Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

marlerblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 283 posts

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#71

Post by the_bear »

Aurornis wrote: post #27
cube00 wrote: post #9

It's next level for a family owned company act like they have stock holders to please by cutting corners rather then doing the right thing.

> family owned company act like they have stock holders A family owned company does have shareholders. The shareholders are the people who own the company. There’s nothing all that special about a family owned business in this regard, even though they want you to believe it’s completely different. Family owned is a loose term anyway. Large companies are large companies.

Companies can prioritize things other that money if the shareholders all agree. The more shareholders a company has, the harder it is for them all to agree on anything aside from "we want more money". Family-owned business often (but not always) have a small number of shareholders, so it's easier for them to have shared values.

For example, my brother and I co-own a smallish (~$5 million/year revenue) software business. We do care about money to some extent, but we regularly agree to do things that work against shareholder value because we also care about things other than money. With two people, it's easy for our values to be aligned on those other things.

With dozens or more shareholders, that's basically impossible. A publicly traded company couldn't realistically be like "hey shareholders, can we agree that we care a lot about this niche local political issue in the town the company was founded?" The more shareholders you have, the more the only commonality between them is "we want more money".

There are many family-owned businesses that are only in it for the money, but "family-owned" can be a proxy for "not very many shareholders" which at least opens the door for the company to have non-financial priorities.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#72

Post by saghm »

ecshafer wrote: post #64
Miner49er wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.

Good. Restaurants are hectic to work in. Menus can change quickly, and many dishes are being cooked and prepped at once. Cross contamination chances are high, so if a restaurant MUST say an allergen is not in X,Y,Z they basically can't have it in their restaurant at all.

Alternately, they could truthfully state what allergens are in literally all of their foods, and then people who are allergic to them can safely avoid them, which is what you're expecting them to do now except without actually saying which allergens they are.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#73

Post by usernomdeguerre »

cube00 wrote: post #9

It's next level for a family owned company act like they have stock holders to please by cutting corners rather then doing the right thing.

Family or not, when these are the executives you hire for over a decade it shouldn't surprise anyone that events like this occur: https://www.ksbw.com/article/taylor-farms-tennessee-ex-presi...

>Brian Thure served as president of Taylor Farms Tennessee from about 2012 until March 2026 and allegedly used his authority over finances, payroll, vendors and accounting to divert company money for personal benefit. >Taylor Farms claims the alleged fraud came to light during an IRS audit

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#74

Post by saghm »

dyauspitr wrote: post #15
sharps_xp wrote: post #6

I went to restaurant last night and asked where the chicken was sourced from and their response was "it's not the usual place we get chicken, but it's US Farm Raised Hatched", but I misinterpreted the her answer as a distributor name but then I realized even if I had a name, I probably couldn't figure out past that whether or not these chickens were pasture raised. If food labels are law, why doesn't this apply to wh…

Seems like more bureaucracy that would make it even harder for new restaurants to get set up and the paperwork they would have to maintain in order to provide that information.

If we can't figure out a way as a society to honestly tell people what food is being sold in restaurants, maybe we shouldn't be starting new restaurants until we figure that out.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#75

Post by pricechild »

ecshafer wrote: post #64
Miner49er wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.

Good. Restaurants are hectic to work in. Menus can change quickly, and many dishes are being cooked and prepped at once. Cross contamination chances are high, so if a restaurant MUST say an allergen is not in X,Y,Z they basically can't have it in their restaurant at all.

They manage here in the UK.

When entering, "any allergens or intolerances" is normally asked before you're sat down. They distinguish the two to decide whether a station clean is required or if they can just point you to the menu.

If it's not already clear on the menu, most medium/large chains then hand you a tablet letting you filter by almost anything.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#76

Post by tokioyoyo »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #60
Miner49er wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.

It's crazy how nothing has been done in the US about this. I got an egg allergy in my late 20s, I had never thought about it before and now eating at restaurants is such a hassle. Even the delivery apps seem to have zero affordances for food allergies, at least with a restaurant you can get some assurance by asking the staff.

I’m very sorry to hear that, but I don’t think restaurants have to be forced to deal with that. The only thing I could support is “if revenue >X then allergen disclosure is mandatory”. I know personally multiple little shops that had to refuse customers, because that’s extra hassle and responsibility that they can’t afford to deal with.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#78

Post by wil421 »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #60
Miner49er wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.

It's crazy how nothing has been done in the US about this. I got an egg allergy in my late 20s, I had never thought about it before and now eating at restaurants is such a hassle. Even the delivery apps seem to have zero affordances for food allergies, at least with a restaurant you can get some assurance by asking the staff.

The places I worked over 15 years ago had extensive lists of allergens. They were mostly chain or corporate, I think the mom and pop places did a little guessing. I wouldn’t trust them.

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#79

Post by saghm »

jmole wrote: post #31
ajmurmann wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how high the ongoing implementation cost of that would be and how that would affect choice between small, specialized and large, integrated suppliers. Sysco can probably hand me a single sheet I can use without any extra work.

I think if you watch video of a massive meatpacking plant, you'll pretty quickly realize how hard it would be to track. At the commodity scale, basically no one in the supply chain other than the rancher seems to care where the meat comes from. And the brands (Tyson, Smithfield, etc.) only want consumers to care about the logo on the box. Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.

So you're saying that this type of regulation would force the food industry to start caring about whether their food comes from? That sounds like an argument in favor of it, not against it

Re: Taylor Farms has rewritten its cyclospora statement four times in sixteen days

#80

Post by forlorn_mammoth »

jmole wrote: post #31
ajmurmann wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how high the ongoing implementation cost of that would be and how that would affect choice between small, specialized and large, integrated suppliers. Sysco can probably hand me a single sheet I can use without any extra work.

I think if you watch video of a massive meatpacking plant, you'll pretty quickly realize how hard it would be to track. At the commodity scale, basically no one in the supply chain other than the rancher seems to care where the meat comes from. And the brands (Tyson, Smithfield, etc.) only want consumers to care about the logo on the box. Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.

also the canonical example of a commodity. Basically the claim that all units are fully fungible.
Post reply on HN