Fast Talk

Absolutely. Whole Foods prides itself and its brand as a healthy, greener retailer. Last week, many locations across the country had to pull ground beef from their shelves after customers in 11 states, Washington, D.C., and parts of Canada. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR200808...) As the Post reports, "It can be legal to sell steaks and roasts that carry a potentially deadly strain of E. coli. But it is not legal to sell that meat if it is going to be used to make ground beef." While many, many supermarkets sometimes have to issue recalls, that's never an excuse. Food products should always meet the highest possible standards and then some. Despite a loophole allowing the meat to be sold regardless of the e.coli strand, managers should still use their better judgement and pull products that could knowingly make people sick.

Not necessarily. I believe each incident should be addressed separately because fault can lie at one or all levels of the retail chain. Retailers, wholesalers, and producers all bear some responsibility for selling quality/safe products. In this particular case, Whole Foods may well be ultimately responsible for intentionally or mistakenly selling a harmful or dangerous product. I'll have to see how this plays out to say definitively. And people, make sure your meat is cooked properly.

I always thought an umbrella .org overseeing GLOBAL food health and safety, i.e. United Federated Foods, is a critical first step in the CHAIN of responsible commerce. Regulations need to be put in place which reinforce "CLEAN" and efficient cultivation and production practices. Whether in the global or local network, a more universal set of standards should ensure that from source-to-home, a safe, sustainable product is the value everyone pays for.

It would be nice however it is not reasonable. If that were the case there would be shops with only 2 or 3 shelves. Starvation would soon follow.

Wow, Bailey. That sounds perfectly, err, communal. Who would administer such a program? I find the timing of this question somewhat funny. I received the most recent issue of Fast Company today and what do I see on page 34? That's right, a FastTalk blurb on Whole Foods and their new meat ranking system.

With reference to my previous comment, I would think an .org such as the UN or WHO might spearhead a set of strategic programmes to regulate, monitor and assist.

Funny you should ask this... As a regular Whole Foods shopper, for the first time ever I returned several packages of beef two days ago. I've been a Whole Foods evangelist for years and never for a moment questioned food safety. Naive, perhaps, but the WF brand is one I've counted on for a long time without disappointment. With this recent Whole Foods beef recall, I'm not sure what the answer is. But it sure has me thinking. I don't think government inspections can be relied on. 100% store responsibility sounds natural, but not realistic in the long run; food prices would skyrocket. Great question with complex answers!

The FDA needs to accept responsibility. Japan tests 100% of all beef before it hits the shelves while we test between 2-3%. Please don't get the wrong impression, I do blame Whole Foods for most of the world's problems. That said, we DO in fact have an organization whose sole purpose is to prevent this sort of thing. Maybe it's time to fund it properly and tighten up some rules here and there...

I think they sould carry some at least some of the resposiblity... They are selling the food.. If they maid sure that the food is safe before selling it then it will effect the companies and farmers selling the food to the retailers.