@PacificNic @hannu_ikonen And the pattern you see in a lot of these articles is that the recall gets triggered on inspection. In a lot of cases, these inspections are quarterly. We also don't know how many inspections are conducted with the thoroughness necessary to catch these sort of things. All it takes is an inspector deciding to bag it for the day rather than dig through logbooks and go "Why are there not pasteurization records for March 14-Apri 27th?"

@PacificNic @hannu_ikonen Basically, what you realize from reading the recall reports is that the producers simple DNGAF. They'll have their logging system go down and ignore it. Maybe they'll call a repairman to fix the issue, but in the meantime, they keep shipping out product.

@PacificNic @hannu_ikonen The fines for this sort of thing must be minuscule, because believe me, the producers know this is happening. They're either ignoring the temperature/hold logs completely on not consulting them daily. If they're not consulting them every time they process a batch, it means that they're not catching when say a heating element fails and a batch goes out unpasteurized.

@PacificNic @hannu_ikonen One of the articles I read was about an incident where a Alkaline Phosphatase test was indicating incomplete pasteurization despite the equipment logs showing proper temperature and hold times. Basically, there this is an enzyme in raw milk that denatures at 71.7 degrees C, which is higher than what is needed to kill Bovine Tuberculosis bacteria. US standard is to heat to 72 degrees and hold at that temperature in a pipe for 15 seconds.