Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I usually am inclined to impugn the motives of big
> companies, too. But what if they didn't pull it?

Then there would be big lawsuits and millions of $$$ lost as I stated.


> You' be screaming bloody murder because they were
> "putting profits ahead of people." Your
> explanation makes no sense in this case; here, the
> right thing to do is pull the . . . for both the
> companies AND the people.
>

IF they didn't pull it and knew about it everyone probably would be hollering.

My statement was true in regards to laura's question:
laura's

Quote

if the risk is so small, then why are tesco, waitrose, aldi, morrisons,lidls, sainsburys iceland, safeway and mcdonalds frantically trying to tak eht estuff off the shelves and offering full refunds to people who have bought them?

my

Quote

Because a few thousand dollars in inconvience is far better than a few million $$$ in lawsuits. Priorities of big companies!

The time and hassle of taking the questionable product off the market shelves and refunding the purchase price to the customer,or exchanging the product, is far better than having to go to court over multiple lawsuits wasting millions of dollars of money in court cost, lawyer's fees, and pay out to those affected by the product in question.

Doing the right thing is what was done here but the right reasons for the action is what is questionable. It is unlikely a company will pull a questionable product without concrete prof it causes harm and even then they very well might prolong it as long as possible to squeeze every last penny from it's sale.

I wasn't stating about the motives only the reasons for the action taken.

Hope this clears things up!

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb