Nestle Withholds Information from FDA
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 395
Recently released inspection reports from a Nestle USA cookie dough factory show that the company repeatedly withheld information from Food and Drug Administration inspectors USAToday.com.
The inspection records were made public after Nestle’s Toll House refrigerated, prepackaged cookie dough was pinpointed as the likely source of an E. coli outbreak. There have been 69 people in 29 states have been sickened by the outbreak.
Nestle has voluntarily recalled all refrigerated cookie dough products produced at a Danville, Va. factory and warned consumers not to eat raw Toll House cookie dough.
According to the inspection reports, the FDA was refused access to certain documents in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
A February 2007 inspection found several health and safety violations at the Danville plant, including improper storage of equipment, leaks, and a hole in a steam line. When the FDA returned in December 2007 to follow up on the violations found in February of that year, the inspectors were denied the right to take photographs, and denied the right to review production records or complaint files.
In 2006 the FDA investigators were also not allowed to take photographs or review a complaint log, pest-control records, or information pertaining to an environmental testing program. The 2006 inspections found insects in the manufacturing area, dirty equipment being stored as clean, and more leaks.
This seems to be similar to the problem consumers were having recently with contaminated peanut butter and pot pies. Texas law allows a consumer to sue the manufacturer and/or seller of a product when the product is harmful. A few of the theories a consumer can pursue against a manufacturer or seller include suing for strict liability, breach of warranty, or deceptive trade practices.
Any person who suffers physical harm as the result of ingesting a food or beverage product that contains a foreign object or is otherwise contaminated may be able to recover money damages. The consumer does not have to prove that the defendants failed to take every precaution available, nor does the consumer have to prove that he had a contractual relationship with the defendants.