10 Biggest Food Safety Scandals Ever !! By MATT GODDARD

It’s a scary thought, putting your health and wellbeing in the hands of complete strangers halfway around the world. And the number of high profile, and often deadly, food scandals that have made headlines over the years definitely doesn’t ease troubled minds. There are various causes – from accidental contaminations to pure recklessness and even greed – but public outrage is universal.

When it comes to health and safety surrounding food products, consumers rightly insist on measures that ensure their safety. And whether it’s criminal trials and bans, or bankruptcy and company closures, the public demands retribution as well. After all, health issues are no laughing matter. Here’s a look at 10 of the biggest food safety scandals in recent history.

10. Sudan I – UK/Worldwide (2005)

Image Source

In 2005, the largest food recall in UK history began after industrial dye Sudan I was discovered in a shipment of Crosse & Blackwell Worcester Sauce. The additive, along with variants III and IV, was popularly used to color food before it was discovered to be carcinogenic and in 2003 was banned in many EU countries, including the UK. So, in 2005, Premier Foods (who owned Crosse & Blackwell until they sold it in 2011) faced media and public scrutiny when tests proved the presence of the chemical, which is often used in waxes, petrol, oils, polishes, and solvents.

The dye was also discovered in other items, from pizzas to Pot Noodles, and in the end more than 400 products were recalled. Furthermore, contaminated products were discovered in Italy and South Africa as well. While there have been no direct fatalities, and there was consensus that the risk was pretty small, the potential future effect of the banned carcinogen could be serious, and immediate action was required. The origin of the contamination was eventually traced back to an adulterated batch of chili powder in India.

Highlighting the international repercussions and reputational damage of such incidents, the government of Sudan lodged a request for the name of the dye to be changed.

9. Chi-Chi’s Hepatitis A Outbreak – USA (2003)

Image Source

Internationally operated Mexican restaurant Chi-Chi’s has had a checkered financial history since it was founded in Richfield, Minnesota in 1975. However, 2003 was the chain’s darkest year, when a Chi-Chi’s restaurant at Beaver Valley Mall, Pennsylvania (30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh) was implicated in what has been described as the largest food-borne outbreak of hepatitis A in US history.

Hepatitis A is an acute viral infection of the liver with low mortality rates in the US, but in November 2003 the virus led to the deaths of at least four people and infected a further 660 in the Pittsburgh area. Green onions were eventually identified as the source of the outbreak.

Chi-Chi’s was already facing bankruptcy at that point, and by the time the cases were settled in 2004, the number of Chi-Chi’s restaurants in the US had halved. Eventually, Chi-Chi’s closed in the US for good and now only operates in Belgium, Luxembourg, the UAE, Kuwait, and Indonesia.

8. Jack in the Box E. Coli Incident – USA (1993)

Image Source

Whether the source is contaminated water or undercooked meat, deadly bacterium Escherichia coli O157:H7, commonly referred to as E. coli, has garnered a lot of negative mainstream attention in recent years – but this incident was right up there with the worst of them.

With thousands of outlets across the US, you’d think a company as big as Jack in the Box would do everything in its power to safeguard its burger empire – and the wellbeing of its customers. However, in 1993 the franchise was implicated when an outbreak of E. coli led to the deaths of four children and infected up to 700 people across four states, hospitalizing at least 171 of them.

The outbreak was traced back to undercooked patties contaminated with fecal matter in the Seattle area and other parts of the Pacific Northwest. As you’d imagine, the scandal affected business, almost leaving the company bankrupt.

Adding to the controversy, court documents revealed a company memo from just four months before the outbreak that read, “If patties are cooked longer… they tend to become tough.” And according to numerous other documents, Jack in the Box had already been warned about undercooked burgers and contaminated beef 10 months prior to the incident.

7. Methanol Poisoning – Estonia (2001), Czech Republic (2012)

Image Source

In September 2012, the Czech Republic banned the sale of alcoholic beverages with over 20 percent alcohol content following a series of deaths and serious illnesses traced back to methanol-tainted booze. According to the World Health Organization, the Czech Republic is the world’s second largest consumer of hard liquor after Moldova, and the country has struggled to stamp out bootleg alcohol for years.

It’s thought that 20 individuals died within around two weeks of the poisoning outbreak, and according to reports, other people were left blind and even brain-damaged as a result of the incident. Cases also came to light in Slovakia after people consumed Czech-bought alcohol. And the problem led to Poland banning the import of Czech spirits for 30 days.

The Czech Republic is not alone when it comes to tainted alcohol incidents in Eastern Europe. A crisis involving methanol-contaminated alcohol also hit Estonia in 2001, leading to the deaths of 68 people. Over a decade later, Estonian doctors fear the country is still not prepared for another similar event.

6. Jalisco Mexican Cheese Listeria Incident – USA (1985)

Image Source

With a mortality rate of 20 to 30 percent, listeriosis is a serious bacterial infection particularly dangerous to newborn babies, the elderly, and those with weak immune systems. An infamous April 1985 outbreak in Los Angeles, California was linked to a popular Mexican soft cheese. And it proved particularly tragic, as it is thought to have caused as many as 62 deaths, including stillbirths.

A month of investigations carried out by health officials traced the cause back to two types of Mexican-style cheese manufactured by Jalisco Mexican Products Inc. Most of those infected during the incident were members of California’s large Hispanic population.

Listeria has been found in cattle but can be eliminated from milk during pasteurization. The District Attorney’s office discovered that Jalisco’s records proved they could not possibly have been pasteurizing all of their supplies and accused them of knowingly processing untreated milk. In the aftermath, Jalisco shut down permanently, and neither the company nor its insurers were unable to cover the estimated $100 million in compensation claims.

5. Diethylene Glycol Wine Poisoning – Austria (1985)

Image Source

In 1985, in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of their sweeter, late-harvest wines, a small number of Austrian wineries colluded to adulterate their stock with toxic diethylene glycol – a key ingredient in certain antifreeze brands that also gives wines a sweeter, more full-bodied flavor. The scandal was exposed in Germany, where the wines were illegally blended with local wines, spreading the contamination.

While there were no recorded fatalities as a result of the incident, the world was shocked and the consequences were swift. The scandal made headlines around the globe, and the contaminated wines were immediately pulled from shelves. In the end, a combination of heavy fines and prison sentences (in Germany and Austria) and the resulting negative publicity meant that Austrian wine export volumes would not return to pre-scandal levels until 2001, over 15 years after the event.

Interestingly, in 1937, a similar incident resulted in the deaths of over 100 people in the US after individuals consumed a contaminated elixir. This led to the instatement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

4. Salmonella and the Peanut Corporation of America – USA (2008)

Image Source

From 2008 to 2009, an outbreak of salmonella spelled the end for 33-year-old Virginia-based peanut processing company, the Peanut Corporation of America. The devastating outbreak led to one of the largest food recalls in US history. In all, it caused the deaths of nine individuals, and at least 691 people – many of them children – were affected across 46 states.

A subsequent investigation of the company’s facilities in Georgia, Virginia and Texas by the Food and Drug Administration proved damning. In Georgia, it was discovered that the company knew its peanut butter products were contaminated with salmonella but shipped them regardless. And between 2007 and 2008, this happened at least a dozen times. Meanwhile, the Texas investigation revealed that the plant hadn’t been inspected and wasn’t even licensed to manufacture food in the state.

But salmonella wasn’t the company’s only concern. It was also revealed that a previous shipment of peanuts sent to Canada was not allowed to re-enter the US after it was found to contain a “filthy, putrid or decomposed substance” and fragments of metal.

The company’s actions were widely condemned, and it was eventually forced to shut down. Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin summed up the situation at the time: “They tried to hide it so they could sell it. Now they’ve caused a mammoth problem that could destroy their company – and it could destroy the peanut industry.”

3. Karnataka Liquor Deaths – India (1981 and 2008)

Image Source

Illegal alcohol has been killing people around the world for decades, but over the years, specific incidents have focused the world’s attention on the inherent health risks of bootleg liquor. In 1981, the Indian state of Karnataka was rocked by a wave of tainted booze-related deaths. In July that year, it’s thought that at least 308 people died after consuming cheap, methyl-contaminated alcohol.

Yet even following such a tragedy, the problem remains serious in the region – and in 2008, alcohol laced with chemicals claimed the lives of 180 people in Karnataka. While authorities were quick to arrest some 20 dealers, and 25 customs officials were also suspended, the origin of the deadly product proved difficult to determine. What’s more, this recent case became even more complicated when police began investigating the possibility that political parties had supplied the alcohol in the run-up to state elections.

2 E. Coli Outbreak – Germany (2011)

Image Source

In May 2011, people were advised to avoid eating bean sprouts, cucumbers, tomatoes and salads in Germany after Europe was hit by a serious outbreak of food-borne E. coli poisoning. Within weeks of the outbreak, German authorities were investigating the deaths of 17 people and the illnesses of a further 1,600.

By this point, other countries around the world were also swept up in the pandemonium, and a ban was placed on EU vegetables. Eventually, the death toll numbered 53, with 51 of those fatalities in Germany. And the total number of affected people reached a staggering 3,950.

Amid widespread panic, the World Health Organization described the outbreak as a “new and aggressive strain that could cause internal bleeding, kidney failure, and neurological symptoms.”

Initially, it was suggested that the outbreak was caused by tainted Spanish cucumbers, which angered Spanish people and caused the country’s exporters to lose millions of dollars a week. In June 2011, German officials confirmed that the source of the outbreak was in fact bean sprouts from an organic farm in northern Germany.

1. Melamine Milk Scandal – China (2008)

Image Source

One of the largest and most shocking food disasters of them all was the Chinese Milk Scandal that shook the world in 2008. Powdered baby milk and other dairy products across the country were found to contain dangerously high levels of the industrial chemical melamine – and the results were tragic. Staggeringly, some 300,000 people are estimated to have been affected.

The melamine had a particular effect on victims’ kidneys. Tragically, six infants died from kidney stones and other kidney-related issues. Meanwhile, a further 860 infants were hospitalized.

Confronted with what it believed was the largest food safety incident it had ever faced, the World Health Organization’s assessment was blunt. It described the incident as “clearly not an isolated accident, [but] a large-scale intentional activity to deceive consumers for simple, basic, short-term profits.”

Several companies were found to have deliberately added melamine to their products, and a number of criminal prosecutions resulted in two executions, a suspended death sentence, and life incarcerations. The poisoning cast further bad light on the Chinese food industry, and after the scandal, 11 countries ceased importing Chinese dairy products.

Maleic acid found in food products in Taiwan

Taiwan's health authorities have uncovered the illegal use of maleic acid as a food additive in products from two factories, seizing an estimated 25 tonnes of product and ingredients before they could reach the market.

The chemical was added to products including tapioca balls and rice noodles to give them more elasticity. A health official said maleic acid is not known to have adverse effects on human health, and has not been linked to cancer, adding that an average-sized adult could consume 30mg of maleic acid in a day without their health being affected.

Health authorities were alerted in March and April that certain food manufacturers have been adding maleic acid to their products and launched an investigation into the tip-offs.

After the seizure, concentrations of maleic acid of under 800ppm was found in the food, an amount deemed within a safe range. A doctor specializing in clinical toxicology at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in New Taipei, said maleic acid is a poisonous industrial chemical and it is therefore unethical to add it to food, even in small amounts.

The authorities will conduct a further investigation into the manufacturers involved and decide whether to issue a fine of NT$30,000 to NT$150,000 (US$1,000-$5,000).

Source:

Want China Times

Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Need More Aggressive Response by Dan Flynn

From its headquarters on Baltimore harbor the 15-year old Center for Biosecurity of UPMC looks out on the historic Coast Guard Cutter Taney, the last ship afloat to have immediately fought back when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941.

The  way the Taney instantly turned its guns on the enemy  is just the sort of reaction the U.S. needs to mount whenever and wherever there is an outbreak of foodborne illness, according to the Center’s new report “When good food goes bad.”

“The sooner the source of an outbreak is identified, the sooner we can issue accurate targeted warnings and take the contaminated products off the shelves,” says Jennifer Nuzzo, who authored the report.   “And the sooner people stop eating contaminated food, the sooner the sickness stops.”

Now an independent nonprofit organization of the University of Pittsburg Medical Center (UPMC), the Center for Biosecurity’s report calls for strengthening the U.S. response to foodborne disease outbreaks.  Only by stepping up its current ability to respond can the U.S. limit illnesses and deaths and economic costs, the new report says.

“Foodborne illness sickens or kills an extraordinary number of people each year,” the report says. To illustrate how deadly foodborne illness outbreaks can be, the UPMC Center for Biosecurity pointed to the E. coli O104 outbreak in Germany that sickened 4,000 and killed at least 50 from eating sprouts and the U.S. Listeria outbreak that sickened and killed at least 33 from contaminated cantaloupe.

“If public health officials can more quickly recognize when a foodborne illness outbreak has occurred and identify the food causing the outbreak, lives can be saved and economic losses averted,” says the report. “The lessons leanred from outbreak investigations cn be used by industry and government to address the underlying causes of contamination that lead to illnesses , thus making food safer for everyone.”

The Biosecurity Center’s interest in food borne illness outbreaks apparently stems from the 2010 “credible threat” by Al-Qaeda terrorists to poison salad bars and buffets at hotels and restaurant over a single weekend, using ricin and cyanide.   “US officials cautioned that even in small amounts of these chemicals in food could cause serious harm,” says the report.

That plot was not executed, but illustrated the problem.  “Initially, it will be very difficult to distinguish deliberate contamination of the food supply from a naturally occurring outbreak,” it says.

It pointed to the 1984 incident in The Dalles, Oregon where a religious group out to influence a local election intentionally went around town poisoning salad bars with Salmonella, sickening many.  Before a criminal investigation found it was deliberate, public health officials blamed the outbreak on poor hygiene.

“The continued three of deliberate contamination of food supplies highlights the important of strong systems for rapid detection and response for food borne illness outbreaks,” the report continues.  “Since a deliberate contamination of the food supply is likely to resemble a natural outbreak at the start, initial responsibility for responding to deliberate contamination events will flu to state and local health departments.”

The Center says the report is intended to “catalyze improvements in the country’s ability to respond to large foodborne disease outbreaks. “

“We analyzed the existing data and studies on foodborne illness outbreak response, identified emerging trends, and interviewed dozens of federal and state level officials and experts from industry, professional organizations, academia, and relevant international organizations,’ it says.

Among its findings:

• Foodborne illness outbreaks continue to impose enormous health and economic burdens.
• Effective surveillance for and rapid response to foodborne illness outbreaks are critical to overall preparedness.
• National surveillance programs have led to meaningful improvements in detection of foodborne illness outbreaks and can drive improvement in food safety.
• Determining the source of foodborne illness outbreaks remains the top response challenge and will likely become harder as the complexity of the food supply increases.
• Heterogeneity in states’ capacities to detect and respond to outbreaks creates national vulnerabilities.
• Increased adoption of culture-independent diagnostic testing by the clinical sector threatens to undermine early detection of foodborne illness outbreaks.
• Tapping nontraditional data sources may help improve detection and response to outbreaks.
• Better integration of existing surveillance programs is necessary to improve outbreak detection and response.
• Federal funding cuts are expected to compromise the public health system’s ability to respond to foodborne illness outbreaks.
• The Food Safety Modernization Act has the potential to significantly improve the safety of the U.S. food supply, but will likely do little to improve public health response to foodborne illness outbreaks.

In its findings, the UPMC Biosecurity unit accepts estimates that foodborne illness outbreaks cost the U.S. more than $77 billion annually, including 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. It also recognizes the problem that so-called fast tests on patients are causing in spotting outbreaks because they do not require isolation and culturing of pathogens.

The report comes with five recommendations. They are:

1. The U.S. government should fund the development of next-generation technologies that provide rapid diagnosis while preserving the capacity to identify and resolve large outbreaks.
2. Congress should restore funding for state health departments.
3. The U.S. should develop a foodborne illness outbreak response network that taps expertise and data that exist in the private sector.
4. Congress should adequately fund and agencies should fully implement the FSMA, including provisions for strengthening surveillance and response to outbreaks.
5. The U.S. government should improve integration of existing foodborne illness surveillance efforts.

The report says a new technological solution is needed to the problem created by greater use of the fast tests. It says small increases in state health department capacities can substantially increase the country’s ability to respond to foodborne illness outbreaks. State and local health agencies need more direct connections with the private sector.

In addition, the report says more access to healthcare data would help expedite responses to outbreaks. It suggests using the “national framework” being built through electronic health records.

The nonprofit University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) is a $10 billion health enterprise including 20 hospitals, 4,200 licensed hospital beds, and 400 outpatient sites with 1.5 million members and 54,000 employees.

The mission of the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC is to strengthen U.S. national security and resilience by reducing dangers posed by epidemics, bio threats, nuclear disasters, and other destabilizing events.  Among its research topics last year were “Preparing for Bioterrorism” and “Radiological Disasters: What’s the Difference?”

The Center has been associated with UPMC since 2003.

USCGC  Taney (WHEC-37) is a Treasury-class Coast Guard Cutter that was moored in nearby Honolulu Harbor when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor without warning on Dec. 7, 1941. Taney’s anti-aircraft guns were immediately put to use defending the airspace over the city. After 50 years of service, including World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, the Taney was decommissioned in 1986 and since then has been a museum ship on Baltimore harbor.

EPA/USDA Food Safety Statements in PDP Report Helpful to Consumers by Marilyn Dolan

In late February, the United States Department of Agriculturereleased its annual Pesticide Data Program report results. Once again, USDA strongly reiterated that “U.S. food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.” The Environmental Protection Agency echoed that statement and added that “EPA remains committed to a rigorous, science-based and transparent regulatory program for pesticides.”

But this year, under the Obama Administration, both the USDA and EPA did a stellar job further explaining to consumers about the food safety processes in the “Q and A” and “What Consumers Should Know” portions of the PDP report. Both sections clearly and concisely explained how the government and corresponding regulatory processes and systems are protective of all consumers, including infants and pregnant women. We applaud the inclusion of this food safety information within the context of the report since it will be so very reassuring to consumers.

While the issue of pesticide residues often gets attention from both social and traditional media outlets, the release of this report and the important accompanying statements by USDA/EPA receive very little coverage each year. The adage that “good news rarely gets attention” may apply here. Ironically, there are groups that manipulate and twist the USDA PDP results to generate their own “reports” in a manner that unfairly disparages the safety of conventionally grown, affordable produce. This misleading information raises fear and concerns among consumers and, unfortunately, does generate media coverage since it communicates perceived “bad news.”

But, raising fear without facts is a disservice to families trying to put healthy food on the table. And this manipulation of government data at the expense of consumer confidence is a detriment to public health, especially when American’s need to include more fruits and veggies in their daily diets.

Families deserve factual, science based and balanced information. The Obama Administration provided that on Friday through the information presented in the Pesticide Data Report. Hopefully, when faced with future manipulations of the PDP report, consumers and others will go back, review the content of the report and remember what was actually said – it was, in fact, very good news.

Ten Pitfalls of Pitiful Meetings and How to Fix Them by Kimberly Douglas

If your team members (or you) hear “Meeting at 3:00” and think, “Here comes another waste of my time,” then it’s time for a meeting overhaul at your organization. While meetings can be important team-building and idea-generating opportunities for your employees, the key is knowing how to do them the right way.

It’s Friday afternoon, and your team is filing into the conference room, mumbling and grumbling as they take their seats for yet another meeting. An hour passes and the meeting comes to a much anticipated end, leaving everyone involved wondering why the meeting was held in the first place. After all, the usual suspects dominated the discussion, and the same ideas that came up in last week’s meeting were once again batted around. No one seemed to write anything down, and no one agreed to put anything discussed into action. If this kind of ineffective meeting sounds familiar, you’re not alone. It’s a problem that plagues many organizations—but it’s also one, she adds, that can be remedied.

In these tough economic times, every second of the work day is valuable. None of it should be wasted in meetings that seem to go nowhere or that are plagued by conflict or lack of participation. I have sat through countless meetings myself—some great, and some not-so-great. But those that weren’t so great could have been so much better with just a little more effort. If leaders know how to conduct better meetings, those meetings can actually become time well-spent—time that increases employee productivity, participation, and innovation.

The question of productivity is a huge issue when it comes to meetings. According to a Microsoft survey of more than 38,000 employees, almost 70 percent felt that the average 5.6 hours they spend each week in meetings are unproductive. Another survey conducted by OfficeTeam had 28 percent of its 150 senior executives responding that meetings are a waste of time. Furthermore, 45 percent of respondents said they believed their employees could be more productive if meetings were banned at least one day a week.

In too many companies, meetings have become a way for leaders and their employees to simply go through the motions. If a new initiative is being implemented or new product ideas are needed, the feeling from management is often, ‘Well, let’s have a meeting. At least it will seem like we are doing something.’ Unfortunately, not enough thought goes into how to conduct those meetings. Having a meeting, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. In fact, meetings can be the most engaging and thought-provoking times of the day for leaders and team members alike. The key is avoiding those pitfalls that sink a meeting’s productivity.

If it’s time for a meetings overhaul at your organization, read on for 10 common meeting pitfalls and how you can fix them:

What’s the point?

A common problem with many meetings is that they’re scheduled with seemingly no clear objective in mind. I suggest that you run through a premeeting checklist before putting it on everyone’s schedule. First, ask yourself whether the meeting is even necessary. Could the information you want to provide be just as easily presented in an e-mail? What do you want to accomplish with the meeting? Will reaching that accomplishment really require a group decision? If you ask yourself these questions and decide that you do need to have the meeting, next consider who should attend. Design an agenda for the meeting and clearly communicate any prep work that needs to be done by the participants beforehand.

Where’s the agenda?

Remember the last time you actually received an agenda in advance of a meeting? Likely, you immediately had a higher perception of whether that meeting was going to be a waste of time or not. Once you know who will be attending the meeting, you need to finalize the agenda. A quality meeting agenda includes:

• The date, time, and location of the meeting
• The meeting’s objectives
• Three to six agenda items, accompanied by how long they’ll take to discuss and who the discussion leaders will be
• A clear explanation of the prep work that should be completed before the meeting

When putting together the agenda for your meeting, consider using the individual Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument profiles of your team members. Before you begin your meetings overhaul, have an HBDI-certified specialist come in to profile your team. The HBDI is an assessment instrument that measures people’s specific thinking preferences. Your team members will be divided based on the HBDI quadrants: Analyze (the blue quadrant), Organize (the green quadrant), Strategize (the yellow quadrant), and Personalize (the red quadrant). Once you know how your team members think, you can design a meeting agenda that better suits each one of them. It is a great way to design your meetings so that there is something for everyone, and you can even color code your agenda based on the quadrant colors to indicate which parts of the meeting your team members will find the most engaging.

Conference room overcrowding

Would you attend a meeting if you didn’t know why the meeting was being held and why you, in particular, were invited? Often, too many people who don’t have a clear understanding of what role they are supposed to play are invited to meetings. Those in attendance need to know if you want them to be an expert, an influencer, or a decider.

When you’re creating your meeting participant list, think about the meeting’s purpose. Make sure everyone who is attending the meeting knows exactly why they were invited. If critical members can’t attend, consider postponing the meeting until they can. Having a meeting without all of the right brains present can cause just as many delays and productivity problems as postponing the meeting a couple of days. Finally, use the following litmus test. 

Once you do get all of the right team members assembled, you might also consider having them use a meeting cost calculator, which allows them to privately enter in their salaries and the meeting length to calculate how much it is costing the company for them to be in a given meeting. It is a powerful tool that can promote individual productivity, because it reminds everyone involved of the financial significance of the time spent in the meeting.

Big talkers eat up all the time

Every meeting has them: those people who love to let everyone know they are the most important people in the room, have the best ideas, and have a comment to make on every subject. Your conversational ground rules should help keep your big talkers (or big-headed) in line, but there are other ways to ensure that one person doesn’t dominate. First, don’t let big talkers sit at the front of the room or the back center of a U-shape. This definitely gives them a feeling of being on stage. In fact, you may even want to use assigned seating for the meeting. (If you decide to use assigned seating, change the assignments for each meeting, and if you are the leader, change where you sit each meeting.) Doing so will also prevent big talkers from sitting next to a buddy. Big talkers tend to feed off of one another, and separating them will help reduce their excessive input.

Conflict kills productivity

An important thing to keep in mind is that effective meetings aren’t necessarily free of conflict. In fact, conflict can be a good thing, and it should be valued by those attending any given meeting. The key is not letting it get out of hand. View conflict as “creative abrasion,” a phrase coined by the president of Nissan Design International, Jerry Hirshberg. Here’s a metaphorical explanation of how it works: Picture two tectonic plates on the earth’s surface—your way and my way, perhaps—grating against each other. Many people know that when this kind of friction occurs between plates, earthquakes often ensue. But what happens when these two plates—or viewpoints—come together? If the environment is right, they create a mountain—a third viewpoint that is a product of the first two approaches and that is grander, loftier, and more powerful than either one was on its own. In other words, conflict is turned into synergy.

For creative abrasion to work, leaders have to view conflict as a good thing. When a conflict arises, maybe someone disagrees with an idea that’s been thrown out or how a certain issue was handled. Defuse the disagreement with collaboration. Openly discuss solutions and compromises that everyone can get behind. Remember, conflict is a group issue. Don’t single anyone out when a conflict arises. Handle it as a group. Create and reinforce a common set of group conflict norms. Similar to the ground rules you use to make your meeting more effective, conflict norms can be used to beget productive discussions that will lead to decisions to which everyone can—and will—commit. Have each member of your team write down three to five norms that would lead the group as a whole to a more productive conflict and allow for better decision making. Examples include: "Establish a common goal that the group fully understands;" "Provide an opportunity for every voice to be heard;" "Speak so others can hear your message;" "Clarify pros, cons, and risks of options or potential solutions," etc.

Who is making the decisions?

So your meeting is nearly over, you’ve discussed everything on the agenda, and you’re ready to send everyone on their way. Unfortunately, no one is quite clear about what they’re supposed to be doing or who is going to make that decision. As the leader, you don’t have to be the one making all of the decisions, but you do have to make sure the decision-making process is clear to everyone. Decide what the best decision-making process is at the beginning of the meeting based on the criticality of the decision, time constraints, and the need for buy-in. Will a group compromise be necessary? Should everyone vote and defer to the majority’s decision? Will it be better to build a consensus and go from there? Or should you, the leader, make the call? The best method is going to depend on what exactly the meeting’s goal is.

The Vroom-Yetton Decision Making Model can be used to help you decide which approach to take. It is a powerful tool for determining and making explicit how groups will make decisions. As the leader, use this framework to help you think through which level of input you want from the team before you even engage them in discussion on the issue. The levels of the Vroom-Yetton are as follows: Autocratic, consultative, and group-based (more information about these levels can be found in my book The Firefly Effect: Build Teams That Capture Creativity and Catapult Results (Wiley, 2009). With those levels in mind, a leader must also consider such factors as the need for complete buy-in from the team, timing, complexity of the problem, breadth of impact of the decision, etc. Basically, the more critical the decision and the more buy-in you need for the execution of the decision to be effective, the more consensus you need to build.

No decisions, commitments, or steps captured

Too often, meetings end and everyone simply goes back to business as usual without putting anything that was discussed into action or even knowing what they personally should do. To capture what went on during the meeting, keep the format simple; the task is much more likely to be done and the information distributed. There is no simpler way to record what went on than by writing on a flip chart the who, what, and by when of the directives discussed in the meeting.

Do a round robin with everyone recapping what they are accountable for delivering. Good questions for the leader to ask to get people thinking about the impact of the meeting include, "Who wasn’t in today’s meeting who needs to know what we decided today?" and, "How are we going to communicate this to them?" Once decisions have been made and everyone knows how they will be communicated, set the date, time, and location for next meeting, making it clear that all will be responsible for reporting on the results of this meeting’s action items at the next meeting. Always distribute a brief meeting summary within 24 hours of the meeting. The meeting summary will reinforce to everyone that results are expected.

I believe wholeheartedly that a team meeting can be the most productive and exciting time in that team’s life. Unfortunately, too many organizations meet for the wrong reasons or have simply fallen into a going-through-the-motions meeting style. By implementing a few simple tools, you can breathe life back into your meetings. Give these strategies time to take hold, and you’ll find that your meetings can become times of trust building, problem solving, and collaboration that will energize your employees and give way to innovation that will greatly benefit the organization as a whole.

Two Dozen Now Sickened in AK Raw Milk Campylobacter Outbreak

The number of people sickened with Campylobacter infections linked to raw milk in Alaska has now risen from 18 to 24, reported health officials this week, according to news channel KTVA 11.

Two patients have been hospitalized as a result of their infections, according to the Alaska Section of Epidemiology (SOE).  One of the victims is an infant who contracted a secondary infection, and did not drink the raw milk directly.

The bacteria has been traced to a cow share program on the Kenai Peninsula.

The milk was distributed to shareholders throughout the Kenai Peninsula, in Anchorage, and in Sitka, according to a February 22 press release from the SOE.

The last Campylobacter outbreak traced to raw milk in Alaska was in 2011. A total of 18 people were sickened from that milk, also produced by a cow share program.

Source: Food Safety Net

How to Give a Meaningful "Thank You" by Mark Goulston

Forget the empty platitudes; your star employee is not a "godsend." They are a person deserving of your not infrequent acknowledgment and worthy of appreciation and respect. When was the last time you thanked them — really thanked them?

In my line of work, I frequently communicate with CEOs and their executive assistants, and nowhere is the need for gratitude more clear.

After one CEO's assistant had been particularly helpful, I replied to her email with a grateful, "I hope your company and your boss know and let you know how valuable and special you are."

She emailed back, "You don't know how much your email meant to me." It made me wonder — when was the last time her boss had thanked her?

This happens frequently. For instance, a few years ago, I was trying to get in touch with one of the world's most well-known CEOs about an article. His assistant had done a great and friendly job of gatekeeping. So when I wrote to her boss, I included this: "When I get to be rich, I'm going to hire someone like your assistant — to protect me from people like me. She was helpful, friendly, feisty vs. boring and yet guarded access to you like a loyal pit bull. If she doesn't know how valuable she is to you, you are making a big managerial mistake and YOU should know better."

A week later I called his assistant, and said, "I don't know if you remember me, but I'm just following up on a letter and article I sent to your boss to see if he received it."

His assistant replied warmly, "Of course I remember you Dr. Mark. About your letter and article. I sent him the article, but not your cover letter."

I thought, "Uh, oh! I messed up." Haltingly, I asked why.

She responded with the delight of someone who had just served an ace in a tennis match: "I didn't send it to him, I read it to him over the phone."

Needless to say, that assistant and I have remained friends ever since.

Yes, CEOs are under pressure from all sides and executives have all sorts of people pushing and pulling at them. But too often, they begin to view and treat their teams, and especially their assistants, as appliances. And a good assistant knows that the last thing their boss wants to hear from them is a personal complaint about anything. Those assistants are often paid well, and most of their bosses — especially the executives to which numbers, results, ROI and money means everything — believe that great payment and benefits should be enough.

What these executives fail to realize is that many of those assistants are sacrificing their personal lives, intimate relationships, even their children (because the executive is often their biggest child).

There will always be people who think that money and benefits and even just having a job should be thanks enough. There are also those that think they do a great job without anyone having to thank them. But study after study has shown that no one is immune from the motivating effects of acknowledgement and thanks. In fact, research by Adam Grant and Francesca Gino has shown that saying thank you not only results in reciprocal generosity — where the thanked person is more likely to help the thanker — but stimulates prosocial behavior in general. In other words, saying "thanks" increases the likelihood your employee will not only help you, but help someone else.

Here's a case in point: at one national law firm, the Los Angeles office instilled the routine of Partners earnestly and specifically saying, "Thank you," to staff and associates and even each other. Everyone in the firm began to work longer hours for less money — and burnout all but disappeared.

Whether it's your executive assistant, the workhorse on your team, or — they exist! — a boss who always goes the extra mile for you, the hardest working people in your life almost certainly don't hear "thank you" enough. Or when they do, it's a too-brief "Tks!" via email.

So take action now. Give that person what I call a Power Thank You. This has three parts:

1. Thank them for something they specifically did that was above the call of duty. For instance, "Joe, thanks for working over that three-day weekend to make our presentation deck perfect. Because of it, we won the client."
2. Acknowledge to them the effort (or personal sacrifice) that they made in doing the above. "I realize how important your family is to you, and that working on this cost you the time you'd planned to spend with your daughters. And yet you did it without griping or complaining. Your dedication motivated everyone else on the team to make the presentation excellent."
3. Tell them what it personally meant to you. "You know that, rightly or wrongly, we are very much judged on our results and you were largely responsible for helping me achieve one that will cause my next performance review to be 'over the moon,' just like yours is going to be. You're the best!"

If the person you're thanking looks shocked or even a little misty-eyed, don't be surprised. It just means that your gratitude has been a tad overdue.

Malaysia Protocol For Halal Meat And Poultry Productions 2011

Malaysia Protocol For Halal Meat And Poultry Productions 2011. Link for downloading the document as per below:


http://www.halal.gov.my/v3/index.php/ms/garis-panduan/malaysia-protocol-for-halal-meat-and-poultry-productions-2011

UK: Sharia Halal Board backs British meat

The Sharia Halal Board has backed the British meat industry in the wake of the horsemeat scandal and claimed the problem was not British.

It stated it believed British meat is of “extremely high standard, supreme quality with rigorous hygiene standards” and that such a level “cannot be achieved or received anywhere else but the United Kingdom”.

The Sharia Halal Board therefore strongly recommended that butchers focus on local British produce and immediately stop buying from outside the UK.

“This will ensure that you are providing product that has pedigree, quality and traceability that your customers can trust,” it claimed.

Spokesperson Allama Qazi Abdul Aziz Chishti, said: “The Sharia Halal Board believes completely in traceability with transparency. This can only truly be achieved by buying from and the monitoring of British halal suppliers. We announce today that the Sharia Halal Board fully endorses and supports British-produced halal meat.”

Many of the Sharia Halal Board’s abattoirs are part of the Red Tractor assurance scheme, which guarantees quality, standards, welfare and hygiene.

Qazi stated: “This is even more important with regards to halal meat. This is the only meat that must and can truly be fully monitored and traced back to its origin. Therefore all halal meat suppliers should only buy British halal meat.”

Sharia Halal Board-monitored meat will become available in certain places from the start of April 2013 and will be featured throughout the UK by the end of 2013, it added.

Source: Meat Info

Industry Test Results on Beef Products Published – Update from FSA (UK)

UNITED KINGDOM – The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has received the third set of test results from the food industry, which has been checking for the presence of horse DNA in products that are labelled as beef.

Overall, including the previous weeks’ testing, the Agency has received 5430 test results. The updated information from the food industry’s own tests is as follows:

• As in previous weeks, the vast majority (over 99%) of tests continue to show no horse DNA at or above the level of 1%.
• Results show that four further products have been confirmed as containing horse DNA, since the previous set of industry results was announced last week. These four products are covered by 10 test results that show horse DNA at or above the 1% threshold. These products are named in the attached report (see Table 1) and have been withdrawn from sale.
• There are now 17 products confirmed as containing over 1% of horse DNA, which have been identified through the industry tests (Table 1). A further two products have been identified through separate tests (Table 2).
• To date, no tests of products containing horse DNA have found the veterinary medicine phenylbutazone (bute).

The FSA focus continues to be on gross contamination of beef products with horse meat, that is, where there is more than 1% horse DNA detected in a product. The Agency believes that such levels of horse DNA indicate either gross negligence or deliberate substitution of one meat for another.

Results have now been received from a range of manufacturers, retailers, caterers, restaurants and wholesalers throughout the UK. The initial phase of testing by industry is almost complete.

There have been, and continue to be, occasions where businesses have withdrawn products due to trace contamination levels, or on a precautionary basis; for example, where they have been produced by manufacturers that have supplied other products found to be contaminated with horse DNA.

Table 1

Third report on results of industry testing of meat products 1 March 2013: products linked to positive results for horse
Company	Linked products
ALDI	Today’s special frozen beef lasagne Today’s special frozen spaghetti bolognese
ASDA	Chilled Beef Bolognese Sauce
Bird’s Eye*	Traditional Spaghetti Bolognese Beef lasagne
Brakes*	Brakes spicy minced beef skewer
Co-operative	Frozen: 4 Beef Quarter Pounder Burgers
Findus	Findus beef lasagne (320g, 360g, 500g)
Rangeland	Burger products
Sodexo	Halal beef burgers, minced beef, halal minced beef
Taco Bell*	Ground beef
Tesco	Everyday Value frozen burgers Everyday Value Spaghetti Bolognese
Whitbread Group plc	Lasagne, beef burger

*Results added since the second report on 22 February 2013. All products have been subject to product withdrawal and appropriate notification to customers and consumers.

Table 2

Other products that contain horse DNA above 1% Company Linked products   Makro Frozen MQ 100% Aberdeen Angus Beef Burgers 12 6oz   The Burger Manufacturing Company (BMC) A range of beef products