Stores Use Discount Cards To Notify Of Recall

crazyj writes "USA Today is one of many sources running a story about how some supermarkets used their "discount" shopping cards to notify customers of a beef recall. Interestingly, some stores did not use the information because they felt it violated the customer's privacy. I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those, but do others feel that the stores were justified in 'violating' their privacy agreement?"

Comments

California law requires anonymous card option

[chongo]

In the state of California, supermarkets are required to give you the option of obtaining an anonymous discount card. I know this because when I was an elected official, I worked with my regional state legislators to draft and pass the legislation.

Any retail or wholesale discount card that is not a line of credit, nor an instrument of debt (e.g, debit card) cannot require the consumer to disclose ANY information. They cannot even require you to provide your name! They cannot tie the use of a financial instrument (such as a credit, debit or check) back to the discount card account. Lastly, any consumer may lend or give their discount card to anyone else. You can use your discount card, hand it to the next person in line and apply for a new card the next time you come into the store if you wish.

At my California supermarket, at the bottom of the form there was a small box that says "I decline to provide any information". When I received my discount card application I quickly went to the very bottom, checked the box and immediately handed it back to the clerk. They clerk was clearly puzzled, but with a little prompting I managed to convince them I and completed the form and so I got my first card. Then to demonstrate the anonymity, I gave my card to the next person in line who didn't have a card. I'm currently using a card that I friend from out of town picked up (who also checked the box) and gave to me.

Some supermarkets have been slow to update their application forms, even thought the California law started 1-Jan-2001. I have had to help a friend deal with a supermarket who didn't want to give him a anonymous discount card. A call to the HQ of that supermarket cleared up the matter. (BTW: The store's excuse was that they had printed too many of the old forms that required comsumer information to toss them. Lame!) Perhaps the California law needs to be changed to prohibit the stores from even asking for such data?

So I won't be notified of a beef recall anytime soon. Not that I care. I'm a vegitarian. :-)

Re: is it invasion?

[bezuwork's friend]

all the organs in which infectious prions occur were removed at slaughter and did not enter the food supply. Muscle meat is not a source of infectious prions....None of this material left the control of the companies and entered commercial distribution.

I hate this quote. I heard something similar on an interview with a government representative discussing the matter after the contamination was found.

The problem is, I recently read Fast Food Nation. That book discusses slaughterhouse conditions. It has descriptions of how intestines and other organs can get burst by cutting instruments and how organ matter can get splat on other carcasses in the vacinity. With all the self-regulation permitted under the law today, I don't trust the slaughterhouses to (a) even know if the contaminated carcass had it's organs improperly cut/splattered and (b) to report this if they did know.