Peanuts the New Pinto

The New York Times reported this morning that the Peanut Corporation of America has closed a second processing plant; this one deep in the heart of Plainview, Texas.  Given the fact that the first plant in Georgia had 'problems' with its hygiene it's not too surprising that a second location would have it's own 'issues.'

As noted in the article (and widely reported) the roof on the building leaked so badly that workers erected tarps near the ceiling whenever it rained.  When they were there - meaning if it rained at night, well, anything that was up on the roof (bird droppings, dead animals, etc) would wind up draining off the roof and onto the peanut product and associated machinery.  Also noted was the fact that never-draining standing water was a daily fact in the building's basement.  Take peanuts, shelter, ample water and lax cleaning habits and you get:  rats and other vermin aplenty.  So the plant was not a shining example of the way to run a food-processing operation.  At least, as far as we consumers are given to believe.

Now, before the reader accuses me of going all paranoid about the way our country minds its P's and Q's (there are other better brains to do that work, for which I am grateful) consider the costs involved in running a filthy plant.  Right.   The costs are less than running a clean plant. And if those costs are compounded day + day + day, pretty soon you really don't want to do anything about the problem, except maybe clean up enough for the FDA to come through and hopefully not look to closely or carefully.  And if your're lucky that won't happen except, oh, every four years or so.

OK, now I'm starting to feel a little like Lewis Black, but hold on:  people run the plant, and people are basically good, so what up with that?  After you quit a place like that, you could call your local newspaper, write a blog, whatever, get it off your chest that you watched stuff like that go on.  Right?

Kenneth Kendrick, a former assistant plant manager of the Texas facility, said in an interview that the plant had a leaky roof, rodent infestation and poor process controls. A second former employee of the Texas plant, who asked for anonymity because of legal concerns, confirmed Mr. Kendrick’s descriptions of the plant and its processes. Mr. Kendrick left the plant about two years ago.

“This was a disgusting plant,” Mr. Kendrick said. “We cut corners.”

The plant always had standing water in its basement, Mr. Kendrick said. The roof leaked so badly that when it rained, workers were instructed to raise tarps to the ceiling to direct the water away from peanuts and plant equipment, the two said. Rain at night went unattended, they said.

So much for conscience here.  Anyway, at some point (if this story has legs enough) we'll find out what the management of the company did to evade detection.  Did they help stock the FDA's employee pool with friendly inspectors?  Discuss internally the costs associated with recalls?  The second item is worth a second or third look, given that the food industry tells the FDA when a recall is OK.

If you delay recalls long enough, the problem goes away - into the guts of consumers.  Sure, you pay off a few illness claims and death claims, but the product is sold, you got paid, and if the plant closes, heck, you can just take a few months off and re-open "Under New Management."