Thanks for sharing this story.

This is a change from the usual and loud bickering heard from critics and skeptics lamenting about regulators being in the lap of corporations and their interests.

As refreshing as this story may be to the same ole same ole, the backdrop to situations like these, which essentially attempt to buck the trend of more stringent regulatory practices, is an eye-opener and ought to involve more public consideration and awareness.

Specifically, on the points about the burden on regulators to not only be able to govern and administrate more stringent regulations/restrictions, and more importantly, whether they have the adequate funding in place to handle an outbreak situation without bankrupting the department or agency.

With this story, requirements escalate a need to fund agencies in order to protect themselves against rogue corporate and private interests.

Within the context of reputational optics and causal-consequential overtones, I question whether a company already hand-slapped for food contamination issues might be throwing their reputation to the wind by contesting regulators restrictions, especially if a future issue and/or outbreak overwhelms a community or state’s ability to respond before it becomes a threat to public health.

On thing is for certain. In a hypothetical situation where a salmonella outbreak links back to a company with not only a violation history, but one revealing attempts to oversteer or bypass regulators restrictions by way of litigation, any boisterous sideline cheering heard now by would quickly be substituted by a deafening silence and scatter.

@RepuTrack