Title: Assignment: Case Study 1
Course: FST1000-Grant

A case study has a dilemma to share, and a resolution for you to decide.

Read through the information provided on the Case Study page. From the 2007 outbreak with ConAgra and Peter Pan Peanut Butter there is ConAgra sentence and an article about how much ConAgra Paid. The legal implications of that case were finally settled in 2016. Only two articles, the Whistleblower article and the PCA verdict, are from the Peanut Corporation of America 2008-2009 Salmonella outbreak. There are several pieces of information from the Sunland outbreak in 2012.

All of these companies knew there were problems in their plants. Write a one page, 12 pt Times New Roman font paper that discusses the three companies, their approaches to the outbreaks, and their final sentences. Were the sentences received by the PCA management and owner only justifiable because they lied and covered up? What about the other two companies that knew they had problems and didn't fix them? One assumption that could be made is that they did not fix the problems because the fixes were expensive. Yet in the case of ConAgra, the fix was probably less than the lawsuit. Even with insurance paying for a portion of it. To what extent should upper management be culpable in these types of cases?

There is no right opinion here. You should focus on facts, and back up your decision with a reasoned argument. You can email your paper to me or upload it to CANVAS.