Students: If you choose to respond on this topic, please use a word processor to write, edit and finalize your thoughts, then use the "Comment" option to post your reflection. Your response should consist of complete sentences that flow from topic to topic in a logical way...start with a sentence that identifies what question you are responding to, then share your thoughts and use evidence from your life or the video to support your responses. Do NOT re-post the questions in your response.
The instructor will "moderate" your comment and post your reflection when all students have submitted their final responses.
Guiding Question Sets (from Food Inc Participant Guide)
- Who’s responsible for Kevin’s death?
- You are a salesperson at the restaurant who sold the hamburger to Kevin’s mom. Are you responsible? You are the meat distributor who sold the meat to the restaurant. You weren’t aware that the meat was contaminated. Are you responsible? You are a worker at the meatpacking plant whose job is to cut the carcass. You are a good worker and follow the procedures set up by the plant. Are you at all responsible?
- What about the federal court judges who said that the government doesn’t have the authority to shut down a meatpacking plant that repeatedly fails contaminant tests. Should they be held partly responsible?
- What about the people who started feeding corn to cows in the first place? Should they be held partly responsible? Who are all the parties you identified? Which of them did you think were responsible, at least in part, for Kevin’s death?
- Does this situation remind you of any other parallel situation where there are unintended consequences of people’s actions? (For example, texting an important message in a hurry to a friend may have the unintended consequence of it being misconstrued, or the use of gasoline-powered cars has had the unintended consequence of raising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.) What are some of the unintended consequences in that situation?
- If any of these people didn’t intend for Kevin to die, does that get them off the hook?
- Imagine that you accidentally hit and killed someone while driving your car. You didn’t mean to hurt the person and you are very sorry about it. Does that mean you are not responsible?
- If a particular party is responsible for Kevin’s death, what do you think the consequences or repercussions should be?
- The mother says, “Sometimes it feels like industry was more protected than my son.” What do you think of her words?
- Do we have the right to assume that our food is safe? If so, who do you think should be responsible for ensuring its safety?
William K. EDA #2 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteThe owner of the factory is partly responsible for Kevin's death. the owner needs to check if the factory had any bacteria like E.coli in its food. Also the government is also partly responsible by not checking the factory for any E.coli in it. Also they are responsible for not making factories closeable from the government.
No, the salesperson is not responsible if they did not know that the meat was contaminated. It would make them responsible though if they did not cook the meat right.
The person who distributes the meat is not responsible because they did not know that the meat was contaminated from the factory. They are just doing what they are told.
No, you are not responsible because you just cut the meat and it is not your job to test for bacteria or any contaminants.Your job is only to cut it, not to make sure its fully clean.
They are partly responsible because they made the companies self regulate themselves and they can just keep the plants going if they get contaminated because they have no one to regulate them.
No, because when the first fed corn to cows there were no tests that showed that bacteria grew better when the cows were corn fed. Only now they are only partially responsible because they know the dangers and still do it for money.
No this does not remind me of any other parallel situations where there were unintended consequences for people's actions.
No that does not get them off the hook because they still caused the death of someone. If
you accidentally kill someone you still will get in trouble whether it was an accident or not.
No, you will still be responsible because you did not pay attention and killed someone. If you kill someone in a car it is your fault because you were driving and decided not to be a good driver.
I think they should get a heavy fine for Kevin's death and also they should be checked 3 times as much in their factory. Also they should be shut down if they keep getting people dead.
I think that the industries are more protected because they have more money to fight off lawsuits and they can hire better attorneys to defend them in court.
The company owner for not taking care of the plant and the government for not regulating the plant and making it so they can't be shut down by them
No we don’t have the right to assume that our food is safe, so we need to wash it and cook it thoroughly.The company should be responsible for ensuring its safety because they are the company that is making it so people can eat it.
Beka S. EDA Period 2 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI think the meat packing companies are responsible because they are the ones that should alway be looking for a contamination and by the time that Kevin died the recall of the tainted was 16 days late.At least they show have taken the blame instead of making this mom go through a really stressful time on trying to get some sort of apology. They should have done the right thing in taking the blame and then try and make that it won't happen again.
’No your not because you didn’t know that the meat was tainted with E-Coli. Its not the salesperson to check if the meat was spoiled. If i was the sales person and I heard that I sold that bad meat I would feel horrible but I would not take on the blame of killing the poor little boy.
People like the meat seller should not feel responsible for the death of Kevin. The meat seller was just trying to sell the meat they weren’t the ones saying that cows should be feed corn or that they were late on the recall. People trying to do there jobs like sell the meat for the companies should be to blame because they were the ones taking the shortcuts. It was never planned that the tainted meat would kill the little boy is was just one of the unintended consequences that came with the mistakes of the company.
Also the workers that were working in that type of meat plant should not be held responsible for just doing what the company told you to do. You're following the rules and is a good worker. Its the plants fault for having weird procedures and most likely not cleaning the carcass off enough by the time that it come to cut it up and mix a whole bunch of different cows together into one meat patty. I don’t even think that it is the person that probably messed up on cleaning the cows, fault.
Yes the USDA should be help somewhat responsible because its their job to keep the American people safe and by not letting people shut down the contaminated plants they might as well do nothing. They are just going to let big companies rule over them just because the companies are going to have a lost of profit? What about the loss of lives due to repeated contamination? This isn’t just.
Beka S. EDA Period 2 Pelfrey-Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe meat company should be held completely responsible. Cows were meant to roam and eat grass. That is what they are designed for. But when you give them corn is ruins their stomach and makes the rate of E-Coli jump to record highs.You don’t make a dog eat bird seed. In the video they said if you put a cows in a grass pasture it will shed most of its E-coli. And it is really cheaper to put them in grass because they do the mowing and the fertilizing, all by themselves. All you would have to do is let them be free. In feedlots cattle are under tons of stress and this makes them susceptible to getting diseases like E-Coli.
Like with texting the person that invented it was just thinking most likely that it was going to be fun and easy thing to do. He or she didn’t think that people would be driving while texting or walking somewhere near cars while texting. It was one of those risks they made. o one ever thought that quick and easy meat would get anybody sick let alone killed someone. it was just one of the risk they decided to take with they started to feed the cows corn even though it made them a living playground for E-Coli.
’
If none of this people intended for Kevin to die then why are they still doing what got him killed? This does not get them off the hook because they had unsafe health precautions that they knew about but chose to ignore them. With USDA letting them do their own self policing they probably don't do all the tests that they need to take.
’
’It really depends on if you were texting or drinking then got into your car, or even if you are trying to change the radio station. You hold some of the responsibilities just because you were the one behind the wheel. But I would think that it wasn't completely the drivers fault. The victim might have been in the middle of the road not paying attention to its surroundings.
They should have the plant shut down and that Kevin’s family and all the other families that have gone through the lost of a family member due to tainted meat should get money. And other plants should take different safety precautions like cleaning the cattle properly or feed the cows what they are meant to be fed. That would be the best answer. Also they could have smaller plants instead of the just the 13 they have in the U.S. The should at least be one for every state so the people of that state knows that they are getting meat thats hasn't been shipped for state to state.
Conard W. EDA Period 4 Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteKevin’s death was caused by the company who was too lazy to check the food to see if it was contaminated. I think they are not responsible because they were told that the food was fine so they did not know if it was poisoned. You should be responsible because you should know what’s in the product that you are selling.No because sometimes the guidelines are wrong. They should be responsible because the companies shouldn’t have more power than the government. They should because they didn’t know that it would be harmful to the people that eat it. It doesn’t get them off the hook because they are responsible for all of the food.You are responsible for killing that person and it is your fault because you hit him. Some consequences are that they can be sued for a lot of of money and they might get shut down. It means that the companies have so much money and are so powerful that they cannot get hurt or shut down. The people that are responsible for kevin’s death are the company who made the meat.We should know if our food is safe and the large companies shouldn’t hide anything from the consumers.
Alex R.EDA Period 4. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe salesperson at the restaurant was not their responsibility for giving Kevin’s family false meat but it is the industry fault for giving the E. Coli hamburger to the restaurant and not recalling the meat.The meat distributors selling the contaminated meat was their fault. The job as a meat distributor is to provide healthy meat and to be aware of what goes inside the meat.I don't think I should be responsible if I was the worker at the meatpacking plant. It is their job and the worker might be in a bad situation with money so if you followed the procedures then it was not your fault for causing the death’s. But it all depends on what the procedure was.
The federal judges should definitely be responsible for shutting down the meatpacking industry.They are apart of the government and they should have the power to at least help shut the place down. If they don't have the power to obviously shut down a bad company then what are they there their for.The farmers that are feeding the corn to the cows should be held responsible. They should feed the cows grass and let them grow naturally. They only want to feed the cows corn to get them fatter and faster than normal.Well I am sure the Meat Industry’s did not intend for Kevin's death but they simply let a mistake out and had to live with the consequences. The people that was the cause of Kevin's death should never be off the hook. They caused the death of a loved one and the family will never feel complete without their Kevin.If I killed someone and it was on accident then it would be responsibility. It doesn't matter if it was on accident, I killed someone and I should pay the price.The consequences for the particular party of Kevin’s death should be to shut down the place and to get sued for lots of money even though that won't bring back kevin, but it will definitely decrease the death rate.
The mother feels that the industry is more protected than her son. But in ways it is and it is very sad. They have strong lawyers and have ways to outsmart the health laws.I think the FDA and the USDA had a big part of Kevin’s death because their job is to inspect meats and they sold the contaminated meat without recalling it.We should assume that our food is safe because certain people take care of us. The Food Safety and Inspection Service should ensure our safety for our food.
Lauren Dalmatoff EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteThe possibilities for the placement of the blame are endless. It ranges from large to small. You could blame the whole company, the worker, the parents, the cows, you could potentially blame anyone. But I would say that the person responsible for Kevin’s death would not be the person who had interaction with the meat. I would say that it is the responsibility of the person who said nothing, did nothing and continues to feed their reason for creating this mass product.
The sales person would not be immediately responsible because they had no idea what was in that meat. That, I would say is the exact problem. These people have no idea what is in the food they are giving to people. If I personally was a worker who sold a little boy his death I would feel responsible and stand up to do something, but I don’t think we could hold them entirely responsible.
No. The person doing their job without knowing it was contaminated is not responsible. The same thing as the sales person applies here. I personally would feel guilty and try to make a difference, but if they did nothing directly wrong then it is not their fault.
You may be responsible if you made a mistake and didn’t follow the rules one time, but it would also depend on the procedures set up by the plant. If their standards are not high enough then it would not be your fault. The blame would lie with the company.
I feel like these people should be held partly responsible because as we learned in the video many of the company officials also work in the government. If they were voting with a biased view then definitely yes. There might be other things going on that we don’t know about or don't realize now. Its all relative. In a plant where 5,000 cows are being killed a week and one of them comes out with e. coli then it would be okay, but based on kevins law, if a plant produced 25,000 cows a week and the same percentage comes out with e.coli, their plant would be shut down even though it has the same ratio. I would say from my viewpoint, these people should not be held responsible because we don’t know the whole story and all of the variables.
In my opinion, yes. These people, maybe harmlessly experimenting have caused an epidemic much larger than they ever could have imagined. They had the power to start this, they have the power to stop this. If just one powerful person stood up and said this was wrong, the public would follow. They should be held partly responsible, not because of what they did but because of what they aren’t doing.
We have recently learned about the ozone hole near australia and this is very similar. People all over the world used their hairspray, microwaves and fridges on a daily basis when they were a new type of technology. There had been no time for reasonable testing to determine if they were safe. Now, cancer rates are rising and we are suffering the unintended consequences of new, untested technology. This is much like the corn we are feeding the cows and the technology used in the factories.
Rachel P. EDA Period 4 Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart I
Kevin’s death is a result of the corn diet cows are being fed. The feed is more inexpensive than grass feed, so the meats price decreases. That is just how it goes, we are going to buy the cheapest thing out there and we don’t know what it’s doing to our body until something happens to someone we love like it happened to Kevin. If the farmers fed the cows their natural grass diet we wouldn't be in this situation.
The restaurant who sold Kevin’s family the burgers did not know that meat was being recalled, It is not their fault that the processing plant in charge of this meat let traces of E. Coli through their plant. It is ultimately the farmer’s fault for choosing to feed their cows corn. If they fed their cows the grass feed that cows are supposed to eat they would shed almost all of their E.Coli in the matter of a week. There has been many food recalls due to outbreaks of E.Coli and Salmonella, but that is not the restaurant's fault.
The meat distributor was not aware that the meat was contaminated, but it is still their responsibility to know that the animals were fed corn and therefore have a chance of being contaminated. They need to be told that the meat could be infected because they are putting the public in danger by not knowing. The meat distributor need to know that the meat they are sending to restaurants is safe and clean so the consumer isn't in any immediate danger.
The workers at the meatpacking plant are not at all responsible for Kevin’s death. Their job is to cut the carcass and they have done their job safely. They are given meat to cut and distribute, not to test for any bacteria. If they have done their job to the best of my ability, it is not their fault that the infected meat reaches the restaurant.
The federal court is corrupt when it comes to the food system. They claim to be in the best interest of the people but their biased opinions cloud their judgement and instead of stepping down they allow their opinions to get in the way of the cases brought before them.
The blame ultimately falls on the farmers shoulders. They had a choice: To feed cows the right way, or the cheaper way. They put the citizens in danger by feeding the cows corn; they know the dangers that it can cause and by feeding the cows an unnatural diet they became responsible for the victims of the infected meat.
When you are talking on the phone when you’re driving you are putting yourself and everyone around you in danger. You are very likely to lose control and hurt someone else, yourself, or both. When you’re talking on your phone--although you may not realize it--you have a chance of getting into a lot of trouble. The same goes for the food industry; just because they may apologize for the deaths of their victims doesn't mean that the consumers won't want change.
People make mistakes, but that does not mean that you are not responsible for them. If someone accidentally does something it does not mean that they can get away with it, no matter what it is. When the farmer, processing plant, and restaurant sent the infected meat through to the consumer they became responsible for any problems that may occur because of that meat.
You have to take responsibility for your actions; even if you’re sorry for hurting someone, it doesn't make them come back and it doesn't take the guilt away. You will have to live with the fact that someone died by your hand and that it doesn't matter what you do, they will never come back. Imagine how the family of the victim feels, they can forgive but never forget. Just because you accidentally did it, doesn't make it okay.
Kevin's law should be enforced so the industries can take responsibility for their actions. The party responsible for Kevin’s death should pay for what they have done. Kevin’s law will ensure that we are safe and that we won’t get sick due to contamination.
Rachel P. EDA Period 4 Mrs. Pelfrey
ReplyDeletePart II
When Kevin’s mother says, “Sometimes it feels like industry was more protected than my son.” she means that even if they kill your child, the food system will always win. They won’t take responsibility for their wrongdoings but have plenty of lawyers and judges on their side so they won't have to. The victims of infected meat don’t have as many important personnel on their side and because of that they have to suffer. The customers just wanted something to eat; how would they know that they would die?
The party responsible for Kevin’s death are the farmers that fed the cows corn. They knew what they were doing and the danger that they were causing the consumers. They chose to feed the cows cheap food, and by doing that they kept the cows packed full of E.Coli and putting the consumers in danger.
No one should assume that what we’re putting into our body is safe and free of bacteria. It is our jobs to be aware that safe food isn't always the case. Although, the farmers, processing plants, distributors, and restaurants should tell us that the animals they get their meat from were fed corn and has a chance of being contaminated with E.Coli or Salmonella.
Lauren Dalmatoff EDA Period 4 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteI think that just because someone didn’t intend to take the life of another it should get them off the hook. I think this for two reasons. One: Because I feel that it is not the fault of the people who made a mistake somewhere in the line of industry, or someone had an idea about feeding the cows something new. I think it becomes the responsibility of those who sit back and watch it happen over and over again. Two: I think it is a lot like the next question. If you did not mean to hit a person with your car and they die, you will still be convicted. That is not saying that is fair in the eyes of everyone but I feel like it is important to send the message to others to be careful. Just like Kevin’s death is sharing the message to consumers about what is really in their food.
It means that you have learned your lesson and will be careful next time. It is a sad accident, but it is still your fault. One mindless decision could mean life and death. Like eating a cheeseburger meant death for Kevin, but it was an accident.
I have previously said that the blame for kevins death should lie in the person not doing anything, but thats not to say they should be blamed, or other people should escape the blame. I think there should me more knowledge about the possible harms that can come from a product and more industry-consumer connection so they can see what they are really doing to people. I don’t think Kevin’s law should be passed as it is because, although it has good ideas and good intentions, it would be unfair to the larger companies. It should be modified and adjusted to fit all cases with proper consequences.
I feel like her words are absolutely true. The industry is so strong that it is more protected than a child, but that doesn't mean that things can't change and that Kevin's death can’t make a difference for other consumers out there.
We identified, the activist, the non activist, the industry, the consumer, the parent, the workers, people who fed cows corn, the government, even the cows. I think all of them are in part responsible for Kevin’s death, especially the non activist consumer who isn’t making a change and letting their voice be heard.
I feel like we should have a right to assume our food is safe, but today we don’t. I think we as consumers should be responsible enough to stay educated and make our own decisions but at the same time companies should make it easier to get healthy food. Candy is everywhere, but you have to search for the vegetables and that is not fair to the next generations. I think we should all be responsible for ensuring our own safety.
Renee S. EDA #4 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteI believe that the owner of the meatpacking company and the farmer who “raised” the cattle are responsible. The farmer should not be feeding his cattle corn because it is not good for them and he knows that. If he would feed his cattle grass and let them roam around in it instead of in their own poo, they would be healthier and Kevin wouldn’t have eaten an E. coli contaminated burger. The owner of the meat company is also responsible because he is the man who decided to use misfed and misraised cattle for his company’s meat. If he bought other cattle and sold good meat to Jack in the box, they would have sold good meat to Kevin.
I do not believe the salesperson is at all responsible. They didn’t choose what they sell, they only do what their boss tells them to do. There is no way they could have known that Kevin’s burger was contaminated, and it is not their fault, rather it is the fault of whoever is at the top of his chain of command.
I think this person is slightly responsible. On one side, I think they should know what they are selling and examine it before they mindlessly give it to restaurants. However, at the same time, it might not be their fault that the company they work for gives them this infected meat to sell.
I do not think this person is responsible because they have specific orders and if they do not follow them they will be fired. Also I do not think that the way they cut the meat is what makes it deadly, I think it is the way the cattle was raised. The carcass-cutter didn’t make the cow have E. coli or cut the meat so that it would be bad, it was the cattle-raiser that made the meat be bad.
I believe these people are responsible. If they had let the government shut down repeatedly failing plants, then the one that made Kevin’s infected meat might have been shut down before Kevin had gotten his burger. They should have known that by letting meatpacking plants constantly send out diseased meat, people who eat that meat will get sick and die. Kevin’s death could have been avoided had they passed the law like they should have.
These people are responsible because they should know that cows eat grass and not corn. By forcing these cows to eat corn, they are making the cows have deadly E. coli. By intentionally making these cows deadly, they are responsible for Kevin’s death because he wouldn’t have died if they gave him meat from a cow that ate grass and was healthy instead.
Renee S. EDA #4 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteThis situation reminds me of texting and driving because people think they know what they are doing, they are trying to save time by doing both things at once, and they do not realize that doing this can hurt and kill people. Just like with meat factories and their E. coli burgers, a person texting and driving can unintentionally kill somebody if they are not paying attention or lose control of their car. In both situations, the factory that made Kevin’s burger and the driver weren’t planning on killing anybody, but by trying to be convenient for only themselves, and not paying attention where they really should, they ended up killing somebody.
This does not get them off the hook. Even though they didn’t want people to die, they should know that it is a high probability when they are selling DEADLY E. COLI BURGERS! It doesn’t matter if they wanted Kevin to die or not, he is dead and it is their fault.
No, I would still be responsible. Even though it was an accident, I obviously wasn’t paying attention or made a mistake in my driving and caused the death. Just by being sorry that doesn’t mean it wasn’t my fault.
I think this party should be shut down. They shouldn’t get to sell their meat anymore, and whoever was the boss or the person who decided to sell infected burgers should be put in jail.
I agree with them because the industry never got in trouble or shut down for selling contaminated meat which killed a child. Her child was not protected because he was sold an infected burger and he didn’t know that it would kill him. No one should have to worry about whether the food they eat is deadly. Also, she never got an apology from the meat company that killed her son.
The parties are: the consumer, the restaurant salesperson, the meat distributor, the meat factory worker who cuts the carcass, the federal court judges who denied “Kevin’s Law”, the farmers who raised the cattle and fed them corn in the first place, and the meatpacking factory’s owner. I believe out of these parties, those who are responsible are the meat distributor, the federal court judges, the corn-feeding cattle raisers, and the meat company owner.
We should have the right to assume our food is safe because we have to eat or we will die, so I don’t think that what is supposed to keep us alive should kill us. Plus, if people decide that for a career they want to make food for people, they should be trustworthy people who won’t kill us with their products. So, the people who ensure food’s safety should be the people who produce it and the health inspectors who make sure they are doing a good job.
ReplyDeleteThe factory that sold the restaurant the meat and the farmers who fed corn to the cows where responsibe for kevins death.
no, it wasn't your job to make sure the meat was safe if you bought the meat.
Yes, if you were a meat distributor you should of checked the meat before you sold it.
No, if you were a worker at the factory and If you did it the way the factory told you, it’s not your fault.
yes, if the people that fed them corn fed them a little bit of grass before they were slaughtered then it would of shed a lot of ecoli off their gut.
the carbon dioxide in the air creates pollution which creates global warming which melts the polar ice caps and then all the polar bears will die.
No, they are not of the hook even though they didn't intend for it, they still did it and didn't take good care of the cows.
if you hit someone It depends, If you were on the phone or doing something then yes. If they just hopped out in front of you then no.
I think the consequence should be that they are tested again and if it’s not fixed then it should be recalled.
I think the mom meant that nothing happened to the industry, But something did happen to kevin.
I think the party that was responsible was the people feeding the cows corn.
No, I don’t think our food is safe because farmers are still feeding cattle corn and this could happen to any of us at any time.
I believe that the people who take care of the cows and process the meat are responsible because it is there job to be sure the meat is safe to eat.
ReplyDeleteYou are a salesperson at the restaurant who sold the hamburger to Kevin’s
mom. Are you responsible?
No because I’m just a salesperson and it’s not my job to check the meat if it is safe. They only have to serve it so how are they supposed to know its unsafe when they only have to take your order and serve you?
The meat distributor who selling the meat should be responsible because they should be the ones to checking the meat before selling it to someone else.
No, The workers who cut the meat are only set out to cut the meat. Not check the safety of the meat. And if you’re following all the plant procedures then you’re a good worker doing what you were hired to do.
Yes, If companies are give people bad meat that can kill them the government should shut them down because they keep giving people something unsafe and could kill them. Also if they have repeatedly failed the contaminant test this shows that they are unsanitary and if they didn’t take these test they could kill an innocent person just for eating there product.
Partly, I believe that farmers should not be feeding cows anything but grass because its safer than corn which raises there e-coli levels in their intestines which is harmful to the cow and the people who are eating that cow.
Anouther situation is when people use gasoline-powered cars the pollution from the cars ruins the environment people still drive them because it gets people where they need to go faster. Most people don’t intend to ruin the environment but they have to be somewhere importaint then they don’t care.
Even though they did not intend for Kevin to die they should still pay for selling unsafe meat to an innocent customer who was paying there money to eat the company’s product when the company assured it was safe.
It really depends on the situation and if the driver was paying attention. Yes, you’re still responsible but If the person you hit was walking infront of your car not paying attention and you tired to stop but it was to late then you wouldn’t be as responsible if you were the one not paying attention and hit the person.
If the particualr party was found guilty the government should shut down that company or have the company take certain tests on the product monthly for a certain amount of time. If they continue to fail they should shut down the companies. Also have the companys pay a certain amount of money.
What she is saying feels like it is true. Because she didn’t know if that hamerburger was contaminated before her son ate it, it isn’t her job to make sure the meat is safe it is the companies. And as customers you’re relying on the companies to provide safe food. But when kevin was sick the companies did not get any consequences for there contaminated product. So the companies are protected so they can not get shut down for there unsafe foods when kevin was not protected by eating the hamburger.
I don’t believe all our food is safe because there have been many recalls on different food products so how will we know when our food is safe or not? And the companies who are processing and farming the product should be responsible for ensuring the safety. They should be the ones checking the product if it is unsafe or not.
Andrew N.
ReplyDeleteCarr period 6
No one intentionally caused Kevin’s death. In fact, it may be that no person caused it at all. There is always a risk of food being contaminated. The farmers and manufacturers should do they best to ensure everyone’s safety, however, there is only so much they can do. No food is 100% safe. Therefore, no one needs to be or should be blamed for Kevin’s death. The salesperson who sold Kevin the hamburger, the meat distributor, and the worker who cut the carcass are not responsible for Kevin’s death because they had no way of knowing that the meat was contaminated. The federal court judges who said the the government doesn’t have the authority to shut down a meatpacking plant that repeatedly fails contamination tests could be held partly responsible, because there should be some sort of enforcement of safe food. Since the corn may increase e coli in cows intestines, the people who started feeding cows the corn could be held responsible. However, they did not know that this would happen as a result, so it could not be entirely blamed on them.
Many actions could cause things that weren’t intended. Getting in a car accident as a result of replying to a text while driving would be an example of someone’s actions having unintended consequences.
All of these people should be more careful about the contamination of the meat, however, it would not be fair to blame anyone completely, since there is always a risk of food contamination, and you can’t point fingers at everyone for one mistake. In fact, it is surprising that this doesn’t happen more often, given how often people eat meat. In short, no food can be completely, 100% safe, no matter how hard anyone tries.
If you were to accidentally hit someone with your car, technically, you are responsible, since you were in control of the car that hit them. However, they could have not been looking out for cars, or they could have rushed in the middle of the road and crossed in an illegal or dangerous spot.
I don’t think one particular party is responsible for Kevin’s death. Somehow, bacteria got into the meat, contaminating it. No one caused it on purpose. I don’t think there should be any punishment towards anyone.
No matter what food you eat, or where it comes from, there is always a risk. Nothing in life is 100% safe. That doesn't mean that the farmers/meat packers shouldn't be careful, but there is only so much that they have the power to do. Sometimes, you just have to accept things without blaming it on someone else.
Out of all of the parties, the salesperson, the meat distributor, the meat packing plant worker, the federal court judges, and the people who started feed cows corn, only the federal court judges and the people who feed cows corn could be held partly responsible.
Our food should be as safe as the farmers and manufacturers can make it. It cannot be 100% safe, no matter what anyone does, but the farmers, manufacturers, and the FDA should do their best to ensure its safety.
Leonard W. EDA Period 6, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteI think that Jack in the Box was responsible for Kevin’s death because they were the people who sold the hamburger to him. You are not responsible because you were not the person who made the hamburger and processed it. Yes, you are responsible for Kevin’s death because you were the one who raised the animals in that certain condition and you sold the meat to the company. You may be responsible because you raised the animals in that certain condition which allowed them to grow bacteria on/inside of them. It is not the government’s fault because they did not manufacture the food or sell it. Yes, they should be responsible because when they started feeding the cows cor which allowed them to get bacteria. The people who made the food did not intend on Kevin to get poisoned and die from the food that he ate. It does not get them off the hook because they still processed the food and made it. It may be your fault if you were texting while but otherwise it shouldn’t be your fault.
Some things that they should do is they should get more awareness in their factories and in their farm lands. I think that her son was not as protected than the industry because the industry was supposed to check their food before they send it out to other companies. The parties that we identified were the companies, the factories, and the consumers. I believe that the factories that processed this food were responsible for Kevin’s death. I do not think that our food is safe because there is bacteria everywhere in our society so mostly all of our food is not safe.
Jared McCracken EDA: 6th Mrs.Carr
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the people who cooked the burger is responsible for kevin’s death. I looked up on Google that any bacterium can be killed at 157 degrees. Here we know that the person cooking the burger did not cook the burger correctly.
The people that gave the cows corn are also partly responsible, because they are the people who gave the cows E-coli in the first place.
This particular scenario reminds me of all the pro’s and con’s of drilling. The drilling itself is awesome, because it creates more jobs, gets us off foreign oil, and puts money into the economy. On the other hand, there are spills, but they only have occurred when there was a stupid mistake that was caused by the company buying stupid cheap parts that didn't work.
When you kill someone, whether it be on purpose or from an accident, you are never off the hook, unless the person dead was committing suicide. It depends if you were under the influence, speeding, or if the person that is dead did something stupid like jump in the middle of the street/ j-walk and not see the car.
To be honest the industry was more protected than Kevin, because the judges were preventing the government from doing anything. Did you know that those judges have close ties with the companies they are protecting.
In a way we have a right to assume that are food is edible, but it is extremely hard to know because of the system it goes through. The only way to know is to go in your backyard garden and grow it yourself.
Above all, everyone should be responsible for our food; it should be a nationwide job for each and every person or business. If we all pitched in a little the system would not produce harmful food, and there would never be recalls on food (which just goes to waste).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBea Capili
ReplyDeletePeriod 1 EDA
Carr
Part 1
I think the owner of the company that cuts up the meat, clean it, and ship it is responsible for Kevin’s death. If would have cleaned the meat properly, maybe the E-coli wouldn’t be on the meat. Also, I think that the farmers should be responsible for Kevin’s death. If the cows weren’t fed corn and just grass like they’re supposed to the E-coli in the cow formed from the corn would be shed off.
If I was the salesperson at the restaurant that sold the hamburger to Kevin’s mom, I don’t think I would be responsible. All I do is probably cook the meat, bag, and sell it. I couldn’t have known if the meat was infected if it wasn’t my job to know if it was. If I was the meat distributor who sold the meat to the restaurant, I should be responsible, I should know if the meat was safe or not. I should know if the workers did a good job cutting the meat and cleaning it. I am in charge of knowing if everything is well. If I was a worker at for the meat distributor and my job was to cut the carcass and I followed all my procedures, I shouldn’t be held responsible. I followed all the rules into my job, which is just cutting the carcass, not cleaning the meat. That should be another worker’s job. I am not held responsible for Kevin’s death because I did nothing wrong by doing my job correctly.
The federal court judges that said the the government don’t have the authority to shut down the plants should be held partly responsible. So they don’t want to shut down plants that have been infected and can possibly kill people? Some of those federal court judges were once a part of those plants and just want money for them. The people who started feeding the cows corn should be partly responsible. The E-coli wouldn’t have been on the meat if they were feed the cow correctly with grass.
This unintended consequence reminds me of someone being late or they’re in fear of being late to something and they accidentally get into an accident in trying to get there. One of the unintended consequences were were farmers feeding the cows corn to make them fatter so that they could get more money probably didn’t mean for all the bacteria stay in the cow and contaminated the meat. Also the people who tried to clean the meat and didn’t do it well were not intending to have people killed due to their actions.
Any of these people that didn’t intend for Kevin to die should not be “off the hook.” Their actions killed Kevin like feeding the cows corn causing bacteria to build in the cows and leaving them to stand in their feces. Also, putting pneumonia in the meat to clean bacteria off but it’s harmful for us to eat. They didn’t intend to but they probably knew what it might do to us. They knew the consequences, if they didn’t why would they try something and sell it if they didn’t know it was safe. Do they just want money and not care about the consequences?
If I was driving a car and accidentally hit and killed someone,I am responsible. It doesn’t matter if it was an accident or if I intended to do it, I was still driving the car.
If any particular party is responsible for Kevin’s death I think the meatpacking company should be held responsible. They could have a different option to clean the meat. They probably demand more fatter meat to have more to the farmers. For them, it’s probably like a win-win situation, they both get more money. I think if the meatpacking company continues to fail contaminant tests then they should be shut down until they’ve fixed their situation.
The mother says, “Sometimes it feels like industry was more protected than my son.” I think it’s true and that’s it’s sad that it’s true. Most of the judges in the supreme court did work for those industries before and they just want the money.
Bea Capili
ReplyDeletePeriod 1 EDA
Carr
Part 2
The parties were the farmers, the meat packing plant, the company who buys the meat, and the consumer. The farmers and the meat packing plant, I think, are the most responsible for Kevin’s death. The farmers are originally the ones that started the problem, cows aren’t suppose to be fed corn. If they just ate grass, they could shed half of the E-Coli that’s inside them. It’s also the meat packing plant’s responsibility to clean the meat well. If they don’t cut the cow right or not clean it well, the E-coli or other bacteria will still be there.
We do have a right to assume that our food is safe. We are the consumers, if they didn’t have any buyers, where would their business be? Do they have any guilt for making us sick and even causing death just for the money? The government, farmers, and the meat packing plant should make sure that our food is safe. The government should because this is our country, where we should have the right to eat healthily. The farmers should because aren’t they afraid that one person that eats their cows are going to get sick or die just because the cow wasn’t fed properly? Also, the meat packing plant should keep our food safe because they’re the ones that cut up the meat to be fed to us, consumers. They can cause death among us if the cow isn’t properly cut or cleaned and shipped to wherever in the country it might go. We are also responsible for knowing if the food we buy is safe. But, we might not know if the company does not tell us.
Kevin H, EDA Period 1, Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteWho is to blame for Kevin’s, or anyone else’s, death? Was it the workers at the meatpacking plant, the salesperson who sold the meat, the meat distributor who sold the meat to the restaurant, the workers at the meatpacking plant, the federal court judge who does not have enough power to shut down the meatpacking business, or the farmers who feed the corn to the cows in the first place, or maybe even Kevin’s parents? All these people had something to do with the infected meat before it reached and resulted in Kevin’s death. I believe it was the farmer’s, federal court judge’s, Kevin’s parent’s fault.
The farmers who feed the corn to cows in the first place would be partially responsible for Kevin’s death because if the farmers did not feed the corn to the cows in the first place, then the cows would not have gotten contaminated and Kevin and all the other people who died from E-coli outbreaks would still be walking on this earth today. In addition, if the farmers would pay attention to the news they would have found out that their corn-to-cows method was not working out for the people and they could have substituted the corn for something more safer to the cows and humans. So, not only Kevin died, other people died too, and the sad part is that they could have been saved if the farmers knew they were partially responsible for killing people.
You could also blame the federal court judge who had no power to shut down the meatpacking plant, which by the way, failed contamination tests repeatedly. This confuses me. The government should have the power. That’s why we vote- we vote and the winners gain power. So you tell me why the government can’t shut down one meatpacking plant. I bet they don’t have the power to shut down one rogue street vendor. If your house fails the exterminator’s test, it gets shut down. Why can’t a meatpacking company get shut down after repeatedly failing its tests?
Lastly, part of the people who would be responsible for Kevin’s death could be his parents. If his parents did not take him to the fast food restaurant where he ate the contaminated burger, he would have survived. The parents should of been aware of the type of food that they were exposing to their child, and know what the consequences should be. If you knew that McDonald's French fries have a chance of giving the consumer cancer, would you still eat them? Maybe the parents knew what was going to happen, they may have read over the word “chance” and thought that nothing of that extreme would have happened to their family. But you never know. This family could of easily avoided this unintended consequence if the parents knew.
Some people who I would not think would be responsible (but kind of are 10% responsible) would be the salesperson and the worker at the meatpacking plant. I don’t think the salesperson who sold the hamburger to Kevin’s mom is responsible. The salesperson was just doing their job. If they knew the hamburger would kill a kid, they probably would not have sold it. The reason they would not be responsible is because their doing their job. So, if the procedures they are doing to cut the meat are wrong, it is the person who gave him the instruction to do so’s fault. But the worker is partially responsible because they did actually do the actions, and if they thought the instructions they were told were wrong and would lead to some bacterial outbreak, then they should of quit and tell an authority (like a situation with a bully).
In conclusion, we cannot assume our food is safe. There should be signs if something was known to be fatal or even known to cause disease. Also, if you have the tiniest suspicion, you should at least research or something. Assuming is bad. Don’t assume. Otherwise you may end up in a situation like Kevin, be wound up in an unintended consequence.
Gavin L
ReplyDeleteMrs. Carr
Per.1
there were many people who were responsible in the events that led to kevin’s death. but some of them like the person who sold the meat and the worker at the meat packaging plant should not be punished for kevin’s tragic death. the sales person would have no idea that the meat was contaminated unless the provider told him so and the worker at the plant followed all the rules and regulations so he should not be punished.
I think that the government and the person who sold the meat to the restaurant should be held responsible because the government was put in place to help keep the people safe even on the most basic levels like our food. the person who sold the meat to the restaurant should have the regulations and the tests set up so they can be 100% sure that our food would not be contaminated.
some people might blame the people who started feeding cow corn in the first place. they would say if it hadn't been for them the e-coli would not of been so dangerous. well to that i say how would they have know that the corn would be potentially dangerous? they only used the corn because it was in abundance.
this situation had many unintended consequences. It reminds me of dropping the bomb on hiroshima. The americans did not know that it would cause large levels of radiation and birth defects in the long run. Some of the unintended consequences of the corn being fed to cows and the poor system to make our food safe include loss of human life, poor health, and uncertainty in the population.
the parties that were identified were the companies and Kevin’s mother and grandmother. The film showed the companies as responsible for Kevin’s death. I don’t think its a right to assume our food is safe, i think it is up to us to determine whether we trust the food being provided to us. it has nothing to do with rights. I do think though that the companies and the government should check the food more thoroughly.
Kevin’s tragic death was the effect of negligence on the behalf of the greedy big wigs that own these large powerful meat companies. If these men that are so high up in the meat industry weren’t just in it for money, Kevin would probably still be alive. His death was the effect of greed, proper meat cleaning precautions not being taken, and dirty factories.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely hold myself responsible if I sold a bad hamburger. I should have been having my cooks in the kitchen inspect the meat for cleanliness and cook the meat thoroughly to ensure all bacteria is killed.
Yes, I should be held one hundred percent accountable for my actions. If I work at the meat factory I should be enforcing the rules and regulations of how the food should be treated or handled to kill all or any bacteria on the meat.
No, I should not be held responsible if I follow the set of rules I have been given by my bosses and or the FDA. I’m just doing my job and following the rules I’ve been given. It’s not my fault if any bacteria is not killed because of a procedure I wasn’t told to take in handling the meat.
The federal court judges should be held responsible for not doing anything because they do have the power, they just are too lazy to exercise it. Tests are taken for a reason and if they repeatedly fail them, obviously something should be done. It’s just common sense. The people feeding the cows corn instead of grass only found a cheap alternative that only causes more disease and that should be stopped.
Yes, this does bring to mind some unintended consequences. A few years ago there was an AT&T commercial where someone would have a call dropped at a very bad time and the person on the other end thought they hung up on them.
As much as it was unintended, it still happened and they let bad meat slip out into grocery stores and restaurants and of course they should still be held responsible.
You are still responsible whether you like it or not and as long as you say you are sorry and ask for forgiveness from the family, it will be less of a problem, but the meat company that killed Kevin never said they were sorry at all.
It should be up to Kevin’s mom and court judges what the consequences should be, afterall it was her kid.
I think that Kevin’s mother is very hurt inside because she is trying to take a stand and defend the death of her child like any loving mother would. She is trying to have something done about what happened but the companies are too large and powerful to be taken down by an average person.
We identified factories, stores, and the restaurant's that served the meat to Kevin as all being responsible for his death.
Yes, we should not have to worry about the food we eat. It is the FDA’s job to ensure the safety of the public’s food.
Kevin’s tragic death was the effect of negligence on the behalf of the greedy big wigs that own these large powerful meat companies. If these men that are so high up in the meat industry weren’t just in it for money, Kevin would probably still be alive. His death was the effect of greed, proper meat cleaning precautions not being taken, and dirty factories.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely hold myself responsible if I sold a bad hamburger. I should have been having my cooks in the kitchen inspect the meat for cleanliness and cook the meat thoroughly to ensure all bacteria is killed.
Yes, I should be held one hundred percent accountable for my actions. If I work at the meat factory I should be enforcing the rules and regulations of how the food should be treated or handled to kill all or any bacteria on the meat.
No, I should not be held responsible if I follow the set of rules I have been given by my bosses and or the FDA. I’m just doing my job and following the rules I’ve been given. It’s not my fault if any bacteria is not killed because of a procedure I wasn’t told to take in handling the meat.
The federal court judges should be held responsible for not doing anything because they do have the power, they just are too lazy to exercise it. Tests are taken for a reason and if they repeatedly fail them, obviously something should be done. It’s just common sense. The people feeding the cows corn instead of grass only found a cheap alternative that only causes more disease and that should be stopped.
Yes, this does bring to mind some unintended consequences. A few years ago there was an AT&T commercial where someone would have a call dropped at a very bad time and the person on the other end thought they hung up on them.
As much as it was unintended, it still happened and they let bad meat slip out into grocery stores and restaurants and of course they should still be held responsible.
You are still responsible whether you like it or not and as long as you say you are sorry and ask for forgiveness from the family, it will be less of a problem, but the meat company that killed Kevin never said they were sorry at all.
It should be up to Kevin’s mom and court judges what the consequences should be, afterall it was her kid.
I think that Kevin’s mother is very hurt inside because she is trying to take a stand and defend the death of her child like any loving mother would. She is trying to have something done about what happened but the companies are too large and powerful to be taken down by an average person.
We identified factories, stores, and the restaurant's that served the meat to Kevin as all being responsible for his death.
Yes, we should not have to worry about the food we eat. It is the FDA’s job to ensure the safety of the public’s food.
There are dangers to everything having corn in everything,for one cows are now fed corn to make them fatter and bulkier but e coli is also being distributed through the corn to the cow,the upside is that food is now cheaper,corn is a very cheap plant to produce and has more uses than any other plant.It also makes farmers farm corn because there is such a high demand for it so that means more corn and less fruits and other vegetables bringing the rise of cost of other organic foods.
ReplyDelete’
I think that many people are surprised that corn is in so many products because those people weren’t as informed of the ingredients on the back of the label. I do think that the food producers and government have kept it a secret because it could potentially bring profits down if people knew the dirty process of a cheeseburger.Most people don’t care what’s in their food as long as it tastes good, they don’t realize that the reason it tastes so good is because they add addictive ingredients into the product
I think it is the responsibility of the consumer and the producer because half the time no one really looks at the nutritional facts box at the back of the product and if they do they don't understand what the ingredients are and what they do to your body.In health class we should learn more about ingredients in processed food and the consequences the secret ingredients bring.Children can pass down their knowledge to their parents.Their parents would then have the knowlege to buy more organic food for their children.
It is the producer’s responsibility to label all of the ingredients on the container the food is in.It is the FDA and USDA’s responsibility to make sure the ingredients are safe and sanitary and it is the consumers responsibility
to look at the ingredients and gain knowledge of processed food.When a family on a budget go to a fast food restaurant they expect to be at least disease free but at the same time they shouldn’t expect so much from a dollar burger.When you think about it the producer is hiring at least 10 employees to cut,clean and check the meat that’s in the burger which comes to the question why isn’t the meat sanitary.
We have health class and we do learn about fast food and its effects to the human body but we never learn thoroughly about processed foods,their origins, the tests taken on the ingredients and how sanitary the foods are.The producers are mostly responsible for what the consumer eats. When a consumer goes into a grocery store they don’t think that any of the foods will cause them harm because companies make it seem as though all their food is organic.I believe they should put out a PSA telling the consumers that their food comes from a factory and the process of the product through the factory because that is the truth and consumers need to know the truth.
’
History has told us that people in the 1600’s men were about 5 feet on average,now men are about 6 feet on average.Our bodies have adapted to eating more frequently because now we don’t eat to live, we live to eat.There are restaurants everywhere now,fast food,family owned and family friendly.The price of fast food is cheaper and the economy is worse so logically the family on a budget will eat out more frequently than spend the money on groceries.The physical fitness testing has also adapted the average weight has increased and the physical activity a child does has decreased.The modifications producers have made might be for the better.Corn makes cows meatier and fast food cheaper why should the producer be blamed for making the economy better.People rely on fast food for a cheap meal and the jobs food companies create to make that cheap meal is astonishing. The cows do suffer more but if we take out corn and go back to grass what stops the food companies to put pesticides or some sort of enhancer in the grass that may make the cows less immune to sickness or disease.
Sienna R. EDA Period 1 Pelfrey Part 1
ReplyDeleteIf I was a saleseperson, I am not responsible, due to the fact that I was not educated enough in the safety hazards of the meat packing industry. Any salesperson does not wonder if the food is safe, who would? All they care about is the sale.
I am partly responsible, as a meat distributor, due to the fact that as a meat distributor, one needs to know if the meat is safe or not. If one does not check this, then they are doing their job incorrectly.
If I, the worker follows all of the rules and regulations of the plant to keep the food safe, they shouldn’t be held responsible for the contamination. That is the plant’s responsibility to fix the regulations to a safer process, instead of a faster way that earns the company more money.
Most definitely should the federal court judges who implied this should be held responsible. If the plant fails the safety test, it needs to be shut down immediately so people are not at the chance of getting E. Coli, or anything similar. The federal court system should not be about alliances and money, it should be about the safety of the American people. No one should have that much power in the federal system if they are going to use it incorrectly.
If the people who fed the cows corn first, new of the side effects and dangers it could lead to, they should be held responsible. If not, they should not be held responsible due to the fact that they were ignorant of the safety hazards and just wanted a cheaper way to feed the cows. This is a lesson learned, that one cannot always take the easier (or cheaper way in this case) to everything.
Another example of an unintended consequence is the creation of plastic bags. At first, the use was thought of as efficient, but now, plastic bags fill our ocean and landfills. Marine animals and land animals suffer and die everyday because of the trash of plastic bags. If the plastic bag was never used, or never created, the people of earth would not have so many pollution problems. I am not saying it would have solved our pollution problem, just that it would have made the world a cleaner place.
I doubt any of them intended a little boy to die, but he did. Someone needs to be held accountable, and it most definitely needs to be them. There should be a change in this industry so things like this do not happen. The government, and the people of the packing industry need to keep the food people of America eat, healthy and safe.
Sienna R. EDA Period 1 Pelfrey Part 2
ReplyDeleteNo, I need to be held responsible so something like this does not happen again. There needs to be consequences to the actions that led to someone’s death. If I was “more careful” when driving, this person might still be alive.
If a particular party is responsible for Kevin’s death, they should be shut down immediately. If not, they need to change their ways of distributing meat to the people. When they do change the policies, it needs to be proven and accepted by a FDA officer. Also, this particular officer must not have any relations to this company.
I think the mother means that the importance of making money, is much greater than the importance in keeping people, like her son, safe. When she tried and get justice for her son, the judge and the supreme court were on the food industries side. Speculations of this have arisen, but we all know why they had their decision slanting toward the company. Money.
All of the parties that were identified were the meat industry, the FDA, the lawyers of the trial, and the judge. We thought that all of them had a little part in the responsibility. Due to the fact that they did not try and get justice for Kevin and his family, was just cold hearted. All the people in this organization has on their mind, is money.
But, we could also say that they were trying to do their job. I doubt it.
No, I do not think our food is safe. Why? Due to the amount of greed and ignorance in the food system of this country. We, the people of America, should not have to worry about the safety of our food. The government and the food industries should have safety and health as the number one worry instead of always having money and efficiency on their mind. How can we do this? We can start by having more slaughterhouses in the states, instead of just having thirteen. This is only one example of the many steps that we must take to clean up the mess that the food industries have made.
Spencer m. 1st period Carr
ReplyDeleteultimately it falls back on the companies selling bad meet and not testing it for disease the government shouldn’t have to intervien in their process it should be just good morals that makes them want to test their meat o make sure they don’t give people diseases.no you had absolutely nodea that disease was in the meat and you didn’t even cook it or have any part in making it.yes you need to conduct more tests on the meat because its your job to conduct tests and make sure our food is safe for human consumption. no you did as you were told you washed your hands and such and you follow protocoles set by the company that are suposed to keep the food safe and you safe.partly yes they need to get out from under the companies and run some tests and investigations on the meat packing companies.no its just a different kind of feed the companies need more tests for the meat corn seemed like a cheap affoordable food source at the time.well the invention of the cotton gin lead to slavery which was unintended, just as the companies didn’t intend to spread that disease.no because they may not have ment to do it but it still happened thats why we have manslaughter charges in court you may not intend to do it but you still deserve to be punished.’no it doesn’t its still your fault even if you didn’t intend to hit the kid.possibley an investigation leading to the arrest of someone who seems to have failed.it mean that the government has put more protections in place for the industry than the life of her son.i believe it is all spread over each branch of the meat packing industry that has to do some sort of cleaning or ensure cleaning of our food products.yes we do we are putting our trust in these companies that they are selling us good meat.possibly the FDA the government section tasked to ensuring food safety.
Nick A. EDA #3 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteThe meat company is responsible for Kevin’s death, if they would have gotten rid of the bad meat he wouldn't have died. They should take responsibility for what they did, and say sorry to the boy’s mother.
No, I am not responsible. I didn't know that it was bad meat, but the meat company did; they should have said something. If i did know that the meat was tainted I would also be to blame for Kevin’s death.
Yes, I am responsible. We should always check all the meat for contamination before selling it. I am surprised that the meat companies don't check meat before they sell it, you would think that would be standard
.
No, I am not responsible. I am not responsible because it is not my job to check for meat contamination; my job is to cut the meat. I also did my job perfectly fine, the meat was most likely contaminated before it reached me.
Yes, the federal court judges are very responsible. If the judges would have just shut down the company that kept failing the tests, Kevin would not have died. If their job is to shut down companies that are dangerous, why aren't they?
I think the people who started feeding the cows corn are partly responsible, but they didn't know the consequences. Now that they know the consequences of feeding cows corn they should stop feeding them corn and feed them grass, which will keep them healthy.
This reminds me of people talking/ texting while driving and getting in car accidents. They are just talking on the phone, and the don't mean to cause an accident but they do.
No, it doesn't get them off the hook because they still caused his death. Drunk drivers who kill other people in car accidents still get punished, even though they didn't mean to kill anyone.
You are still responsible for killing someone even if you intended to or not. Even if you didn't mean to kill the person you still did, and you should be punished for it.
I think that the party that caused Kevin’s death should be shut down so they do not make the same mistake again, which they probably will.
I think the mothers statement is very sad because it really is true, industry is more protected than the public. I think that we should be the ones who are protected, not the ones harming us.
The parties responsible for kevin’s death are the meat company, and the establishment in which the tainted meat was purchased, and the people who didn't shut down the plant after it failed health tests repeatedly.
I think that we should be able to assume that our food is safe, and I think that it is the governments job to make sure that it is safe. We should not have to worry that we might get sick or die every time we eat meat.
ethan b. eda period 5 pelfrey
ReplyDeleteThe meat distributing industry should be held responsible for kevin's death. So should the meatpacking industry, but they don't get in trouble for one death! they will get in trouble and believe me, they will get in trouble.
No I am not responsible for kevin's death. How am I supposed to know if it’s contaminated or not? I am not the one who should be doing this.
’ Yes I am responsible for kevin’s death. I should research what I am selling not just sell it fast for an extra buck. would you want a kids blood on your hands? I don't think so.
’ Not at all responsible for kevin’s death. I just cut the carcass I did not poison it with corn.
’ Yes they should be responsible for kevin’s death. If a company fail’s one containment test they should be arrested, fined and sacked.
’yes the should be responsible for kevin’s death. They need to be feeding cows grass not corn! if you feed a cow grass none of this would've happened
’The ozone layer incident with all of the air pollution.
’ The icebergs are melting and the water level is rising
No that does not “get them off the hook.” they need to be put under arrest fined and sacked.
’yes it completely makes me responsible for kevin’s death
’they should go to jail for their crimes
I think that she is entirely right.
i think that other than the salesman and the carcass cutter, everyone is responsible.
’
yes we completely have to assume that are food is safe. the FDA should be in charge of that.
Belen B Period5 Ms. Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the salesperson is responsible because they did not distribute the meat they had nothing to do with Kevin's death.
I believe that there are two people to blame for Kevin's death . The first person or people are the people who raised the cows. They obviously did something wrong to the cows to make it have E Coli. The second person/people are the health inspectors at the slaughterhouse for putting out meat that potentially able to kill someone.
I think the meat distributor is semi responsible because they should have taken more steps to prevent that from happening
I don't believe that the meat cutter person is responsible because they didn't choose the meat they didn't raise the cattle they didn't choose what precautions to take.
If the federal court judges knew that the plant was time after time producing faulty meat that can potentially kill someone and did not do anything about it then yes. But if they didn't know and even if they wanted to couldn't do anything i guess they should not be held responsible.
I do think that the people who started feeding corn to the animals in the first place should be held responsible because if it weren't for them the meat would have never gotten to the plant and it wouldn't contain any E coli.
Of Course it does not get them off the hook if they didn't mean for Kevin to die they still did it and they still caused it because of the way they were running the plant they were irresponsible they deserve to get consequences for their actions.
No matter what if i hit someone with my car i am responsible for it it doesn't matter if you didn't mean to you still did it so you deserve to be punished.
It matters. But something should be done that makes companies more careful about the health of their customers.
I think its sad but true. The companies have so many laws to protect themselves but like nothing to protect us.
There was many companies involved like the meat producer the meat distributor the company who sold the faulty meat and the FDU.I think the Meat packing company and the meat producing companies are the most responsible for Kevin's death.
I don't think our food is 100% safe. If that could happen to kevin it can happen to anybody. I think the Fdu should be responsible for our food to make sure its safe. Thats why it was made so why can't they just do their job?
I believe that the owner of the meat company is responsible for Kevin’s death, because if he/she is the one that is running the company and selling the product then they are responsible for the death of Kevin. The thing is that they know that they can get away with a few deaths from their product because they are the ones that really can tell you if they did something wrong, which gives you no power overall. They lack the protection and equipment that they really need to make sure our food is safe. If we buy their food, then they better make sure it’s safe since we are paying for it.
ReplyDelete’It depends. “Cooking meats thoroughly to at least 160°F or 70C kills the bacteria and prevents infection as well. Using a meat thermometer will most accurately help you determine that the food is thoroughly cooked.” The restaurant needs to make sure that the meat is properly cooked, therefore I am held partially responsible, since the company that sold the meat to me did not rid the meat of E. Coli or other similar bacteria. But if the meat was from my farm, then yes I am responsible.
No, the meat distributor is not responsible for distributing a contaminated product, because the product is to be decontaminated before shipment. Also, if the cook in the restaurant failed to cook the meat at the right temperature, then they could be responsible for the sickness and deaths of the consumers.
No, I am not responsible for Kevin’s death, because I was only cutting the carcass and following the procedures that the company set up for me, so is is the owner’s responsibility to make sure that at all times the meat is decontaminated.
’Yes they should be held partly responsible, because they should have the authority to shut down a company that repeatedly fails contaminant test and repeatedly kills people because of their food. The federal court judges couldn’t even make the company do something about Kevin’s death, they couldn’t even say sorry.
’Yes they should be held partly responsible, even if they didn’t have any idea that all of these horrible things would happen. There is a rule of nature, you never mess with it. The cows weren’t supposed to be eating corn. They always fed off of hay, and because these people fed cows corn since it was cheap, the cows and the corn made what today is now called E.Coli.
Lexi W. EDA #5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteI think that it all starts out with farmers because they are the ones tending the animals that we eat. But I also think it was the FDAs and the USDAs. Agencies may split responsibility for even the same food products. At the USDA, there is a chronic shortage of meat inspectors.
No, because I just work there. I am not the person who makes the meat and distributes it to companies. It would not be my fault because I don't physically make and handle the meat.
No because I just sell it. I do not physically make it and handle it. It would not be my fault because all my job is, is to go and get the meat and sell it, not handling it.
I would say yes, a little, because i could have seen something wrong with the meat and could have spoken up. Also because it is my job to send all the meat away and if there was something wrong with it like an odd color and i sent it away, then it could well be my fault.
Yes. If the meatpacking company continuously fails the contaminant tests , that is very bad and I would think that the government should do whatever they can to shut them down to keep us americans safe. So, the government should be partly held responsible because they didn't do anything about the contaminated meatpacking plant.
Yes because if they never would have started that, then maybe the risks could have been way lower today. Meat companies want to feed cows corn because it makes them fat. If they are fat then that means the companies will get more money because they have more meat on each cow.
I think that the unintended consequence in this situation is all the diseases cows have that they pass on to humans by their meat. I think farmers should feed cows grass because it lowers the risk on e-coli by a ton! The only thing is, is that we would have to have a lot more cows because if we fed them grass a lot, they wouldn't be as fat as if they ate corn all the time. So there would be a lot more cows.
No. They should have been more observant of their meat. They can't be lazy and not do their job. They should be observant and check everything before they send it off.
No. I would take full responsibility. I should have been driving more carefully and paying attention.
I think that they did a very bad thing. so they should be sued or arrested. They were not paying attention and not doing their job right. If they were good at their jobs and caught that there was e- coli in the meat, then Kevin would have never died.
I agree with her. The industry barely got in trouble for what they did. I think the judge of the court was probably on the industry's side more than the mothers.
I think the parties most responsible was the meatpacking industry and the farmers because the farmers are the ones feeding the cows corn. Corn makes the cows have more e-coli in their meat. If they would just feed cows grass, then we wouldn't have such a risk of e-coli because when cows eat grass, they shed off 90% of the e-coli they already had from corn. I think we should just feed cows grass. Farmers like to feed the cows corn so they will have more fat and meat on them and the farmers would make more money.
I don't think we do because of what happened to Kevin. It is scary to think that that could happen to any one of us by just eating a hamburger. I think we all should know what is in our food. I think the meat packing company and the farmers should ensure its safety because they are the ones handling our meat everyday.
Chris O. EDA #5 Orozco Part 2
ReplyDelete’Yes, this reminds me of how people used to smoke back then, and the tobacco companies would try to get as many people on their product as they can, because all they cared about is money, like today. Also, the doctors back then would sponsor the cigarette brands, thinking that cigarettes didn’t hurt people. But now it is obvious that smoking is dangerous and addictive, and it can cause cancer.
’No, they can still be accused of killing a person although it is unintended. Like a car crash, the drunk driver can be accused of killing the passengers, it is called manslaughter. So just because someone created something or didn’t do something correctly and accidentally killed someone, you can still be charged.
’No, you are still responsible for someone even though it was an accident, because you were the one driving the car. Even if you were drunk, that is an automatic charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and manslaughter.
’They should be shut down for the death of a child because they failed to decontaminate their meat. Or they should be sent to prison, or they could be sued for Kevin’s death. Either way, the party has to pay for their actions and mistakes.
’I think that this is true. One death and the industry can’t even say sorry and at least do something fair for them? That is just wrong. The industry is being protected from a death that was caused by their product, and that is not right, they should be charged for their actions.
’ The federal court judges, the meat distributors, the owners of the companies, the salesperson in the restaurant, the people who started feeding cows corn were all identified in our discussion. The federal court judges, the owners of the companies, the salesperson of the restaurant, and the people who started feeding corn to the cows should be responsible for their actions and in Kevin’s death and all the other deaths from the outcomes of their actions.
Yes we do have the right, and the farmers who are feeding the cows should be responsible for ensuring its safety because if they actually feed the cows hay instead of corn, then outbreaks such as E.Coli could be prevented, therefore ensuring our safety.
Lexi W. EDA Period 5 Pelfrey
ReplyDeleteTopic 3 Unintended Consequences
http://pensci.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/do-we-still-need-kevins-law/ by A. Cohen. This article is about Kevin's law and what his mom goes through to try to eliminate e-coli breakouts from happening to other people.
http://akeemscomputer.blogspot.com/2011/04/first-blog-kevins-law-and-food-inc.html by Akeem’s Computer. This article explains what Kevin’s law is and what Kevin went through.
http://www.ecoliblog.com/ by Bill Marler. This article is about e-coli O157:H7 outbreaks, the same case Kevin had.
ReplyDeleteThough it may seem that we don’t always hear about food recalls, there are still plenty out there. When a food is being recalled, it means that the food contains something unhealthy for the public to consume. A two year old boy by the name of Kevin, dies from E. coli (Escherichia coli) 0157:H7 found in cattle manure. I believe the people who should be held accountable for Kevin’s death are the meat-packaging companies because, they know what goes into the meat and what chemicals are used to clean it.
No, because they have no idea what’s being inserted into the product and they are not packaging it. They also don’t prepare the food or cook it. It’s also partially Kevin’s moms fault because, she’s ordering a hamburger that only gets cooked in about 5 minutes which may result into the patty not being properly cooked.
No you are not responsible. You’re not the one who fed the cattle corn and you’re not the one who cleansed it.
Yes, partially because you cleansed the cattle with ammonia and use substances that are usually found in households.
’
The government should have every right to have a say so in this however I don't believe they should have a say so in what we should and should not eat. It’s like the meatpacking companies are slowly taking over the government. The government should be in charge, not the meatpacking companies.
Yes they should be held responsible because cows aren't suppose to eat corn in the first place. Corn is unhealthy for cows to eat, it causes E. coli to build up in the cows gut so therefore the E. coli is then transferred to any type of cow meat.
The people that were responsible for Kevin’s death should not be let off the hook. They caused a death and they should pay the price. Even though they had no intention of him dying they still continue to feed the cows corn and still keep processing them incorrectly.
It doesn't mean that I'm not responsible if the person was more aware of his\her surroundings maybe the accident wouldn't have occurred.
I believe that they should be sentenced to jail for a few years because, either way they killed someone, someone who had so much more life to live.
Chapter 3:Unintended Consequences
ReplyDeleteKevin was only a young, two year old boy who died from E Coli poisoning. There are a lot of people involved in meat packaging, so who out of all these people would be responsible for Kevin’s death? I believe that the slaughterhouses where the cows are before they are slaughtered. These poor animals have nothing to do but stand in their own manure all day long. The companies don't even take the time to clean out the pens the cows stand in. And the companies don't look for a way to change the strategy, they just come up with the most technological way to use the same strategy, but to try and resolve the problem. This hardly works for the companies, but as long as they’re getting their money’s worth, they couldn’t care less.
Say i was a worker in the company, but i sell the finished product in a restaurant. The product however is contaminated with E Coli, would i be responsible? I am not responsible for Kevin's death. although i am in the same company as the meat packing industry, I’m not the one who contaminated the beef with E Coli. I merely sell the food, not prepare it.
Although I was not aware that the meat was contaminated, i am still responsible for the reason i own this meat producing companies, and it is my responsibility to ensure that the product is properly prepared.
I am a worker at the meatpacking industry, and i cut the beef carcass. I am a good worker and follow my commands to letter. Am i at all responsible for the death of this child? No, I am responsible for cutting the carcass, not for making sure that it’s been properly treated before it’s slaughtered.
The people who feed the cow corn should also be responsible for the E coli outbreaks. They know that corn is the feeder of E Coli.There has not been an unintended consequence in my life that i can remember. Just because they were not purposely trying to kill Kevin with E coli does not mean that the meat packing industry is innocent. Their actions are what i would describe as reckless.They should've paid more attention to what they were doing then go on and sell their product anyways.I would feel extremely bad at the fact i had just killed a live person, and it is in every way my responsibility that i killed this person. I had not paid attention to road when he was crossing, and this was the outcome.
I agree with the mom, it’s not fair that meat industry was not shut down or least SUED for this outbreak. Citizens of America have the right to be feed properly cleaned meat, no less. Like i said before, the meat industry in the beginning is the most responsible because they prepare the meat before it’s slaughtered. We should all have the right to know what is in our food, considering the fact that we’re buying it.
Veronica R. Per.1 Carr
ReplyDeleteTopic 3
Kevin was just kid, he dies of E-coli poisoning. I think the FDA company are the ones that are responsible for our food because their the ones who sterilize the meat, that way the E-coli wouldn’t be able to spread.
No, i sell the hamburger from the restaurant, the meatpacking are the ones who suppose to tell us that the meat is not well good, either clean and cut the meat good or don't sell at all.
Well i wasn't aware,but im sure i should of because they should be checked and stamped.Although i wasn't aware that the meat was not contaminated, i am responsible because the meat should be well prepared.
Say that i am a worker as the meat packing industry and my job is to cut the beef carcass.I follow commands and i am responsible but for doing my job. My job is to cut the carcass not for making sure the product is well prepared.
Feeding the cows corn prevent E-coli outbreaks.Their testing may fail but they now that corn is feeder of E-coli.
I agree with the mom,its not right that the industry is not being shut down.The people have the right to have clean and healthy meat.We all have a right to know whats in the meat, aswell we are buying the product.
Mackenzie M.
ReplyDeletePeriod 4 Carr
Topic 3
Unintended Consequences
The responsibility of keeping our food safe is big. The people who are responsible for keeping food safe are the companies who make the food, packaging companies, and even the consumers. Two year old Kevin had found out himself that what you eat is not always safe. Kevin died from E. coli infection 12 days after eating a hamburger with his family while on vacation. Who’s fault was is? I would say the food company. The food company should hold responsibilty for Kevin’s death because they should know what their company is selling and if they are buying the product to sell then they need to be aware of E. coli infection if any. The sales person is not responsible at all if they are not aware of what the boss has bought from other companies to sell, they are just trying to make money. The meat distributor who sold the meat to the resturuant is almost fully responsible because they should check for things like E. coli and make sure their meat is clean and healthy.
The people who deal with the carcass are not really responsible at all because their job isn’t to check for E. coli, they are just in charge of cutting away the carcass and thats it. If a meat packaging plant fails contamination test several times then they need to be shut down they obviously aren’t clean or safe. The government should held partly responsible because they do have the right to shut down the packaging plant and should if the contamination test is failed so many times. The people who feed the cows corn are responsible because if the cows weren’t fed corn then the E. coli in their body’s would just shed off and our meat would be much healthier. Even if the workers didn’t intend for Kevin to die, it does not mean they are off the hook.
If i accendentally hit someone while driving and they died but i didn’t intend to kill them i would still take full responsibility because i would feel so guilty and to even get a drivers liscense means to be a good driver and be safe on the road. A consequence for a particular party to be held responsible for Kevin’s death would probably be to go to jail. When a company runs out of buisness its a big ordeal and when Kevin died, the food company couldn’t even give an apology, when his mom says that the industry is more protected than her son i agree. Parties that might be responsible for Kevin’s death are the ranchers, farmers, consumers, processors, and government agencies. We very much have the right to assume that our food is safe, people that should make sure its safe is the food processors and companies that sell the food to us.
Richard S. EDA#4 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteThe meat distributors and farmers feeding cows corn are the most responsible for Kevin’s
death.
No you are just selling the food you don’t know what is in it even though you really should it is a
little irresponsible.
The meat distributor should know what is in his meat that he is selling
\
No it is the plants fault for having you do what you do not your own.
No they can only do so much the law can do to help.
Yes they should also be feeding them grass to help shed their E coli.
identified all of the parties some as guilty and some had no choice. Some had no clue what was
going on.
Farmers feeding corn are responsible for letting cows with E coli go. And the meat distributors
for selling bad products to the public without any kind of warning
No it doesn’t remind me of anything at all really.
Kevin died because he had burgers that contained E coli.
No they need to make reprimands for their mistakes.
You are responsible but that is the easier to tell who the that is responsible
I think the mom should get her apology and something else for all the grief it caused.
I think that she is right about the industry having large amounts of protection.
Yes because who would want to die because of hamburgers. If so, who do you think should be
responsible
Zane W. EDA#6 Mrs. Carr
ReplyDeleteAmerica Eats Project Group #3:
It’s not a specific person who was responsible for Kevin's death, but an entire group of people. Kevin died from eating a cheeseburger that was made with meat contaminated with e. coli. The excessive amount of runoff from the food making factories infected not only the meat that Kevin had eaten, but many other food sources as well. Such as fruits, vegetables, or anything else in range from the toxic runoff. No, the workers are not responsible for the tragic event. they did not manufacture the meat, all they did was their job and delivered the food as ordered. Yes, the manufacturer is responsible. As the manufacturer it’s their responsibility to make sure that the meat was clean, and safe for shipment. No, it’s not their responsibility either. Even though they work at the plant, they do not fall under the category as people specialized to check the meat. their only job that they were trained for was to cut it. No, the government should not be held responsible. They did their job to the full extent. They did all they could according to the law, and responsibly answered when they stated there was nothing they could later do. I would say so, it was because of their need for an “easier” life that led to all of this. Yes, this reminds me of many parallel situations. Like in the example given in the question “texting an important message in a hurry to a friend may have the unintended consequence of it being misconstrued.” I’ve done this so many times, it isn’t funny. No, it doesn’t get them off the hook. People do stuff they never meant to do all the time. It was their responsibility to make our food then make sure that it’s perfectly safe for us to eat it. It sadly still does mean you’re responsible, you were the one behind the wheel during the accident, it is your fault no matter how sorry you are. Well, it actually depends on the details of the event. It could be your fault as the driver for being distracted and driving wrong, or it could be the victim’s fault for making a dumb move and getting in the way of your car. I would say that the necessary actions be taken to replace everyone in that party with a better, more responsible person for the job. I think what she said sucked. I mean not like what she said about her kid dying, but what she said about how the company was more protected than her son. The companies job was to manufacture food and make sure it was safe before they sent out the food for us to eat. The fact that the people were more concerned about if there company would last over them just killing a young child because of their lack of care is beyond sad, it’s actually scary. the only people responsible are the people who made the meat. it was their job to make sure it was safe, failed, then had to pay the price with a little boys life. We don’t have the right to assume our food is safe, there will always be doubt. I personally believe that the FDA should continue to be left responsible, but we should replace EVERYONE there with people who’ve had a successful background check. Meaning they have proven to be responsible, specialize in the professions needed to fulfill this job in the things it requires to be the best it could be, and that they have had absolutely no relation with any of the food companies at all.
Paige B. EDA period 6 Carr
ReplyDeleteI think that the company that produced the bad product of meat is held responsible for Kevin's death. However if I was the salesperson selling the meat to Kevin’s mom, I would make sure that the date and the sanitary level would be perfect before giving it to her family to consume. In a case like Kevin's there are so many players that have a role.
As a meat distributor it would be my responsibility to make sure that all the product being produced from the company, that is distributed to the restaurants has passed all the safety regulations before being sent out for the consumers digest. Also if I'm a worker then its not my fault for Kevin’s death because I’m listening and following the procedures that the company is providing. I think that if the company has been producing bad meat for a while now why hasn't the government stepped in.The government should have the upper hand in this case. They control most everything so they should be able to shut down a company that has been failing the contamination tests.
The farmers are being subsidized by the government to feed the cows corn so production will move faster. By feeding the cows corn their bodies are not able to fight off all the e-Coli bacteria and other infections.
In this unintended situation with Kevin’s death people need to realize what is in their food that they are eating and how the people need to understand that these situations are not going to stop by itself. People are going to have to take a stand and not let the companies get away with cutting corners in their product.The people should not be off the hook for Kevin’s death but learn from that they have done wrong and improve their regulations and food safety guidelines.
The parties consequences should be to take hold of what they are doing wrong, in this case producing bad meat and take this as a lesson and use it to make sure they never have a outbreak like this again.We as people should not have to assume our food is safe. We should know that our food coming from the companies have past all the safety tests and is to a high standard for the consumers to eat.