterated products are identified. That’s why it’s so important for food companies, food distributors, food retailers and federal, state and local authorities to promptly and effectively remove from the marketplace any food known or reasonably certain to cause illness or death.

That’s also why there should be a special place in hell for those companies that knew or should have known a food product was dangerous but continued to sell it anyway.

The ongoing Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) is a case in point. It appears from the company’s emails that its officers and employees knowingly shipped adulterated product. If so, the company’s liquidation and the criminal investigation of its principals are both necessary and fair.

But what about the downstream retailers of food products containing adulterated PCA ingredients? Aren’t they just as culpable if they fail to remove contaminated product from their shelves after they knew or should have known of the recall?

This is not an idle musing. Long after the PCA recall was announced and long after the list of adulterated products was known and accessible on a variety of web sites, retailers big and tiny continued to sell these poisonous snacks. I know because I looked.

Many of the recalled products were snack foods with long shelf lives and wide distribution. Many of the retailers who sell them are small outlets with small product stocks and unsophisticated (if any) recall procedures. For many such retailers, there is little economic justification for removing dangerous products and even less risk of public approbation for failing to do so – little consolation for the victims who continue to get sick long after the products should have been removed.

Perversely, the legal system in many states promotes such behavior. So called “pass through statutes” are intended to insulate downstream retailers from lawsuit liability if the upstream producer or manufacturer of the dangerous product is identifiable and solvent. In such cases, the retailer is automatically dismissed from litigation and bears no financial responsibility (dismissals can be avoided if the downstream retailer modified the product or otherwise actively participated in making the product defective).

So what should be done? From the standpoint of efficacy and efficiency, better product traceback and notification systems have to be designed and implemented. However, I have no illusions that any such improvements are really going to rid long lived snacks from the shelves of retailers disinclined to care all that much. What will incentivize such retailers is the threat of criminal sanctions and financial responsibility.

First, create a tight and focused criminal law that makes it a crime to sell a food product that a retailer knows or should know has been recalled. We do it for sales of liquor and cigarettes to minors; there is no reason not to do it for dangerous food products. If criminalizing the behavior is too extreme, create economic penalties by allowing consumers to prove such illegal sales and awarding them attorney fees if they’re successful. Again, there is precedent for such measures in consumer protection statutes on the books in virtually every state.

To promote food safety, everyone up and down the stream of commerce has to act and bear responsibility and should be held accountable for failing to do so.

Labels: food safety, food safety lawyer, press release, Salmonella