We certainly have our opinion on this question and, fortunately, that same opinion was shared by the jury in South Dakota when we litigated all these issues in 2002. So, while time has not changed the facts of that case, Foshee clearly believes that presenting a different story to a different group of listeners will serve his desire for revenge.
Yes, Foshee was Manager of BPI’s Quality Assurance group until late 2001. Yes, his employment was terminated at that point due to a fundamental disagreement with the company. However, that’s about as far as we can go with finding truth in the quotes or comments that have been attributed to him over the last several years.
Foshee’s employment ended at BPI because he tried to undermine efforts to push test-and-hold programs out to the customer and consumer level. BPI believed (and continues to believe) whole heartedly in testing and holding any product before it could make its way to consumers in order to better verify its safety. We wanted to help our customers do the same by offering them a “buyback guaranty” on their products if they would implement test-and-hold programs.
In his sworn testimony, Foshee acknowledged that his concern was that “this was a bad business decision.” He admitted that pushing out test-and-hold programs to customers and consumers would be good for the consumer, good for the public, just bad for the company and possibly its customers. Referring to the risk of E.coli O157:H7 contamination, his attitude about who was responsible for food safety was epitomized by his testimony that “the general public, all you have to do is cook it and it will kill it.”
Mr. Foshee has been openly hostile to BPI ever since his repeated attempts at “legal extortion” (Foshee’s own words) failed over a decade ago. Everything he says now needs to be viewed through that clarifying lens given his clear bias and motivation.