Profits before Botulism

40 comments on “Profits before Botulism ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Rawshark 1

   9 December 2014 at 10:56 am

   Who would have guessed it after the leaky building disaster – too little red tape and things fall completely apart under pressure from money spinners and speculators.
   • adam 1.1

     9 December 2014 at 11:10 am

     +1. CR (CV)

     Crony capitalism, gansta capitalism, zombie economic – so many names – all leading to the same stupid results.
     • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 11:21 am

       There is a certain middle management and senior management cadre who (effectively) want to drive core parts of NZ over a cliff, in the mistaken belief that they themselves will have satisfactory individual golden parachutes to protect them from the consequences.
       • tracey 1.1.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 11:28 am

         I shudder to think what our industries would look like self regulated given how they behave under regulation. It’s all in the oversight and enforcement of the Regulations and that is down to Government prioritisng, budgeting and directives. There is a very worthwhile job creation scheme in there somewhere 😉
         • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1.1.1

           9 December 2014 at 6:17 pm

           There are huge job creation schemes in simply doing the many necessary things that the private sector generally refuses to do to a quality level…
2. ron 2

   9 December 2014 at 11:31 am

   Maybe what we need as far as the public service component is concerned is an effective State Services Commission. Of course that presupposes an effective commissioner running the place. So not much chance of that is there?
3. aerobubble 3

   9 December 2014 at 12:47 pm

   Just one point, Chicken Breasts with brownish liquid pooling in the pre-pack.

   Food safety and NZ ha.
   • batweka 3.1

     9 December 2014 at 2:21 pm

     yep.
4. Lanthanide 4

   9 December 2014 at 1:38 pm

   “The usual thing, wait for the tragedy (cf to Pike River), then if it’s bad enough, change stuff. That’s all. Accountability? responsibility?”

   And what about all of the disasters that *don’t* strike us every day of the week? Does the government, or anyone, get any credit for that?

   Or, because ‘things working properly’ don’t make the news, you’re just overly focussed (and therefore unfairly critical) on the very small number of things that do go badly?
   • Crashcart 4.1

     9 December 2014 at 3:10 pm

     What a stupid statement. Are you saying because some times things go right you should ignore when they go wrong? Of course feel free to point out a single time that this government has implimented a policy or regulation that has prevented a disaster to back up your statement.

     The number of failures is irrelivent when taken into consideration against severity. Any risk analysis or incident report will measure not only the likely hood of an incident occuring but also the severity. Therefore if something is unlikely to happen but should it happen have a large consiquence like lets say a mine exploding it would still be considered pretty damn important to try and prevent. Where as people stub their toes every day but we don’t run around putting padding on all table legs.
     • Lanthanide 4.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 5:41 pm

       “Are you saying because some times things go right you should ignore when they go wrong? ”

       Not sure how commissioning a report and implementing it’s recommendations counts as “ignoring” things that have gone wrong.

       “Of course feel free to point out a single time that this government has implimented a policy or regulation that has prevented a disaster to back up your statement.”

       When they built the Christchurch Southern Motorway, they used experienced contractors, so that even given the two massive earthquakes that occurred during construction, it came in ahead of time and under budget. And no-one died on the worksite.

       So, that’s an example of a disaster being avoided. You can tell by the fact that no disaster occurred.

       My actual point, is how many other ‘health scares’ have occurred at Fonterra (or any other company) over the years that the public never even heard a peep of, because they were found and managed properly?

       Failures like this happen because of multiple systems that all fail simultaneously. In many cases, if just one thing had been done differently, the entire failure would not have occurred. For every 1 issue like this that hits the public, how many hundreds of others are avoided or prevented?
       • Murray Rawshark 4.1.1.1

         10 December 2014 at 12:44 am

         “For every 1 issue like this that hits the public, how many hundreds of others are avoided or prevented?”

         If they were open and transparent, we’d know. I can’t answer your question, sorry.
   • Ergo Robertina 4.2

     10 December 2014 at 12:59 am

     You’re ignoring the context of the quote, which is that NZers have suffered from a lack of regulation in multiple areas, underground mining being one. Also leaky houses, dairy pollution, adventure tourism, finance companies, out-of-control house prices.
   • tracey 4.3

     10 December 2014 at 10:49 am

     I focus on where the deaths happen and the very high workplace injuries lanth.

     I am trying to focus on what happen to human beings when particular companies put profit ahead of safety (as was the case in Pike River and here). There were MANY clues to Pike River before it happened. Talk to those involved in mining to see the lax safety that was developing including by miners themselves.

     The company made a conscious choice NOT to invest in safety and various governments made a conscious decision not to oversee safety. Fonterra did the same. That is where our focus needs to be. Any preventable death is important because it probably means there were many close calls or accidents before that.

     Humans arent just numbers of a spreadsheet.

     More people survive their workplace or milk purchase than die so nothing to worry about here.
5. Jimmy 5

   9 December 2014 at 5:47 pm

   The food scare rubbish AGAIN?

   Fonterra tested the product, it was decided that it wasn’t botulism – it was then proved it wasn’t botulism and could not have been botulism.

   As for “running a business for profit (vs food safety)” the customer gets as much food safety as they are paying for. same as any business.

   Just a bunch of report writers, giving themselves free passes and proving they have no idea what is involved in supply of real goods.

   Now we’re going to have even more bullshit regulations and compliance costs, more expensive gear that we’re supposed to put on farm…. and what’s to bet even less revenue to do it from. Why bullshit regs? Because it’s not on farm that caused a problem…but that’s where you can sell a bunch of stuff to.

   Yes Im a small scale dairy farmer, go easy, I know you lot dont particularly like us, but some of us do read lefty blogs.
   Were not all bad.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     9 December 2014 at 6:04 pm

     Take heart, Jimmy: it’s more-or-less axiomatic (not to mention obvious from looking at life on Earth) that stricter (evidence-based) regulation improves the product.

     If you’ve enough agricultural experience you’ll know that species adapt to circumstances, and humans are past master at that game.
     • batweka 5.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 7:02 pm

       “it’s more-or-less axiomatic (not to mention obvious from looking at life on Earth) that stricter (evidence-based) regulation improves the product.”

       That’s only true in the abstract, and it depends on what you mean by improve. In real life it plays out differently. For instance, more regulations have stopped people from selling homemade jams at farmers markets. You could argue that this makes jam safer of course, but actually what it does is make jam less available, less affordable, less sustainable. This is largely because the regulations designed for big producers was randomly and unintelligently applied to small producers where the risks and issues were different.

       Small farmers are hit really hard by overregulation and much of it is poorly applied. Increased regulation is needed as you increase the complexity of food production, but when you increase it across the board you end up the situation where only big companies can survive. If commodities production for export is the goal, all good. If producing food locally to support local economies and protect the enviroment (including AGW mitigation) is the aim, then hyper regulation is completely counter productive.

       We don’t need more regulation, we need smarter regulation and to have it better targeted.

       In general I would say the really big producers, as in the case of the botulism scare, should have the most stringent regulations, but even here we still need to apply them intelligently. I can’t remember the details, but getting botulism from milk powder would be extremely rare (because of the conditions that botulism needs to grow), and I think in this case there were a whole bunch of factors that led to it being scare that weren’t particularly evidence based.

       This isn’t to say that there aren’t improvements to be made, and I haven’t read the report so am not going to be specific, but blanket statements the increasing regulation is all good are not actually evidence based or workable in reality.
       • batweka 5.1.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 7:11 pm

         The building industry would be another example where increasing regulation is not straight forward. A bunch of cowboys do a whole lot of stupid shit that no-one was really doing before, smack on some heavy regulation and now it’s much more expensive to build a house, and the sustainable building industry is knocked back because innovation has much bigger hurdles to jump.
   • Colonial Rawshark 5.2

     9 December 2014 at 6:23 pm

     As for “running a business for profit (vs food safety)” the customer gets as much food safety as they are paying for. same as any business.

     Don’t be a fucking immature dick.

     Major customers like China and the EU are quite willing to cut NZ food exports off at the knees if we harm or kill their citizens. They have done it before.

     And food operators who operate their businesses in an unsafe or unprofessional or incompetent way deserve to see their businesses go down the drain. Literally.
     • Jimmy 5.2.1

       9 December 2014 at 6:32 pm

       Righto, Im replying to you against my better judgement.
       Is it the farmer thing about me that annoys you?

       “Major customers like China and the EU are quite willing to cut NZ food exports off at the knees if we harm or kill their citizens. They have done it before.”

       Sure I agree and so they should, if the product is proven to be unsafe.

       Which brings me too the point that no Fonterra product was found to be unsafe!

       Im simply saying if you are prepared to pay a premium for a product, then you will get in return a premium product.
       • BM 5.2.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 6:37 pm

         Is it the farmer thing about me that annoys you?

         I’d be surprised if it was as one of his businesses is aimed at the farming sector.

         Any business would be rather unsuccessful if you hated you customers, so I’m guessing it may be you.
         • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1.1.1

           9 December 2014 at 6:47 pm

           Yep. Farmers are a critical part of the NZ economy, and Fonterra playing fast and loose over that entire saga (S.O.P.s ignored, multiple PR blunders, etc) did nothing but harm.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1.1.1

             9 December 2014 at 6:51 pm

             Be charitable: many of them suffer from right wing brain syndrome.
           • BM 5.2.1.1.1.2

             9 December 2014 at 6:55 pm

             How is that business going?, plenty of take up?.

             From what I remember it was quite hi-tech.
             • McFlock …

               9 December 2014 at 8:18 pm

               If you insist on trooling, at least try to keep up with the thread.
       • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1.2

         9 December 2014 at 6:51 pm

         Im simply saying if you are prepared to pay a premium for a product, then you will get in return a premium product.

         you’re a fool Jimmy. If you don’t make the minimum grade, which Fonterra didn’t, your company is going to get taken to the cleaners by its customers for millions in damages. And rightfully so.

         Which brings me too the point that no Fonterra product was found to be unsafe!

         What kind of crappy under-educated farmer are you? Every farmer knows that you have to be able to absolutely assure the quality and safety of your output at all times. Fonterra couldn’t do that when it was asked. Stop making excuses for them.
         • Jimmy 5.2.1.2.1

           9 December 2014 at 7:11 pm

           Im not really making excuses for them, in fact I was at a meeting where the Board was told in no uncetain terms that they need to get their act together, The unfortunate PR stuff ups that accompanied this news on radio and television was a bad look.

           Im sure there are some in the Political left (and right for that matter) that can understand the pressure that results from TV camera and the media scrum.

           As a farmer shareholder/supplier Fonterra insists that I meet a minimum requirement with the raw milk that I supply to them, if its not to that minimum standard then they can cease to pick up my milk, not too mention the heafty fines they impose for less than a quality product off farm.

           So I think Fonterra should have the same high standards that they insist on from thier suppliers.

           It seems to me to not really be a problem with the product itself (in this case) But more a problem of keeping track of such large inventory, I hope they get it sorted.
           • tracey 5.2.1.2.1.1

             10 December 2014 at 10:52 am

             I agree with you. My post was intended to target Fonterra and to a lesser extent our regulators.

             It appears the problem was with Fonterra’s intent not their ability or financial position.

             They CHOSE to not have better systems.
       • tracey 5.2.1.3

         10 December 2014 at 10:51 am

         and those who can’t afford to pay premium just have to take their chances because they are poor?
   • b waghorn 5.3

     9 December 2014 at 7:38 pm

     Good on ya jimmy this place needs a rural perspective.
     • Jimmy 5.3.1

       9 December 2014 at 8:05 pm

       Cheers, all eyes on the GDT news in the morning huh.
       • framu 5.3.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 8:18 pm

         without trying to start or get into a fight… im actually asking some honest good faith questions here

         i can happily accept that not all farmers are bad – seen plenty of good ones and country calendar even ran a good stint on organic farming practices for a while.

         But you good ones never get publicly seen having a go at the bad ones – maybe thats not your fault so much – lord knows its hard to get the MSM to notice anything other than bad news.

         Is there any push back from you guys – is it public? or inside the industry? or is there not much avenue available for such communication?
         • b waghorn 5.3.1.1.1

           9 December 2014 at 8:37 pm

           In my opinion having a go at people very really achieve’s what you want were as farmers spend a lot of time looking over the fence so if you lead some will follow. Its up to the law makers to set the standards like the riparian fenceing although its time they start working on sheep and beef farmers to fence off rivers were practicable.
           • batweka 5.3.1.1.1.1

             9 December 2014 at 9:14 pm

             But at the moment most laws are set and managed by the regional councils which are stacked with conservative farmers. It’s the lawmakers that sat by for a decade or so and let the waterways get polluted.

             I understand what you mean about not having a go at people, esp in rural communities where people are dependent on each other still. But there comes a time when you have to decide which side you are on, and Fed Farmers etc have made it pretty bloody clear where they want things to go, so what’s it going to be?
   • Murray Rawshark 5.4

     10 December 2014 at 12:50 am

     Small scale farmers are generally Ok in my experience. You’re the guys that will be able to feed the world, not the corporate investors. They just end up with everything owned by banks.
6. Jimmy 6

   9 December 2014 at 9:48 pm

   Just like all groups of people there’s always a small percentage of people that will get away with what they can. I’m in Taranaki and I can honestly say that most farmers I know really do the best for the land and general environment. My property has changed a lot in the last five years. Almost 100 percent stock exclusion and have planted 7000 natives on the rivers and drains. Although too be honest I am baulking at finishing the last small stretch this season. The lower dairy payout makes it nearly impossible to finish, my bankers think they should be paid before environmental considerations. From my perspective it seems the councils fine farmers large amounts almost instantly while other non farming or non dairy businesses get much greater discretion. No one seems to notice the good work. And the Tv news will show some beef Bulls crapping in the river on some guys dry stock farm, at the end of their dairy farming segment.
   My neighbours would be the first to pot me to the council if I was dischargeing into the waterways, and they are dairy farming as well, the reason, they use the water on their property’s and don’t want my crap in it. I don’t see a dairy pollution problem in this area. However some parts of the country are not as suited to intensive dairy as high rainfall Taranaki.
   • b waghorn 6.1

     10 December 2014 at 6:59 am

     “Non dairy businesses get much greater discretion”to bloody right Jimmy Hamilton and Dunedin have both had sewerage spills in the last year they got a few line s in the paper and that’s it. Can’t fine the voting tax payers !
   • tracey 6.2

     10 December 2014 at 10:56 am

     I hear you, which is why I focused on Fonterra not individual farmers.

     I had uncles with farms and spent many holidays there. I have alot of respect for them, their animal husbandry and their care for the land.

     Why don’t you consider some guest posts Jimmy? From a rural perspective. many people read here who do not post so it may be a chance to share the good work being done by the sadly, not so average anymore, family farmer?
7. vto 7

   10 December 2014 at 7:50 am

   “The ministry had no single, coherent (or reviewed or rehearsed) crisis plan for a food incident that it could implement straight away after receiving notification of C. botulism.”

   Well knock me down with a feather….

   We here in Christchurch found the exact same thing when it came to the government department running the Earthquake Commission …. no plan to deal with claims resulting from a major earthquake hitting a major NZ city ….

   unbelievable

   failure of government at its most basic level

   repeated with food safety

   live in fear folks – the things you assume may be in place will likely not be
   • tracey 7.1

     10 December 2014 at 10:57 am

     And no one is ultimately responsible… Kate Wilkinson had to resign over Pike River even though the mishandling was when Brownlee was in charge…

     The buck doesn’t stop anywhere in this Government… it just gets slipped into the top drawer

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS