Who Is Responsible For Safe Food?

A little bit inside baseball, but raises an interesting point if you read between the lines. This all stems from the Listeria outbreak in 2011, and who was responsible for distributing and then selling tainted cantaloupe that eventually killed some people. This is the shorter rundown, more details of the blame game can be found here.

Primus is a third party food safety auditor, and is arguing they have no responsibility to end consumers. They are also being sued by Wal Mart, Kroger and other grocers.

For any food to be sold in grocery stores, it has to be federally inspected, that means that this killer cantaloupe was given a federal stamp of approval. Why should federal agencies and inspectors be immune from tort liability?

If your function is to ensure food safety and unsafe food makes it to market, how are you not responsible?

And if you're not responsible, what function do you actually provide?

It looks like there could be issues with whether food was contaminated after inspection, during transportation or after being stocked in the store. How do they determine where along the chain the contamination occurred?

I'm a little unclear on the purpose of third party auditors. Do they exist in lieu of federal inspectors?

What responsibility do the growers have?

It depends on where the inspection takes place in the food chain. A feedlot is not inspected, the beef it raises isnt inspected until those animals arrive at the packer. Same for a grain farm, no inspection until the grain is turned into food. Vegetables are already food, so I'm unaware when the inspection takes place, shipping?

If you noticed, the farm in question is bankrupt after this, they must've bore some liability. Should the inspectors that passed them?

Anyone who doesn't do their job should be held liable, including government inspectors. If they're taking bribes, they should also be jailed. But unless their failure to do their jobs is part of the job description, I'm not sure how you'd hold the government liable. But then I'm sure the right group of lawyers could figure out a way.

What concerns me is the number of points at which you tell me there's no inspection.

When you take that, and add it to the fact that only 2% of all imported food is inspected, it certainly makes you question the merits of more regulation, considering how safe our food actually is shown to be.

Well, that didn't take long...

Somewhat related, but there's a farm a few miles down the road that sells all of their stuff directly to the public. Stuff like produce and honey are seasonal, but they sell beef and pork year 'round. I was thinking about giving them a try...at least for ribeyes and breakfast sausage for now. Their website says that they're a NC Certified Meat Handler and all the meats are USDA inspected. I'm guessing that means they do all the packing, if not the slaughtering there on site?

Their stuff is a little expensive, but it's supposed to be hormone free and I loves me some fresh sausage.

I dodged a bullet by not mentioning Italian sausage.

You prefer your men from Germany?

Nope, it means they're hauling the animals to a processor, and it is processed on the days the inspector is there. Owning your own slaughterhouse is way to expensive for most farms. Now this doesn't mean the processor only butchers animals under inspection. Lots of people eat un-insuspected meat, I have freezers full of it. Inspection doesn't make meat safe, it makes it legal, big difference.

I always assumed he was a chorizo man, if ya know what I mean.

Nah, I'm all about that Country sausage. Yee Haw!

So, no role for deterrence, then? Do away with inspections, and producers will police themselves, just like they did in the Good Old Days.

You're projecting that I said all regulation, what I said was more.

But is it the "good old days"? We have at our disposal technology, affordable technology that was unheard of when Upton Sinclair was around. We have tracking technology, logistical systems, cameras in factories, cameras in slaughterhouses ( the smart ones stream the floor online ), refrigeration is ubiquitous, cleanliness and wellness are whole profitable industries. Food scares when they do happen aren't hidden, they're aired round the clock, with investigations. We care more about the welfare of the animals we're eating than the welfare of the people processing them. If you don't like the way one supplier does things, there are viable choices. Go look at what Chipolte is doing in creating their own sourcing system.

I wasn't alive when The Jungle was written, did it scare you that much?

Doesn't liability serve as a deterrent? I see LOTS of business decisions made on the basis of avoiding it...

Ask those farmers if they wish they'd been more diligent.

Not saying the technology isn't there. But it's got to be expensive. Is it your perception that producers would invest in it if they didn't have to?

Liability is an element, though many in Congress would like to lessen the impact through tort reform. But recall the recent West Virginia case, where it seems the disaster plan was bankruptcy. Who do the victims sue in that case?

I think any business that plays fast and loose with safety planning to use bankruptcy as an out is a business that is not long for existence. It's certainly not one whose owners are planning for success.

But the solution is tort and bankruptcy reform. A company facing a liability claim should not be able to liquidate its assets before resolution of the case, or, if delay would render the assets worthless, the proceeds from the sale of the assets should be held until the case is resolved.

What if the company is just in bad shape and doesn't have assets adequate to cover liability. Maybe they didn't plan it, but there is still no compensation. Shouldn't we have a way to prevent the claim event from happening in the first place?

It should have insurance to cover liability at least to some extent.

Food isn't like a lot of other products, where liability could emerge years later. Liability arising from bad food will be apparent immediately.

Show me a practical method that prevents the claim and which is efficient and isn't unduly burdensome to either producers or consumers.

Evenflow's already pointed out that the vast majority of food isn't inspected and, even when it is, the inspectors often fail to catch things.

My take on Flow's statement is that we should try to improve inspection. Would you require liability insurance?

I have no deep knowledge in this field, so I can't say what the "solution" is.

But if producers have insurance, then the insurance companies--in order to minimize risk--have a financial motive to make sure the producer has appropriate standards and follows appropriate practice.

There may be some foods that require inspection and, if so, so be it. But relying on inspectors to catch the bad stuff seems a lot less reliable than making sure that the producers are financially motivated to follow good practices.

No doubt the best approach is some multi-dimensional solution involving better inspections, insurance or bonding requirements, and some x-factor that needs to be developed.

Traceability. By using lot codes ink jetted on my product - lets use olives as an example - I'm able to trace back to the minute of the day that product was packed by my supplier, and the corresponding quality assurance reports. I'm even able to trace where the olives were picked in terms of farm locations and what their conditon was, to the day they were delivered to the factory for packing. So with all this information available, we are pretty well equipped to determine where in the supply chain the contamination occurred.

As for the lawsuit, in my business it's the 3rd party auditors job to make sure factories are up to certain standards. It's the factory's job to maintain those standards at all times. 3rd party auditors have no involvement in actual food production, food storage or food distribution. Unless something different is happening here, the lawsuit sounds like passing on the blame.

Eta: ah so it seems that Primus gave Jensen some pretty high scores on their audit even though the place was not in good shape. You can't do that....