Disturbing Arguments

Here are examples of some baffling arguments:

"We demonstrated sufficient due diligence by being food safety certified."


“We follow a HACCP program and this hazard was not mentioned in our hazard identification process. Therefore, we did not see any need to implement measures to control it, or verify and validate effectiveness of its control”.

“We are a raw processing operation, and we figured that we should not test product or product contact surfaces to assess the presence of such pathogens as Listeria m., E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, etc. that are typically associated with the raw food because a positive result will trigger demands from the regulatory body for us to complete a series of time-consuming and costly corrective actions along with the associated verification and validation requirements”.

"The regulations did not specifically mention this risk. Hence we did not see any need to consider it in our implemented controls"  

What do you do with these kinds of arguments if you cannot simply ignore them?