Fonterra faces another contamination scare, this time involving E. Coli
The company is recalling 300ml and 500ml bottles of Anchor and Pams fresh cream with a best before date of 21 January 2014, distributed in the North Island from Northland to Turangi, including Gisborne.
The recall involves 8,700 bottles of fresh cream that have been distributed to retail and foodservice outlets.
Fonterra Brands NZ Managing Director Peter McClure said the voluntary recall is being done because quality tests have shown there may be the presence of E.Coli in some Anchor and Pams bottles of cream with the 21 January 2014 best before date.
E. Coli is the name of a germ, or bacterium, that lives in the digestive tracts camera of humans and animals.
There are many types of E. Coli, and most of them are harmless. But some can cause bloody diarrhea.
Consumers are advised not to consume the affected Pams and Anchor product and to return it to the place of purchase for a refund. If they require further information, they should contact Fonterra Brands’ customer service centre on 0800 256 257.
The recall does not affect any other Anchor or Pams products, Fonterra says.
The affected batch numbers are:
- Pams Cream 500ml (batch number:1400684206), best before date: 21/01/2014
- Anchor Cream 500ml (1400684207), 21/01/2014
- Anchor Cream 300ml (1400684208), 21/01/2014
- Pams Cream 300ml (1400684209), 21/01/2014
Last week, French food processing giant Danone filed a High Court claim over last year's whey concentrate scare. Fonterra says it will vigorously defend the action.
This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags
Most listened to
- Meridian CEO Mark Binns on what will happen to the freed-up Tiwai load
- Nevil Gibson discusses the importance of the first Israeli PM's visit to Australia
- Using a school farm or MOTAT land for more housing? TOP Mt Albert by-election candidate Geoff Simmons says its worth concidering
- Ebos CEO Patrick Davies on potential acquisitions and the latest results
- Penny Pepperell explains the Court of Appeal's latest Pike River decision