Reading 8.10
Discussion Question (p.524)
Question:
1.In 1993, Jack-in-the-Box adopted tougher standards for its meat suppliers than those required by the federal government so that suppliers test more frequently for E. coli. Could Jack-in-the-Box have done more before the outbreak occurred?
2.The link between cooking to a 155-degree internal temperature and the destruction of E. coli bacteria had been publicly known for five years at the time of the outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tests showed Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers were cooked to 120 degrees. Should Jack-in-the-Box have increased cooking temperatures voluntarily and sooner?
3.What does the misplacement of the state health department notices on cooking temperature …show more content…
What similarities do you see between Buckyballs and energy drinks? What differences?
2. What voluntary solutions could the energy drink makers undertake? Why would they want to undertake voluntary disclosures? Who wouldn’t they want to?
Answer:
1. I don’t think it is possible that these energy drinks could be banned this is saying that if it is possible to ban alcohol, which is impossible. The similarities from the Buckyball an energy drinks is that it is all from personal responsiblity. The consumer is responsible for how much they should intake or what they intake it with. The difference is that Buckyball was not intended for ingesting but the energy drinks were. Thus, the energy drinks possess more risks than the Buckyball.
2. A voluntary disclosure the energy drink company could make is to implement warnings on their ad telling people not to take alcohol while drinking energy drink and show the risks and warnings from it.
Reading 8.13
Discussion Question (p.528)
Question:
1.Why is there responsibility for drug distribution when there is not direct …show more content…
It’s possible.”
• “Not my place. Other people watch for this stuff.”
• “If I say something, they’ll get someone else, and I’m unemployed.”
3. What should the companies have done to encourage the employees to raise their concerns?
Answer:
1. The drug distributions where held responsible because in the case, it stated that “corporations responsible because of the lack of on-site presence and the failure to follow the numbers for sales and distribution at the pharmacies. The revocation of a license is a punitive action but does not indicate that a crime has been committed. Managers and corporations can be held liable for the actions of employees through their knowledge of those activities or because they failed to become informed of the operations. They can also be held liable if they are warned about an issue and fail to take appropriate action to stop the violations, action that includes internal controls that monitors the level of oxycodone distribution at their pharmacies. The failure to follow due diligence standards is the basis for the DEA license
Discussion Question (p.524)
Question:
1.In 1993, Jack-in-the-Box adopted tougher standards for its meat suppliers than those required by the federal government so that suppliers test more frequently for E. coli. Could Jack-in-the-Box have done more before the outbreak occurred?
2.The link between cooking to a 155-degree internal temperature and the destruction of E. coli bacteria had been publicly known for five years at the time of the outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tests showed Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers were cooked to 120 degrees. Should Jack-in-the-Box have increased cooking temperatures voluntarily and sooner?
3.What does the misplacement of the state health department notices on cooking temperature …show more content…
What similarities do you see between Buckyballs and energy drinks? What differences?
2. What voluntary solutions could the energy drink makers undertake? Why would they want to undertake voluntary disclosures? Who wouldn’t they want to?
Answer:
1. I don’t think it is possible that these energy drinks could be banned this is saying that if it is possible to ban alcohol, which is impossible. The similarities from the Buckyball an energy drinks is that it is all from personal responsiblity. The consumer is responsible for how much they should intake or what they intake it with. The difference is that Buckyball was not intended for ingesting but the energy drinks were. Thus, the energy drinks possess more risks than the Buckyball.
2. A voluntary disclosure the energy drink company could make is to implement warnings on their ad telling people not to take alcohol while drinking energy drink and show the risks and warnings from it.
Reading 8.13
Discussion Question (p.528)
Question:
1.Why is there responsibility for drug distribution when there is not direct …show more content…
It’s possible.”
• “Not my place. Other people watch for this stuff.”
• “If I say something, they’ll get someone else, and I’m unemployed.”
3. What should the companies have done to encourage the employees to raise their concerns?
Answer:
1. The drug distributions where held responsible because in the case, it stated that “corporations responsible because of the lack of on-site presence and the failure to follow the numbers for sales and distribution at the pharmacies. The revocation of a license is a punitive action but does not indicate that a crime has been committed. Managers and corporations can be held liable for the actions of employees through their knowledge of those activities or because they failed to become informed of the operations. They can also be held liable if they are warned about an issue and fail to take appropriate action to stop the violations, action that includes internal controls that monitors the level of oxycodone distribution at their pharmacies. The failure to follow due diligence standards is the basis for the DEA license