What's New Unreplied Topics Membership About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy
[Ad]

Cost Cutting led to Cadbury's Salmonella Scare

Started by , Jul 13 2007 02:22 PM
5 Replies
Share this Topic
Topics you might be interested in
Ridiculous cost of Vitamin D testing - is it common? FSVP Development and Implementation Cost Estimated cost of a FSMA Gap Assessment (21CFR117) Low cost solution to 24-hour temperature monitoring? Formula for cost of non-conformance
[Ad]
What a beano of a day for you Caz. First the milk revelation and now a spot of Cadbury's bashing, what better way to start a weekend. Friday the 13th...pah!
Dear Caz,



Did you know there is a Welsh Eagle ?



Rgds / Charles.C

Cadbury Schweppes Plc, the world's biggest confectioner, was fined 1 million pounds ($2 million) by a U.K. court for producing chocolate contaminated with salmonella.

The company was fined today at Birmingham Crown Court in England, a court spokeswoman said by telephone. Cadbury pleaded guilty last month to three counts of violating U.K. food hygiene regulations brought by Birmingham City Council. It also admitted to related charges brought by Herefordshire Council this month.
The company's U.K. chocolate sales declined after Cadbury alerted the public in June 2006 that traces of salmonella were found in some bars and recalled some of its lines. The confectioner said at the time it didn't report the discovery of the bacteria in January of that year because the contamination level was too low to require notification.

``The explanation for it was completely unacceptable,'' Nick Lowe, Birmingham council's food safety team leader, said today at a press conference televised by international broadcasters. ``What most concerned us, I think, was the lack of communication with the local authority.''

The recall cost the company 30 million pounds, London-based Cadbury said in December.

Cadbury said today it accepted the fine and stated that the production and testing processes that allowed the contaminated chocolate to go onto the market would never be used again.

Production, Testing

``We have significantly changed our production and testing processes,'' at a cost of more than 20 million pounds, the company said in an e-mailed statement. ``We sincerely regret these lapses.''

Cadbury was charged with supplying ``unsafe'' products and failing to immediately inform authorities about the contamination, as well as failure to identify ``critical control points and corrective actions,'' according to the councils.

The charges relate to the condition of a drainage pipe and roof vent at the chocolate maker's Marlbrook site, the layout of the factory, the provision of drainage facilities and the cleaning and disinfection of equipment, including conveyors and storage silos, Herefordshire Council said in a statement.

So all in all well over £50,000,000 down the drain. The £1,000,000 fine is just a very public slap on the wrists. And the root cause was 'cost cutting' - not very successful was it.

So all in all well over £50,000,000 down the drain. The £1,000,000 fine is just a very public slap on the wrists. And the root cause was 'cost cutting' - not very successful was it.



A million £ fine??

Cheap at 5 times the price!!
''Penny-wise Pound-foolish''


Best Regards,

A Sankara Narayanan

Similar Discussion Topics
Ridiculous cost of Vitamin D testing - is it common? FSVP Development and Implementation Cost Estimated cost of a FSMA Gap Assessment (21CFR117) Low cost solution to 24-hour temperature monitoring? Formula for cost of non-conformance Cost of Food Safety Software Cost of Certification for SQF and Organic Cost of development and Implementation of a FSVP for small clients Approximate cost of implementing a Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) How can we conduct a cost effective mock recall?