This story goes back about a month ago, and according to a Scripps Media article (September 19, 2014) entitled: “3 found guilty in Georgia salmonella trial involving a Georgia peanut butter plant,” we get the results of a seven-week trial that took place in Albany, Georgia.
The case is a “first” of sorts. The article explains that this case, “…marked the first time corporate executives and plant workers were tried in a food poisoning case.”
You may recall the case from a couple of years ago, where consumers were stricken (some died) with salmonella poisoning after eating tainted peanut butter. Indeed it was reported that 714 people in 46 states were infected and nine people died — three in Minnesota, two in Ohio, two in Virginia, one in Idaho and one in North Carolina. The case also resulted in nationwide peanut butter recalls and obviously, tens of millions of dollars of lost inventory.
According to the article:
“Former Peanut Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell was convicted on numerous counts including conspiracy, wire fraud and obstruction of justice related to shipping tainted peanut butter to customers and faking results of lab tests intended to screen for salmonella. His brother, Michael Parnell, was also found guilty on multiple charges related to the false lab results, but was acquitted of actually shipping salmonella-tainted food…the jury also found Mary Wilkerson, the plant’s quality assurance manager, guilty of obstruction of justice for hiding information about the plant’s salmonella problems from investigator. But Wilkerson was acquitted on one of two obstruction counts she faced.”
The company had apparently shipped tainted peanuts and peanut butter for above five years. They covered up laboratory tests that had shown salmonella was in the products. When federal inspectors looked at the plant, they “also found roof leaks, evidence of bugs and rodents, and a peanut roaster that workers failed to ensure was heated to the proper temperature to kill salmonella. Investigators say they also uncovered a system the plant used to fake microbiological test results required by customers so the company could conceal positive lab tests for salmonella contamination.”
The Back Story
The Peanut Corporation of America was in trouble. A prime supplier of peanut paste to companies such as Kellogg’s, they felt compelled to ship out any and every batch of product to stay ahead of foreclosure. It made no difference if the product was contaminated or not.
The officers of the company knew they were shipping tainted product and several people within the organization were aware of the problem. Apparently the management was confronted by two plant managers, and management’s response was that they should “just ship it,” and that they couldn’t afford to stop shipping. The need of the company to stay ahead of the bill collector ultimately caused the deaths of nine people. The dead paid the price for a company’s greed.
The company had choices, of course, and instead chose bad ethical practices of a criminal nature rather than to address the problem and the truth.
What is “fascinating” about this case to me, is the behavior of Mary Wilkerson, the plant’s quality assurance manager. She is an interesting study in that of all of the people in this scandal who could have done something, she made the decision to keep silent and fake the results.
The Pressures and the Results
I don’t presume to know Mary Wilkerson’s heart. As the person in charge of quality assurance, she knew what the tests said and she participated in the cover up. Mary was the gatekeeper; she bridged the gap between the consumer of the product and the greed of the company. She chose the company.
We have all known people like Mary. They often devote their career – or a large chunk of it – to a single company and to its management. They are loyal to the extreme. They confuse the duties of their jobs with what is right and wrong. I suppose, they are noble in that loyalty but they come to believe that siding with the company will ultimately pay off in some kind of a reward.
There have been many cases of employees such as Mary who will take the stand in a court of law and participate in an attempted cover up. They become more attached to the organization than to the truth.
There is an ethical gap in cases such as this, where certain employees feel their ethical responsibilities side with the company. The ethical responsibility ultimately rests with the truth and in doing the right thing.
Mary will probably see jail time for her willingness to protect her company ahead of the health and welfare of the public. She provides a good lesson for all of us; side with what is right. Take an ethical stand.
