Slashdot Mirror


Million Jars of Peanut Butter Dumped In New Mexico Landfill

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The Guardian reports that a million jars of peanut butter are going to be dumped in a New Mexico landfill and bulldozed over after retailer Costco refused to take shipment of the peanut butter and declined requests to let it be donated to food banks or repackaged or sold to brokers who provide food to institutions like prisons. The peanut butter comes from a bankrupt peanut-processing plant that was at the heart of a salmonella outbreak in 2012 and although 'all parties agreed there's nothing wrong with the peanut butter from a health and safety issue,' court records show that on a 19 March conference call Costco said 'it would not agree to any disposition ... other than destruction.'

The product was tested extensively and determined to be safe. Costco initially agreed to allowing the peanut butter to be sold, but rejected it as 'not merchantable' because of leaking peanut oil. So instead of selling or donating the peanut butter, with a value estimated at $2.6m, the estate is paying about $60,000 to transport 950,000 jars – or about 25 tons – to the Curry County landfill in Clovis, where public works director Clint Bunch says it 'will go in with our regular waste and covered with dirt'. Despite the peanut butter being safe, Curry County landfill employee Tim Stacy says that no one will be able to consume the peanut butter once it's dumped because it will be immediately rolled over with a bulldozer, destroying the supply. Stacy added more trash will then be dumped on top of the pile. Sonya Warwick, spokeswoman for New Mexico's largest food bank, declined to comment directly on the situation, but she noted that rescued food accounted for 74% of what Roadrunner Food Bank distributed across New Mexico last year. 'Access to rescued food allows us to provide a more well-rounded and balanced meal to New Mexicans experiencing hunger.'"

86 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. And so this is Costco's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this litigious society, who can blame them. You can damn near guarantee that they'd have hit one bad jar in a lot that large and gotten the tar sued out of them. If you want to fix this situation and make sure it never happens again, demand tort reform in this country.

    1. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the real reason is that if they give it away that's 950,000 jars of peanut butter they wont sell. Hard to compete with free. Never mind most of the people getting it free would not be able to buy it anyway.

    2. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      If nothing else, in this case, they should have received a special dispensation from the FDA.

      Similar incidents in areas with large game kills. Hunters cannot in some jurisdictions (Maryland) give the meat from population management hunts to food banks or the like without going through the entire inspection process, at their expense.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a hole in your logic. The donated peanut butter would go to those in poverty who are, in all likelihood, not shopping at Costco in the first place.
       
      Donating things to people who aren't your target market doesn't harm your potential sales.

    4. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by thesandbender · · Score: 4, Informative

      People lining up at food banks aren't going to be going to costco and buying peanut butter in bulk. The same goes for families whose children benefit from school meal programs.

      Unfortunately there is a degree of truth to the OP's comment about Costco being afraid of getting sued. I used to volunteer at "under privileged" schools and staff were specifically told not to give food to children in need but to direct them to one of the official programs. Litigation was cited as one of the reasons, as well as concern about children flying under the radar and not getting all the help they needed, etc. The cafeteria wasn't even allowed to give out unused food. The school district in this case was very concerned about getting their butts sued off because of a well intentioned act that went bad (it had happened before). It was a disheartening situation all the way around.

    5. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Informative

      I actually agree with the parent. Every single jar of peanut butter is a lawsuit waiting to happen, even if they give it away. Even if it's tested safe, Costco still assumes partial liability by handing that peanut butter over to the public. You could repurpose the lot into fertilizer or compost, but it's cheaper to bury the lot.

    6. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Informative

      You just couldn't read all three sentences, could you?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Your logic is not sound. The profit margin to be lost over one shipment of peanut butter is small change. Even if they made a 50 cents profit per jar, we're only talking about $475,000 in profit to be lost. But let's look further. The peanut butter would be donated to food banks and the like, for people who can't afford enough food. Did you know that Costco, like Sam's club, requires membership to shop there? So are you suggesting that these people with such a low income that they cannot afford food actually have a Costco membership, and that's where they purchase their peanut butter, and so that's why Costco would not accept the peanut butter? In other words, giving the peanut butter away would have Costco's competitors (Walmart, grocery store chains, etc) far more than it would have hurt Costco. That $475,000 in potential profit would have come out of the pockets of regular grocery stores, and not Costco.

      Although it's fun to always beat up on corporate America, the evil motive you suggest is laughable in this case.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    8. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like someone trying to justify piracy. Why are you trying to pirate peanut butter?

    9. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by SJester · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anecdotal, but I have another. A friend is finishing her last semester at a major culinary institute; naturally, they generate a lot of spare food at the school. But they are not allowed to take any of it off the campus. Instead, it is destroyed, and for the same reason stated : the school would be sunk if someone contracted food poisoning and sued. The students and staff do eat but sign hefty waivers. Although I do wonder - Costco does at least sell this food under normal circumstances, so apparently they do have a means of dealing with potential suits. I suspect this is more that they don't have protection for this avenue of distribution, only for sale. I don't know how that works in legal terms though.

    10. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The safety seal was breached on at least some of the containers such that they were leaking oil. Once that happens it can't be sold or given away. If oil can leak out, then there's no guarantee that there hasn't been intentional tampering. Now, this was only a portion of the bottles, but it's expensive to check every single container. Costco buys in huge quantities.

    11. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by flargleblarg · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, they will lose 950,000 jars in sale if the would donate.

      Your statement is ludicrous. If they donate the peanut butter to the exact people who shop at Costco and who would have bought peanut butter anyway, then yes, they would lose sales. But that's not even remotely what would happen. What would happen is they would donate the peanut butter to people who wouldn't have bought it at Costco anyway. They would not lose out on one cent of sales./P.

    12. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least in some states, donating the food removed responsibility from them in the case of a problem.

    13. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by theskipper · · Score: 2

      It is a little difficult to parse at first glance. He's saying that Costco is completely focused on the "jars they won't sell" aspect (first two sentences).

      By concentrating on that, they're blinded to the issue that the homeless wouldn't be buying peanut butter at Costco anyway. So the third sentence is really the key point, that Costco should do a facepalm when they realize the problem with their logic.

      Carry on.

    14. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by scarboni888 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ONLY thing required to make delicious and nutritious peanut butter is peanuts. The salt and sugar and everything else added in is a scam and degrades the product.

    15. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by xigxag · · Score: 2

      Food retailers run the risk of product liability with every item they sell. And as was mentioned elsewhere the Emerson Act would likely shield Costco from liability. I think it's more likely that they just don't want the PR nightmare. "Costco deems salmonella-factory peanut butter unsafe for general sale yet gives it away to the poor." Either way, I agree with you that it would be cheaper for them to bury the food. And perhaps just outright donate a generous sum to a couple of food banks to help bury the entire matter.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    16. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Not hardly. My favorite peanut butter these days is Smuckers Natural Chunky. It has salt in it, but otherwise just peanuts. And Smuckers is most definitely not an 'indy' peanut butter producer.

      Years ago I liked the bulk peanut butter at food co-ops but I no longer live in a city with food co-ops, and there was always the risk with the bulk peanut butter that you'd get there after someone had scooped without stirring enough and you'd get very dry peanut butter minus most of the oil.

    17. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by MattskEE · · Score: 2

      A bit of salt makes most foods taste better (in the opinion of most people) and adding salt is in no way a scam.

      I personally have a strong taste preference for the natural style peanut butters which have just peanuts and salt, but I have been disappointed whenever I have tried an unsalted nut butter.

    18. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Costco isn't for the >$250k set. It's one of those places where you buy a 24 rolls of toilet paper in a package instead of 4. The prices are very reasonable, and adjusted for the higher quality, are comparable to Sam's Club (which is owned by Wal-Mart), which does the same "big-lot" stuff.

      In fact, Costco is a pretty responsible company. They pay their employees more than all of the other mainstream retailers and give them decent benefits. They find ways to keep costs low, for example, by only allowing payment by cash or American express, if I remember correctly. Their prices on TVs and consumer electronics are pretty good, but there's not much in the way of floor sales staff to help you out.

      I'm all in favor of boycotts. I think it's one of the best tools to influence corporations next to labor strikes. But you have to make sure you have the right targets.

      Rather than worried about losing peanut butter sales directly, they might be worried that if it turns out there are some health problems with these packages and they give them to food pantries, it could really hurt their image. You know, "Costo Poisons Poor People" is probably not what you want to see in the paper if you're Costco.

      Anyway, I buy my peanut butter from small local stores, who grind up the peanuts themselves and fill up the little tub I bring them, adding about 1/4 cup of flax seeds for every 2 cups of peanuts. I love those flax seeds. They add omega somethings or other plus they make me shit like a goose, which is always a bonus.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me be the one to tell you that it is quite nice to read your posts, but please end them a sentence early from now on. Thanks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by scarboni888 · · Score: 2

      Oh no - it's a scam all right. Consistently using salt stimulates your sense of taste so that if you don't use salt the taste is bland. If you stopped using salt you would be able to taste the unsalted food again after your sensitivity level returned. I have proved this to myself time and again with the first such experience being the move to peanut-only peanut butter. At first because I was expecting the doped-up tripe that serves for commercial peanut butter I didn't much like the peanuts-only peanut butter. However i hate to waste anything and forced myself to finish the container. By the time I was finished with it not only did I find I was enjoying it but I knew I'd never buy any other kind of peanut butter ever again (and I haven't!).

      It's all about what you're used to and processed food manufacturers like to make us 'used to' large amounts of salts, sugars, and fats. That's because salts, sugars, and fats are cheaper than nutritious and quality ingredients and make you salivate for them more.

      So yes. It's a scam

    21. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I have been disappointed whenever I have tried an unsalted nut butter.

      That's what she said.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:And so this is Costco's fault? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      They probably thought that there must be a tiny percentage of people who might buy peanut butter if they can't get it from a food bank for free.

      Also, it would probably be spun to look bad if they were giving away "sub standard" food to the poor anyway. Can't win here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Kuroji · · Score: 5, Informative

    The company shut down in 2012. These were produced prior to the company's closure. This is probably not safe for human consumption at this point.

    Consumer peanut butter's got a shelf life of roughly a year or two at most, generally. This stuff is on the edge of that point, if not past. A million jars of peanut butter being donated would probably sit on the shelves in a home being eaten over the course of a few months, which definitely puts it past the point where the peanut oil may begin going rancid -- and that's not accounting for all the jars that will sit in storage, probably for months if not years, waiting to be given out.

    Donated food is usually donated because something was mislabelled or a pallet came loose and it wasn't suitable for sale due to damage to the container that doesn't jeopardize the product itself. This has been in storage for years. This is not suitable for donation, this is a bunch of jerks trying to make themselves look good and try to drum up donations while making a company that HAS given them donations in the past look bad because they're not giving them donations right now.

    1. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Radak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The company shut down in 2012. These were produced prior to the company's closure. This is probably not safe for human consumption at this point.

      According to TFA, the plant shut down in 2012 after the salmonella outbreak, but then reopened, closing again in October 2013. Presumably the peanut butter being landfilled will have been produced in late 2013, which leaves it well within reasonable shelf life.

    2. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by JimSadler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It has tested as safe. But maybe due to the ever looming threat of legal actions it is better to dump it. My notion would be to mix it in with hog rations as they would probably love it.

    3. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Kuroji · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but how fast do you think a million jars of peanut butter are going to be distributed in New Mexico? The state barely has two million PEOPLE in it.

    4. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Radak · · Score: 2

      That I don't know about. Just commenting about the likely production date. Peanut butter jars don't last very long in my kitchen, but that's just me. :)

    5. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but how fast do you think a million jars of peanut butter are going to be distributed in New Mexico?

      So the reason that brought you to the conclusion you did was proven to be incorrect, and your reaction to this event was to immediately theorize about another reason to get to the same conclusion?

      Which came first, chief?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Rancid Peanut Butter? Mmmmm. by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Leave me out of it, you fat bastard.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. New Mexico Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    E.T. loves his peanut butter pieces...

  4. If any slightest illness was ever even *suspected* by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... then the news and legal worlds would turn on Costco like a pack of rabid dogs. Yes, this destruction of nutritious food seems like a terrible, horrible waste; but if there's even a chance that one single jar is tainted with salmonella, and someone gets sick, then the tone would change in a heartbeat to "heartless corporation knowingly rids itself of poisoned food". I can't blame them for playing it safe.

  5. sandwiched together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, at least all of the Atari E.T. cartridges now have an accompanying snack food.

  6. How much peanut butter? by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 4, Funny

    million jars of peanut butter

    Jars of peanut butter come in many different sizes. Could you please convert the amount to Olympic Sized Swimming Pools?

    Thanks.

    --
    Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    1. Re:How much peanut butter? by LordKronos · · Score: 2

      Jars of peanut butter come in many different sizes.

      Not at Costco, they don't. Costco sells thing in only 1 size: fucking huge.

      But more seriously, if this happens to be the Kirkland brand natural peanut butter that Costco sells, it comes in a 2-pack of 40oz jars.

    2. Re:How much peanut butter? by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      A little more than 1/100. The weight of water in such a pool is 2,500 tons. The weight of the peanut butter is 25 tons. Water density is 1 g/cc. Unsalted peanut butter is 1.09 g/cc.

  7. There's no liability by mapuche · · Score: 5, Informative

    Clinton signed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Emerson_Good_Samaritan_Act_of_1996

    So no legal reason no to donate food.

    1. Re:There's no liability by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless the courts decide that it was gross negligence. So the legal reason is still there.

    2. Re:There's no liability by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given the extensive testing, gross negligence would be a really hard sell.

    3. Re:There's no liability by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Dang, states' rights makes the problem worse yet again.

    4. Re:There's no liability by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      And at what cost to Costco? Are they going to be able to recoup cost of legal defense? Not likely.

    5. Re:There's no liability by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      it's not about it being a hard sell..... it's about having to pay for lawyers to defend yourself over and over. it's not worth the time, and 60k doesn't buy very many hours of lawyer time.....

    6. Re:There's no liability by theskipper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real question is whether that projected liability cost would offset the bad PR cost (intangible but notable).

      Really surprised Costco let it get to this point and didn't find a middle ground to spin it. They had to know social media would be all over this in a really bad way (facts be damned as usual).

    7. Re:There's no liability by bws111 · · Score: 2

      There was and is no way for Costco to win. If they donated the food, I can assure you that there would have been equal outrage over the gall of Costco dumping food it considered unfit for consumption on the poor. If they donated the food and people actually got sick an unbelievable shit storm would occur. And if they don't donate the food you get the idiots who can't see the problems with donating raising a stink.

  8. convergence of wealth, lawyers, and arrogance by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 2

    Dumping $2.6 million worth of editable food when there are people starving is shocking to most of us. Yet, this is a reflection of our current law suit happy society.

    Most of us has very little to loose and most food banks has very little to loose so our local food bank gladly take in our donated food items and we happily go on with our lives do what we can for people who are starving, one canned food at a time. Also, I've volunteered at the local food banks and base on what I've seen, Costco peanut butter is probably an upgrade to the various expired high fructose laden supermarket rejects.

    Life is very different for our newly anointed fellow big corporate beings. In their billion dollar world, with their million dollar lawyers, somewhere, somehow, the meaning of starving people became irrelevant. After all, corporations do not understand the physical pain of starvation.

    1. Re:convergence of wealth, lawyers, and arrogance by Maritz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dumping $2.6 million worth of editable food

      Damn, I thought they said it was read-only peanut butter.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:convergence of wealth, lawyers, and arrogance by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is because under law, the corporation made the decision and did the crime.

      No, it's because the US Department of Justice decided not to enforce the law. That sort of corruption doesn't have anything to do with the business being a corporation.

    3. Re:convergence of wealth, lawyers, and arrogance by khallow · · Score: 2
      So despite your assertions to the contrary, the conviction of Enron executives is a good example. WorldCom is another with Bernard Ebbers being convicted in 2005.

      I see two people here for a rather large case of Medicare fraud for which their company "plead guilty".

      Captain Joseph Hazelwood was convicted of negligent discharge of oil in 1990 with respect to the Valdez oil spill of 1989.

      There's an actual summary (see page 5) of individual convictions for violating antitrust law in the US.

      Over the past decade, from FY 1999 through the end of the second quarter of FY 2009, a total of 246 individual offenders were convicted of Sherman Act violations, the vast majority under section 1 and seven under section 3.

      That's just for a narrow segment of business law.

    4. Re:convergence of wealth, lawyers, and arrogance by djchristensen · · Score: 2

      "I've volunteered at the local food banks and base on what I've seen, Costco peanut butter is probably an upgrade to the various expired high fructose laden supermarket rejects"

      The food banks I've volunteered at have very high standards and a big part of the volunteer's job is to weed out expired, leaking, or generally icky-looking packages and throw them away. I wouldn't be surprised if we threw out 25% of the stuff we inspected, especially on the frozen food line. Our instructions included something along the lines of, "if you wouldn't want it in YOUR pantry, throw it out." (It was understood, of course, that this applied to safety concerns, not palatability. As gross as I might think Lunchables are, they provide FDA-approved calories to kids who might otherwise go without.)

      I know I wouldn't feed any of this peanut butter to my kids no matter how much testing it had received, so would it be morally right to feed it to the underprivileged?

  9. It's... by maroberts · · Score: 4, Funny

    Peanut Butter landfill time....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  10. Lawsuits by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "All parties agreed there's nothing wrong with the peanut butter from a health and safety issue" isn't legally binding on anyone who might later decide to sue the company. At best it might make lawsuits harder depending on what the exact liability rules are. Furthermore, even if they win the lawsuit, fighting one will cost money and bad publicity, especially when the newspapers can use the spin "it's from a plant that was condemned for salmonella poisoning, how irresponsible can this megacorp be?"

    If they give away the peanut butter, they stand to lose quite a bit with nothing to gain except a little good publicity (said good publicity going down the toilet if anyone actually sues).

  11. Re:If any slightest illness was ever even *suspect by mapuche · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a law that avoids liability for food donation:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ210/pdf/PLAW-104publ210.pdf

  12. Nicely skewed by Beavertank · · Score: 2

    The article summary does a good job of making it sound like Costco is the unreasonable bad guy in this, but every story has two sides. Why is Costco insisting on destroying the peanut butter?

    Is it to avoid claims for payment on the shipment from the bankruptcy estate? Is it fears for later liability? Is it, as the summary tries very hard to imply, sheer obstinate evil?

    If you're not going to even attempt to hide your bias, why even bother?

  13. Re:If any slightest illness was ever even *suspect by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming you're right, that may work in the courts. With a judge. That definitely won't matter with the court of public opinion and probably wouldn't work with a jury.

  14. One of these things is not like the other. by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What "all parties have agreed to" for the narrow purpose of settling a bankruptcy suit is not the same thing as "accepting legal responsibility for the charitable distribution of perishable foods that have been in storage for a minimum of two years."

    If you want to ignite a food riot in a school or prison, serving rancid peanut butter is as good as any place to begin.

  15. Animals/Fuel by PaddyM · · Score: 2

    Are people the only animals that consume peanut butter? Can't this be converted to biodiesel or something? I understand the concern for human illness, but aren't there other options?

    1. Re:Animals/Fuel by dwillden · · Score: 2

      That was my thought as well. Don't dump it in a landfill. Feed for animals, fuel for a waste incinerator, compost it. Surely there are dozens of better uses than simply filling up another landfill with this stuff? Uses that don't involve people eating it.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  16. Landfill? by idji · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is this going to landfill - how backward is that? Who does landfill anymore? That stuff is full of oils and proteins. It could be turned into biodiesel or put into a furnace to generate heat and electricity.

    1. Re:Landfill? by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Looks like that may not work quite so well yet with peanut oil, at least for biodiesel: http://www.renewableenergyworl...

  17. Re:If any slightest illness was ever even *suspect by blue+trane · · Score: 2

    How's the decision to destroy it working in the court of public opinion?

  18. This Isn't Necessarily A Bad Thing by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sort of thing has happened before, and it will happen again. An even better example was when the MV Cougar Ace almost sank, and 4700 brand new Mazda cars hung at a 60 degree angle for several months. They never moved, and they were all in seemingly perfect condition.

    Mazda chose to err on the side of caution, rather than risk a lawsuit. Or even worse, there was a very valid concern that they would become "Katrina Cars". A coat of paint, and they would be bundled up and sold in some other unsuspecting country. (On a side-note, the destruction process is really cool!.)

    With waivers not being worth the paper they're printed on, it's simply not worth the risk of getting sued.

    And finally, there's the "soft damage" to take into consideration? Remember the kid in preschool who "had cooties"? That kid KEPT those cooties, right up until graduation day in high school. Costco might never allow a single jar to hit their normal distribution system, but just the simple fact that the peanut butter even exists at all, is a risk that someone, somewhere, will say, "Whoa, Costco peanut butter might have salmonella."

    Play "Telephone" with that for a while, and suddenly Costco can't pay someone to take a jar of peanut butter. This is actually a very safe, very beneficial tactic for Costco.

    Now consumers can be absolutely guaranteed that they will never have to think about whether Costco peanut butter is safe.

    And in retail, that's money in the bank.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  19. Recycle by RayHs · · Score: 2

    Ok so maybe nothing can be done with the peanut butter but that sounds like alot of glass or plastic that could at least be recycled.

  20. Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well managed. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The underlying story may be this:

    1) We don't know what actually happened between Costco and the testing facilities and suppliers. Even though samples were tested, there could be a concern that there were problems in the food that was not tested. Costco has not handled the public relations about this incident in a sensible manner: Costco officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

    2) Costco has become poorly managed since James Sinegal is no longer CEO.

    Ten years ago, Costco was wonderful. It was easy to make decisions about buying anything we saw at Costco, because someone else had been careful to stock only reputable products, products that people would buy if they had done serious research. Now we have to do our own research.

    Costco employees still praise James Senegal. They sometimes criticize the poor quality of items that Costco now stocks.

  21. Why? by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why on Earth do you think that the appropriate way to punish the bigwigs making these decisions is to make the employees' lives harder?

  22. Re:Viva USA by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

    Over 20 years ago I watched news video from California plowing a HUGE mountain of perfectly good, edible oranges into the ground.

    Goes back a lot farther than 20 years -- there's a passage in The Grapes of Wrath that talks about perfectly good produce being destroyed in order to prop up prices:

    The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

    There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  23. Re:Costco's target market DOES buy extra goods by blackicye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I say; boycott Costco peanut butter. Take multiple jars of it to the checkout counter, but then set them aside and say you aren't buying them.

    Please don't do this Costco will not be affected by it, you'll just be inconveniencing and aggravating the staff who will have to restock them.

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. Re:Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well manag by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) We don't know what actually happened between Costco and the testing facilities and suppliers. Even though samples were tested, there could be a concern that there were problems in the food that was not tested. Costco has not handled the public relations about this incident in a sensible manner: Costco officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

    In true Slashdot spirit, I've only read the summary, but even that was enough to tell me that Costco is doing the right thing here.

    The product was tested extensively and determined to be safe. Costco initially agreed to allowing the peanut butter to be sold, but rejected it as 'not merchantable' because of leaking peanut oil.

    The jars are not sealed. They might test OK now, but by the time the food banks get through the stock, who knows what organisms have made the jar their home.

  26. Re:sticky by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    They don't. If a corporation makes profit, they pay taxes.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  27. Re:Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well manag by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even though samples were tested, there could be a concern that there were problems in the food that was not tested.

    There is actually a principle in the regulation of food and pharamceuticals that you can't "test quality into a product."

    You build quality into a product by controlling the manufacture, and testing really just serves as a confirmation that all went well.

    There is no way to sample peanut butter such that you can be certain that there isn't a microbe in the part of the peanut butter you didn't test. Now, you can make that risk fairly low as you sample more and more, but if there was reason to suspect the integrity of the product in the first place then you can imagine the lawyers lining up.

    And, as others pointed out, if they give away product for free they still face liability, make no money, and potentially undercut their own sales. If some poor guy dies of salmonella you can imagine the tales of a company feeding them peanut butter that they'd already determined isn't good enough for ordinary people...

  28. Re:billion dollar world, million dollar lawyers by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    and

    Dumping $2.6 million worth of editable food

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Africa, the continent in need of this kind of aid, refuses to take even GMO food aid:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afr...
    Which is eminently safer than whatever's in this peanut butter.

    It's often been said: The world doesn't have a food shortage problem. It has a distribution problem.

    African, one of the most famine stricken places on earth has 60% of the worlds uncultivated arable land.
    http://philmatibeceo.wordpress...

    In the U.S. where food is plentiful, we end up throwing food away if it's even remotely suspect of carrying sickness.

    It makes perfect sense to me.

  29. The Indian smallpox blanket story is fake by hessian · · Score: 2

    Just like those Blankets donated to the Native Americans.

    Except that the tale is incorrect.

    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/pl...

    1. Re:The Indian smallpox blanket story is fake by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Your link only shows that one authour was full of shit. The way I heard it, it was before there was a USA and this article references enough letters to show it was probably true and if not then it was planned. http://www.nativeweb.org/pages... shows Lord Jeffrey Amherst as full of hate and genocidal against the native Indians with multiple discussions (actually postscripts) about giving the Indians smallpox blankets and handkerchiefs.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  30. Re:Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well manag by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quite. People are ready to lynch Costco for applying some sort of standards to what they will buy and put on the shelf. They will reject things that Walmart will happily accept. This is by no means the first time. This is probably not the first pile of food to be "wasted" because Costco chose to err on the side of safety.

    I can understand why they simply don't want to be associated with the listeria outbreak factory. It boggles my mind that ANY ONE here wants to push the issue.

    Even if they've tested this stuff, I would still be suspicious of it just because of where it came from.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  31. Re: Costco's target market DOES buy extra goods by mmell · · Score: 3, Funny

    While we're at it, why don't we donate our damaged or defective food products to a local food bank (only if we don't want it ourselves because of potential poisoning issues, and only after a small random sample shows only quality related issues). Hey, I'm not going to eat it because it isn't good enough for me, but it's good enough to give to charity, after all.

  32. Libability by buss_error · · Score: 2

    The issue here isn't that CostCo is being numb, the issue is that people can sue CostCo if they claim to be sick from the peanut butter. Even if the food bank gives it away, and the person that gets it gives it away, the chain is still there, and CostCo is still in the sights of a plaintiff as a target for a suit.

    This is pretty much why railroads will shred brand new cars if they were in a derailment. It's easier accounting to pay the manufacturer for the car than to risk 100,000 or more in liability because the car "might have been" damaged in the derailment leading to the suit. Hmmm. $40K for the car an know that's the end of it, or risk potentially $100K+ payouts for decades after from someone that might not even be born yet? It's simple math.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  33. Curious how things change by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the day (1980s), I helped run an emergency food pantry in Southern California. At the time, Sol Price (founder of Price Club, which I believe is one of the constituent chains that merged to become CostCo) donated pallets of dried milk to us to redistribute. In general, these were pallets where there had been damage, so some of the packages were not usable - the vast majority of the packages, however, were fine.

    At our pantry, that donation made up a substantial part of what we gave out to people, especially those with children.

    I always thought it was both generous and great business sense for them to donate that food. After all, Price Club got a tax write off, there was less waste, and the hungry people got food without it impacting Price Club's sales.

    --
    Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
    www.fogbound.net
  34. Re:Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well manag by mysidia · · Score: 2

    I can understand why they simply don't want to be associated with the listeria outbreak factory. It boggles my mind that ANY ONE here wants to push the issue.

    I can't understand why they want to dump this organic material in a landfill with other random trash.

    Even if it's unfit for human consumption --- it can still be used as an energy source or fertilizer, due to the valuable raw nutrients contained in peanuts.

  35. Re:Think of how difficult it would be to organise by dryeo · · Score: 2

    Obviously it never got to the point of a large number of blankets. If you scroll down the page to the conclusion I linked to you'll see

    Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement: ... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.

    Along with reports that by the following spring smallpox was raging amongst them.
    As for the Church, as recently as the '50's if not more recently (Church ran residential schools only ended in the '90's) the Government of Canada along with the Church were doing medical experiments and dietary experiments on the native population in the residential schools. Generally, to judge by their actions the Church has not considered the natives to be human. The government is being very reluctant to be transparent about the issue. Of course our government is like yours, voted in on promises of transparency and probably the most opaque government ever. only difference is they're Conservative.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic... is one link, Google has lots more.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  36. Woe to the archeologists by ikhider · · Score: 2

    Be it future generations on archeological digs or some other entity examing our time, doubtless the future will see this as one of the dark ages. The waste alone is shamefull. I understand Costco's move, if they are worried about litigation, but wasted food always makes me feel bad. I wish there was a better way to dispose of this, or perhaps avoid disposal altogether. If we had more local businesses, food producers, and farms--then perhaps mega-food production would not be needed. The place I go to for peanut butter, crushes the penuts in a machine right in front of me. About as fresh as it gets with no added salts, oils or preservatives. An independnt shop run by an old lady that sells dried foods, nuts, olives, spices, and such. No waste in this sort of place. We need more of this and less of Costco.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  37. Landfills again... by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    Other /.ers have covered the issues around the peanut butter well enough. What no one has mentioned is the continued idiocy of landfills in the US. Why doesn't the US incinerate? You get energy out of the trash, destroy poisonous chemicals, recover the metals, and at the end you have a much smaller volume of waste that needs to be disposed of.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Landfills again... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

      Incineration is illegal because it causes pollution.

      Seriously, I remember about 35-40 years ago, the private grade school I attended would incinerate their trash. Then it was banned.

  38. Pests? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    Isn't dumping so much of an edible in one location just eventually going to attract a large vermin population?

  39. Re:Costco's target market DOES buy extra goods by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Well, somehow I kinda doubt that working for Costco is a career choice where you really have a lot of option if you don't really like it there...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Re:If any slightest illness was ever even *suspect by Patch86 · · Score: 2

    Then sell it as livestock feed. Pigs eat far worse than peanut butter. Boil it up along with the rest of the slops to kill off any salmonella, and it'll be perfectly safe (if disgusting, from a human point of view).

    Still a waste of perfectly good human food, but at least it's better than burying it with the trash.

  41. Re:Without James Sinegal, Costco is not well manag by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    And it is pretty much guaranteed hat someone is going to get one of these jars and suddenly develop some tummy ache and report directly to the lawyers.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust