The company would have to bear the cost of retrieving and destroying all the products, legal and professional fees and increased market price. It was really difficult to reach out to all the outlets and remove all the suspected products (Walker and Fleming, 223).Ĭost of recall: The cost of a probable recall could be overwhelming.
Varied range of products to be recalled: The recall was to involve 13 products which accounted for 70 percent of Odwalla’s sale. Criteria in arguments that could have gone against the recall Those arguments contained factors like cost, corporate image and public relations, corporate values etc.
We are working in full cooperation with the FDA and the Seattle/King County Department of Public Health” (FSnet, 1).Īs a recall is not a simple task to do and a lot of factors related to it some of which could cause a set back to the company, arguments were placed for and against the recall. The public statement through which the recall was ordered read, “ Odwalla Inc., the California – based fresh beverage company, issued today a national product recall of fresh apple juice and all products containing fresh apple juice as an ingredient … our first concern is for the health and safety of those affected. Though there was no bacteriological proof at the beginning they did not want the infection to spread further in case there was really something found in the product. coli outbreak which made several people ill and took the life of a 16 month old toddler and was supposed to result from consumption of a batch of fresh apple juice and juice related products marketed by them. was really concerned regarding the incident of E. Arguments for and against a public recall Therefore the degree of responsibility which comes on their shoulders for causing such a disaster is very less (Reiss and Kunz, 680-684). They had pure intentions and took all the burden of a public recall to avoid further damage to any one else’s health. It was no doubt unfortunate and grievous for what happened to people who just wanted to have healthy juice based beverages, but Odwalla Inc. coli strain, O157:H7 also played a large role in that outbreak by mutating itself to an acid tolerant variety and surviving in the low pH of the apple juice (O’Rourke, 112). So it is largely because of the suppliers who should be held responsible for that calamity rather than Odwalla Inc. Those apples probably were ground apples accidentally coming in contact with the fecal contamination of cow, sheep or deer. coli contamination occurred, primarily because of the batch of apples supplied to them. In spite of all these extreme precautions E. coli is not supposed to survive in such an acidic condition (Grant, 89). Above all apple juice is acidic in nature having a pH of 4.3. They never accepted ground apples which might have come to the contact of E. coli contamination in unpasteurized fruit juices, but Odwalla took a lot of necessary precautions in the processing method in their plant in Dinuba. As they aimed at providing good healthy beverages to the customers, they could not afford the nutritional loss during pasteurization. They were absolutely right in their thinking. They believed that the slow heat killing of pathogens in the juice based beverages not only altered the taste of the product but destroyed most of its nutrients and vitamins in the process though increasing its shelf life.
produced unpasteurized fresh fruit and vegetable juices. Learn More Degrees of responsibility to Odwalla