Checkout alert system for recalled foods sought

[ColbertWatcher]

From the Los Angeles Times
SUPERMARKETS
Checkout alert system for recalled foods sought
Consumer advocates say supermarket scanners should be programmed to trigger an alert when shoppers try to buy a recalled product. Some chains already are doing this.
By Marc Lifsher
March 16, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento — With more food recalls happening weekly, consumer advocates, supermarket chains and legislators are exploring better ways to stop the sale of tainted food, and one plan under discussion by lawmakers in Sacramento involves using supermarket checkout scanners to help.

Programming supermarket computers to trigger an alert every time a recalled product is scanned at the checkout counter could be an easy way to better protect shoppers from buying and eating tainted foods, consumer groups say.

A system of automatic warnings, they say, would help ensure that food, such as the more than 2,600 recently recalled brands of ice cream, cake mixes, snacks and other items possibly laced with salmonella bacteria, are stopped at the point of purchase.

"Once an item has made it out of the plant, off the truck and onto the shelves and is recalled, it is unreasonable to think an individual stocker can go through every shelf and identify every item that could pose a threat," state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) said. "Grocers have the tools at their disposal to give consumers the final line of defense they need and expect."

(more at the link)

--Los Angeles Times

Is this a good idea? Or, is this just another way to allow corporations to "police themselves?"

I think parts of the plan/idea are good, but in my mind it does not replace the FDA inspectors and government oversight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Helps removes items that fall through the cracks.

"Or, is this just another way to allow corporations to "police themselves?""

Huh? That doesn't even make any sense.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Oh, I was taking the idea to an extreme.

At one point there will be another GOPer in the White House. I was trying to figure out how a GOPer would "use" this system to benefit corporations.

What I meant by it is corporations will say they are not liable for death, sicknesses, etc because the system was in place and the store is responsible.

Or something like that. I can totally see corporations saying the FDA is no longer needed because of this system.

[DJ13]

2. That system should include expired dates as well

[ColbertWatcher]

4. That would be a good idea too. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

6. You'd have to make a separate barcode with an expiration date

and make sure the scanner picked up both of them. Think of how many items that the scanner "blinks" on, even with a highly experience checker, and you can see that this might not be practical.

What's wrong with checking the dates yourself, rather than depending on the accuracy of the barcode printer? Frankly, the idea that stores would depend on this to deal with recalls, rather than clearing off shelves, bothers me somewhat.

[CrispyQ]

5. The local King Soopers handled it a different way.

They printed all the recalled peanut products on the bottom of the receipt, creating a monstrously long receipt! They included a message that stated that if you had purchased any of these products you could go to the customer service desk & get a refund. WTF??? If they can print the product codes on the bottom of the receipt, they could just as easily coded an alert, so the customer could remove the product before purchasing it. Arghh!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Igel]

7. Whether I think it's a good plan depends on the details.

It's one thing for Kroeger to do it. They have a very large, sophisticated POS system with, no doubt, a fair amount of interoperability between their different operations.

They fix it in their software, they update their database, it's done not for one store, or even a few hundred stores, but for all their stores. Their cost is more in absolute terms, but when spread out over the number of stores it drops to very low levels.

Then I consider the local store where they have a poorly maintained database because the local store is all there is in the "chain", or there's a small operation with 2-3 stores. They have a much smaller cost to implement this, but it gets spread out over far, far fewer stores. It costs them more. It makes them less competitive.

Granted, large stores are likely to like it. Large companies like all kinds of things that are harder for small companies; international companies like having the US covert to standards or procedures used in other countries because they *already* had to do it, so the change both saves them money *and* costs their purely domestic competitors beaucoup de bills.