At 14:03 7/30/00 -0400, Sukie Crandall wrote:
Thank goodness for the posting by PF today!  It seems to be all I had
hoped for and more.  [snip]
 
[Moderator's note: I don't think Sukie said the ABOVE -- I think that's
Jim Higgins comment which was incorrectly positioned in his post?  BIG]
 
>Let's look at this logically, NO other manufacturer of foods used by
>ferrets has been so responsive about getting the word out when something
>went wrong and certainly there have been a number of cases with other
>foods where things went wrong, some worse than this situation in possible
>outcome.  Normally, in the past the others have just stayed completely mum
>when they goofed.  People learned about problems by comparing notes, and
>nothing more.
 
Sukie!  You aren't being very objective.  Until today "mum" pretty much
described Performance Foods .  Have you seen a single public statement by
Performance Foods prior to today?  If so, please tell me how to find it for
myself.
 
>Do you really think that the battering Performance Foods is getting for
>trying to do the right thing will encourage the worse places to improve
>their acts?
 
I don't know about you, but I wasn't concerned about other places.  I
wanted info from PF that would allow customers to avoid problem batches.
Today we got it.
 
>Why damage the financial basis of a company beyond their logical
>responsibility and risk losing an important resource and a product for
>which they (unlike the rest) actually ARE taking responsibility?
 
You call asking for information that consumers deserve in such a situation
an attempt to damage the company?  That isn't realistic.  That's nothing
more than an attempt to silence a legitimate request for information by
bringing irrational public opinion to bear on the person asking.  I am
happy to report that the public is not as irrational as you might think.
 
>Let's encourage them to take responsibility instead of blowing things all
>out proportion among ourselves, and let's then also try to make the REST
>take as much responsibility when they goof.
 
It was not blown out of proportion.  I repeatedly expressed concern that
more batches than were subject to official recall were involved and today's
posting by PF indicates this was exactly the case, based on tests they ran
back in mid/late June.
 
>Simple fact of the matter is that this maker has taken a level of
>responsibility which is far better than the others have to date, so let's
>not abuse them to point where there is back-sliding.
 
What are you saying?!!  If we persist in requesting needed information
(which was provided today) that PF might back-slide?  Sukie!  I've
pressed for information and it apparently has upset you, but here you
are suggesting a company would allow itself to back-slide because it was
upset over repeated information requests.  That's a worse assessment of a
company's character than I ever considered thinking let alone posting to
a public forum.  This is ridiculous!  Are you thinking about what you're
saying before you post it or are you just in blind attack mode?
 
And what "others" are you referring to.  Please back this up by naming
them.
 
>I agree with the poster who very logically pointed out that when
>distributors and stores don't accept their own responsibilities that
>is not the fault of the maker.
 
Agreed.  But the maker should provide the info to the distributors and to
the general public that is needed to protect consumers.  I have no idea
what info went to distributors, but PF had NOT provided this info to
consumers before today.  I am thankful to them for doing so.  I hope
everyone involved and just watching has learned something from this
situation and how it was handled.  I also hope it is over.
 
--
Jim H
[Posted in FML issue 3131]