CASE STUDY.

Read Jennings $(10$th ed$.)$ Case $8\mathrm{.}9$: E$.$ Coli, Jack$-$in$-$the Box, and Cooking Temperatures $($pp$.559-560)$; then, answer the

following questions:

$1.$ In $1993,$ Jack$-$in$-$the$-$Box adopted tougher standards for its meat suppliers than those required by the federal

government so that suppliers test more frequently for E$.$ coli.

$$ Could Jack$-$in$-$the$-$Box have done more before the outbreak occurred?

$2.$ The link between cooking to a $155-$degree internal temperature and the destruction of E$.$ coli bacteria had been

publicly known for five years at the time of the outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $($CDC$)$

tests showed Jack$-$in$-$the$-$Box hamburgers were cooked to $120$ degrees.

$$ Should Jack$-$in$-$the$-$Box have increased cooking temperatures voluntarily and sooner?

$3.$ What does the misplacement of the state health department notices on cooking temperature say about the

culture at Jack$-$in$-$the Box?

$4.$ A plaintiff$$s lawyer praised Jack$-$in$-$the$-$Box, saying, $$They paid out in a way that made everybody walking away

from the settlement table think they had been treated fairly.$$

$$ What do we learn about the company from this statement?

$5.$ You will also need at least four peer$-$reviewed sources