CELIAC Archives

Celiac/Coeliac Wheat/Gluten-Free List

CELIAC@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:37:17 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

At 11:59 AM 3/2/1999 -0500, Annette C. Bentley wrote:
>> Ener-G Foods posted the following formal answer to the botulism question on
>> their site this evening. I am sending it along since there seems to have
>> been so much concern about the botulism issue. I'm not involved with the
>> company in any way other than as a customer.
>> -vance
>>
>> To our Canadian and U.S. Customers:
>>
>>                 Many of you have heard by now that the Canadian Food
>> Inspection Agency ("CFIA") has recalled all of our White Rice Loaf,
>> Yeast-free Brown Rice Loaf, High-Fibre Loaf, Potato Loaf, Raisin Loaf,
>> Raisin Loaf without eggs, Tapioca Loaf, Brown Rice Loaf and Yeast-free
>> White Rice Loaf in Canada because it is concerned that the products may
>> not have been baked to sufficiently high temperatures to
>> kill any bacteria responsible for
(cropped here)

>The above posting was submitted after a shocking posting was placed
>regarding Ener-G Foods, Inc. products.
>
>This should show all who post to be more caution in their efforts to
>inform and alert those on the system. Celiacs have enough problem much
>less be have to worry needlessly. Ener-G Foods, Inc. have been totally
>supportive of the Celiac community and the needs of people on special
>diets. I must say, that I have gotten calls from the owners of the
>company when even the smallest ingredient was in doubt.  We don't get
>this type of service from large portion of the manifactors out there.
>Lets use the service provided by St. Johns in a cautious and inform
>manner.

Personally, I'm quite pleased that the original poster called this to our
attention so we could get a definitive answer. The original post was not
alarmist at all, it was straight off the Canadian governments website, as
authoritative a source as you could find. The matter was resolved quite
quickly, and I now feel better that people are watching out for us. After
speaking to Ener-G, I'm convinced that they were pleased to have the
opportunity to answer this question directly, and would not have wanted it
hushed up. There was an "appearance" of a real problem there. So please,
whoever posted the original, keep on helping me to stay informed. Thank you
for the posting, and again, thanks to Ener-G for their prompt solution and
reply. Yeah, I like 'em too :) Don't know what I'd do without their bread.
-vance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2