this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1710 readers
18 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave
RaoulDuke
28
Chelsea Sugar fined over 2021 lead contamination (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Dave to c/newzealand
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Chelsea Sugar (also known as the New Zealand Sugar Company) has been fined $149,500 for importing and selling sugar products tainted with lead.

More than 970 tonnes of products were manufactured from sugar contaminated during sea transportation from Australia, resulting in the company recalling thousands of products in late 2021.

Two more recalls were needed when it was revealed incorrect information was provided to supermarkets resulting in more tainted goods being released to consumers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dave 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My argument was "we don't know the detail so let's give some benefit of the doubt". But I missed that part, if they knew they shouldn't and did it anyway then $150k does not seem big enough.

[–] eagleeyedtiger 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm no expert on bulk shipping, but I suspect it's a case of trying to save time and money on finding another ship that was suitable. Putting their bottom line before safety. I wonder if the fine is actually even bigger than the costs and delays of them finding a new suitable ship.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It could be a case of the planned ship broke down and they needed an alternative. If they swapped to a different ship and it turned out it was contaminated, that's one thing. But being told it's not suitable and using anyway is a whole nother level.

Edit: or did it mean they were told it's not suitable, then they had it cleaned and the cleanliness report said it was fine but it actually wasn't? That's different again.

[–] eagleeyedtiger 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not sure, the wording isn't so clear. But still, they knew it was carrying "metal sulphide concentrates (zinc and lead)" on it's previous voyage. A quick google says: "Metal sulfide concentrate is a refined ore that contains high concentrations of valuable metals and has had impurities removed."

Is it really suitable to risk cleaning it then transporting consumable food items in it? Especially one that was carrying lead of all things? As the Food safety deputy director general said:

"New Zealand Sugar Company knew what its responsibilities were to consumers - ensuring the safety and suitability of its products and managing any potential risk to consumers," Arbuckle said.

Also the fact they didn't even detect the extent of the lead contamination until after it had already been used in production.

Samples were taken between 15 and 24 September for testing, but Chelsea Sugar followed its normal process for distribution and sale.

"The test result on 7 October showed high readings of lead contamination, but rather than take immediate action and stop production and distribution, they instead sought more testing which confirmed the same result," Arbuckle said.

"Some of this product was sold between October and early November. We were not informed of the lead contamination until 3 November, which is unacceptable.

I'm not saying they should be made bankrupt, but it should probably have more impact than "the cost of doing business"

[–] Dave 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, ignoring we know they did bad:

Is it really suitable to risk cleaning it then transporting consumable food items in it? Especially one that was carrying lead of all things?

I am not an expert. I could not tell you whether the triple rub and dub scrub (or whatever) routine is the industry standard procedure, I guess that's for MPI to determine. So I try not to judge based on how it sounds.

Also the fact they didn’t even detect the extent of the lead contamination until after it had already been used in production.

Again, I'm not an expert. Is the standard process that they do a test for every bag? Every sack? Once for the boat? Is lead testing even a standard test for sugar? If they followed an industry standard process, and that process failed, then that's an MPI problem. In this case it sounds like they did not, but I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not saying they should be made bankrupt, but it should probably have more impact than “the cost of doing business”

Yeah, I don't think I took in the article the first time I read it. This seems like there was a clear violation of what they should be doing, and that's why MPI brought charges. $150k seems very low. I bet the MPI staff time to bring about the charges cost significantly more than that.

[–] eagleeyedtiger 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It seems neither of us know enough about the industry to speculate, but logically speaking, if they had followed the correct MPI processes and the process itself was at fault a fine wouldn't have been levied against them in the first place.

Like the food safety guy said; they had a responsibility to manage any potential risks to consumers. It's not like they are a new inexperienced business, they've been in the same business for over 100 years. This did happen almost four years ago, I'm fairly confident that they've made enough profit in that time to easily pay this fine without breaking a sweat.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 week ago

if they had followed the correct MPI processes and the process itself was at fault a fine wouldn’t have been levied against them in the first place.

While true, if the incident was avoidable but understandable (e.g. some human error thing while following an MPI process), then they might only get a small fine. There might be reasons for the fine being small, it would be nice if they explained them in more details (like fine of $5m, 20% discount for no issues in previous 10 years, 20% discount for taking active steps to prevent the issue again, etc).

Like the food safety guy said; they had a responsibility to manage any potential risks to consumers. It’s not like they are a new inexperienced business, they’ve been in the same business for over 100 years. This did happen almost four years ago, I’m fairly confident that they’ve made enough profit in that time to easily pay this fine without breaking a sweat.

Yeah, my benefit of the doubt status is out the window now based on the stuff you've pointed out. It would be nice to know how they came up with that figure.