Misconception 20 - “Processed
food is harmful" - False:
Processed food becomes harmful only when processors infuse it with incompatible
substances and adopt careless processing practices in its production. Some foods that are often considered safe could actually be more harmful if not processed (e.g. the manioc plant naturally has cyanide that is inactivated through proper processing - Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0207e/t0207e08.htm).
Misconception 19 - “An operating practice is automatically acceptable if it is documented as a Standard Operating Procedure." - False:
Nonsense can be documented and blindly followed as standard practice where relevant knowledge is lacking..
Misconception 18 - “A third party
certificate shields and exonerates the holder in the event of a lawsuit” - False:
Ask lawyers from the Law Firm of Marler Clark.
Misconception 17 - “Anything that increases the profit margin for a company is good” - False:
Not so, says the astute manager! Profits gained through dishonest, illegal or oppressive means are never good and may vanish quicker than they are realized. Also, profits gained through playing tricks on consumers may turn the joke around on the trickster.
Misconception 16 - “The primary purpose of product safety and quality system audits is to help operations gain more business” - False:
Gaining more business is the secondary purpose of product safety and quality system audits. The primary purpose is to assess if the audited system is actually capable of ensuring product safety and quality consistently.
Misconception 15 - “Conflict of interest can be completely
avoided through the observance of strict rules of business and professional
engagement” - False:
There is no such thing as complete neutrality. While blatant gain-seeking interests
can be detected and discouraged, the complete elimination of conflict of
interest in any business or professional engagement is impossible because ulterior motives are difficult, if not impossible, to detect. The best
that can be achieved through rules of conduct is to reach a point of accepting
or ignoring the inevitable but subtle ulterior motives and interests in
business and professional engagements. Even with such altruistic gestures as
giving ALL of the profits from business enterprises or payments received from
professional engagements to charity, there are underlying motives and
interests.
Misconception
14 - “A short-duration scrutinizing process
that is infrequently used at a given location, and measured against
pseudo-parameters of success (the superficial artefacts of its implementation),
can be rigorous enough to be trustworthy” - False:
This is a misleading suggestion. If scrutiny is necessary, it
must be frequent, constant and consistent. The measure of its success must look
at the real outcome that it is intended to produce – not the superficial artefacts of its implementation.
Misconception
13 - “The most important thing in product
safety assurance is for an operation to maintain paperwork that demonstrates
due diligence and will stand up in court.”- False:
Maintaining the
optimum level of paperwork that is properly organized is important but it is
not the most important thing. It is easy to create paperwork that may appear to
demonstrate due diligence and will legally stand up in court. What is really
most important is for the operation to actually implement and diligently
maintain processes and practices that ensure product safety. The paperwork that
follows will stand up in court and will demonstrate due diligence.
Misconception 12 - “Self-monitoring and/or self- regulation
is taboo. It does not have as much built-in accountability and high standards
of expectation as the monitoring done by a second or third parties.” - False:
Evidence shows, and external monitors and regulators even admit that they
cannot guarantee that monitored parties will consistently comply when the
external monitoring or regulating personnel have left the scene. The external
parties even demand that operations must internally monitor and regulate their
systems. A key understanding of a good control measure in the internationally
accepted HACCP and similar concepts is that a control measure is best applied
and most effective when it is consistently, correctly and completely applied at
the point/place where it must be applied. Regulation/or control from any party
that is external to an operation is by nature and by practice intermittent,
inconsistent and incomplete. Industry must learn or be guided (or trained) to
genuinely, and with integrity, self-monitor and self-regulate. This is necessary
for there to be any hope of a consistent, complete and effective control of
systems that must protect consumers. Self-regulation is not taboo where there
is good knowledge and integrity. Self-regulation is essential and mandatory if consumers are
to be protected as consistently and completely as possible.
Misconception 11 - “It is best for business to yield
without questioning customers' uninformed and unreasonable demands, even where
these are detrimental to the customers.” - False:
This may seem smart at first but it is suicidal: What happens to the customers
trust and confidence when they eventually learn that you did not show
enough concern and initiative to provide helpful guidance even though you knew
that their demands were detrimental to them? They will pack their bags and leave.
Misconception 10 -“Comprehensive and detailed product
safety and quality system assessments by third parties are to be requested only
after the systems are fully established.” - Alas! We have a case of misplaced wisdom of verifying, after the fact, that the
right things have been done.
The correct approach is for operators and
competent assessors (third party audits if you wish) to pro-actively and
concurrently ensure that the right things are done at each step.
Misconception
9 -“Gaining a third party certification will
give the purchaser confidence about the safety and quality of your product” - False:
This claim represents an unfortunate diversion from the correct basis for the purchaser's confidence. It is not the gaining of certification that
should give the purchaser confidence; it is the demonstrated reality of a safe
and quality product that should give the purchaser confidence. Incidentally, a
third party certification is only a snapshot corroboration of the reality that
can already be demonstrated in the product - hopefully and wisely.
Misconception
8 -“You have to pay more to get more.” - False:
You don’t!
With a combination of thorough
needs assessment, investigation of the merits of what you are paying for, good
planning, and a strategic capitalization on the economy of scale opportunities,
you can actually pay less for more.
Misconception
7 -“Only
the defaulting businesses suffer the undesirable consequences of their unsafe
and poor quality products.” - False:
Consumers suffer some of the
consequences. Innocent employees within the businesses suffer the possibility
of lost jobs. Businesses offering the same line of product suffer adverse
publicity consequences. In some jurisdictions, the tax payers (all of us) foot
the bill for some activities of the respective governments in dealing with
resulting problems (health problems, economic loss problems, loss of employment
problems, et cetera).
Misconception
6- “More stringent regulatory requirements imposed on producers
and manufacturers will produce a safer food supply” - False:
There are several problems with this:
i). Producers and
manufacturers constitute only one link (two links at the most) within the
supply chain. Food distribution, food service (restaurants, canteens),
consumers, etc., are some of the other links in the chain. ii) More stringent
standards will certainly exacerbate the already tense atmosphere between
regulators and operators who think regulators are out to put them out of
business. This in turn leads to deliberate attempts by operators to circumvent
the rules. Some operators are smart enough to do the barest minimum that will
make them appear compliant. iii) With
more stringent requirements must come the expanded enforcement in terms of the
number of enforcers and enforcement opportunities. The general observation is
that many enforcement agencies are adopting enforcement contraction instead of
expansion strategies. Enforcing more stringent regulatory requirements is not
the preferred approach to ensuring a safer food supply.
Misconception 5 - “We are
better at detecting product safety issues. Therefore
we are better off in spite of the increased incidences of reported product
safety issues” - False:
Without a measurable and progressive reduction in product safety
issues, advances in issue detection techniques have not produced the desired effect. The industry is not better off since product safety issues persist.
Misconception 4 - “Compliance is sufficient” - False:
Compliance is insufficient if it is without the consistent protection and satisfaction of consumers. Standards of compliance are relevant
only where the stated standards to be complied with provide sufficient
confidence that the desired effects will be achieved through compliance.
Therefore, conclusions about compliance should mean that the desired effects
and goals of the standards are achieved. If any conclusion of compliance to the
standard fails to produce the desired effect or goal, it inevitably means that
the standard is either faulty or it is improperly applied. Since rules and regulations governing commercially available
products are generally for the protection of the consumers/users, any rule or
regulation that does not ensure the safety and satisfaction of the consumer
ought to be discarded. Compliance to such rules or regulations is redundant and wasteful.
Misconception 3 -“The
audit 'standard' is only rule that must be obeyed” - False:
Those who hold to this misconception are invariably subjected to the tyranny of
the “audit standard”. They are therefore bound in fetters of meaningless
enterprise because no so-called audit standard (checklist or guideline) is sufficiently comprehensive and
complete. The industry needs to replace the mentality that causes audit "standards" to be tyrannical and focus more on the essential bodies of knowledge
that it already has to protect the consumer. Much depends on how consumers are well served (effectively, efficiently and consistently).
Misconception 2 - “Food
and Health product companies that are not run by the government are the PRIVATE
sector” - False:
Nothing can be more public than producing products for public consumption. As
many companies that have suffered the consequences of producing harmful
products can attest, it is not such a PRIVATE matter.
Misconception 1 - “Rank
and file jobs are menial jobs and these rank lower than the roles of managers or leaders” - False:
Managers leaders serve a smaller scope but equally significant purpose as
the rank and file. Managers only serve the rank and file and the company; while the
rank and file serves the larger scope and equally significant purpose of
delivering safe products that satisfy the interests of consumers namely: the
safety, security, quality and usefulness of products.
