Intriguing

I talk a lot about food safety, that will not surprise anyone. And I talk a lot about food safety testing. Not so strange either. What strikes me in these conversations is the difference in approach to this subject among the people I talk to. 

At one end of the spectrum there are the companies with a clear vision. They have a policy that puts safety first. They test more often than legally required, have mapped out the risks and act on them actively.
On the other hand, there are the companies that approach food safety in a more cost-driven way. And particularly aimed at keeping those costs as low as possible. They implement the most necessary legal measures, but no more than that. There is nothing wrong with that in itself.  The other day, someone said to me: "Where does more testing get me? It certainly increases the chance of me discovering something. So, of course, we must act on that. But how? Either way, it means a lot of paperwork

That got me thinking. The legislator obliges companies to put safe products on the market. Target legislation has been developed for this purpose. Companies are free to determine how they achieve the target. Failure to do so can result in a doom scenario. Is it about costs, or about food safety? 

It appears that even after a recall, the vast majority of companies with a cost-driven approach to ensuring food safety do not change their policy. They solve the problems of that particular moment and proceed to the order of the day. If things go wrong a second time shortly after the first, then things usually do change. That intrigues me.

What about you? Are the choices you make regarding food safety driven by cost reduction or based on a vision?

Pieter Vos
Director Nutrilab