Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 24, 1993 TAG: 9310300261
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Sandra Brown Kelly
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
When he swiped into a half-full jar of month-old mayonnaise, he found a condom.
He removed the condom, spread it on a sheet of paper to see if it really was what he thought it was and put it back in the jar.
Those are the kinds of details included in a final report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration office in Atlanta on Case #BLT-6391.
The report even notes that employees at the plant where the salad dressing was made had a two-hour Christmas dinner the night the jar in question was filled.
To get that information, the Roanoke Times & World-News had to file a Freedom of Information Act request and spend $10 for a copy of the records. They read like a soap opera plot and reassure that any claim of product tampering is taken very, very seriously.
So you want to know who did it?
Don't know. The report deals in opportunities, possibilities and probabilities.
Here is a recap of what happened when the Bedford-area man's wife reported his find to the Roanoke office of the State Department of Agriculture:
An investigator from the Roanoke office interviewed the family with the ``suspect'' jar and learned that the mayonnaise had been purchased at a Winn- Dixie supermarket in Vinton. No one could remember if the tamper-evident seal was on the jar when it was purchased. The mayonnaise had been used at a couple of family cookouts. The family did not think any acquaintance would have put the item in the jar as a joke, the husband and wife did not use condoms, and no one could determine if anyone had used THE condom.
The report also pointed out that the wife, when interviewed, exhibited ``deceptive behavior characteristics'' such as ``appearing nervous'' and avoiding ``eye contact.'' Both husband and wife agreed to polygraph tests.
In addition to questioning family members, including the wife's mother, who was suspected of having informed the news media, state investigators also picked up a few more jars of mayonnaise at the grocery store for testing. Although the jars weren't from the same batch as the ``suspect'' jar, inspectors eyed them, saw no foreign objects and went no further.
While the state was doing its work, the manufacturer, Kraft General Foods, got the jar from the family, who had notified the company at the time it called the state. Kraft subsequently decided not to test the jar, but offered to give it to FDA to test.
FDA declined, because ``the chain of custody'' had been broken. Kraft said it would hold the sample until July 1994.
Kraft also said it did not have a formal complaint procedure at the plant and that all complaints were received at the company headquartered in Glenview, Ill. The company concluded that the product had not been tampered with at its plant.
FDA concluded that tampering could have happened at the plant, but probably didn't.
The case ended up in FDA's Atlanta office because the plant was in Decatur, Ga. By the time the FDA visited the facility, it no longer made mayonnaise. However, the report contains a lengthy description of how the product was made, bottled and sealed.
FDA said there were ``several ways that the condom could have entered the product at the plant.'' There was a ``large opening'' in the filler machine hopper. Also, it was possible that a condom could have been dropped through one of the four holes in the filler heads; but, FDA concluded, a condom dropped in the mix prior to filling probably would have been torn up in the process.
FDA said the company inspected its plant June 17 after getting the complaint. Its report listed names of employees and said the mayonnaise operation had been interrupted for 95 minutes during first shift for broken machinery and 30 minutes because the line ran out of product.
On the second shift, there was a 15-minute down period when oil tanks were changed and another 75 minutes of down time because of a label problem. There also was the two-hour company Christmas dinner.
It may seem strange to have collected some of the details, but when faced with a tampering claim, investigators look for who had the opportunity to tamper, who might have wanted to tamper for money or just to embarrass a company, a grocery chain or even a family, in this instance.
FDA pointed out that there had been ``no similar complaints'' that would indicate that there was ``employee sabotage because of unhappiness at the plant closing.'' (In fact, the FDA could not remember ever having a similar complaint involving any product or company.)
The plant quit making mayonnaise in June, and halted all manufacturing in mid-August. The plant closed two weeks after the FDA visit, which is why FDA didn't really see the operation.
The ``suspect'' jar of mayonnaise moved down the production line Dec. 15, ``several months before the closing of the plant was announced to employees,'' the report stated.
Case closed. Questions unanswered: Who put the condom in the mayonnaise? Who called the newspaper? What kind of sandwich was the man making?
One thing we do know is that there was considerable effort to get answers. That's comforting.
Sandra Brown Kelly covers retailing and consumer-related issues for the Roanoke Times & World-News.
by CNB