Talk:IBP, Inc.

I have added in detail about the original company, IBP, and references made to it in Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

E. coli

For the Tyson beef recall, the original article incorrectly capitalizes "coli" and did not give the serotype. I corrected and added, but if anyone feels strongly, please revert. However, the source is lawyers, not scientists. Gigemag76 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yoenit (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Important Facts"

The "important facts" section is inherently POV given that the idea of importance is entirely subjective, but more importantly it contains a huge amount of material whose only source is "answers.com". It has been tagged since 2009 and I think it is an appropriate action to remove the section until sources for the claims are located. I have done so. EstafetteSpurry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)