If you work in the food industry, you have heard of the concept of “food safety culture.” Generally speaking the concept is that, with a strong food safety culture, a company, its leadership and its employees will understand and embrace the importance of food safety and conduct themselves in such a way that continuously and without exception prioritizes food safety above all else.

With that said, a strong food safety culture can be elusive. In many companies, the goals of the corporate leadership often conflict with the realities of food safety. The C-suite’s job is principally to increase profit by reducing cost and streamlining productivity. Conversely, investing in the resources necessary to eradicate foodborne pathogens in any processing facility or products can be expensive, time-consuming and occasionally disruptive. And in the absence of a crisis (such as a recall or an outbreak) to force change, an aura of complacency can often seep into any organization and then take hold.

When a production manager requests a large capital expenditure, it is almost always specifically tailored to increase profit and productivity while reducing expense. By contrast, it is nearly impossible to immediately quantify the return on investment for food safety expenditures. Worse, such expenditures can appear to reduce productivity. For instance, implementing a new testing protocol intended to find and eliminate Listeria in a facility making ready-to-eat products, if effective, may be incredibly costly and, at least initially, lead to an increase production halts. Other oft-needed improvements, such as investing in new equipment which is easier to disassemble and clean, can also be incredibly costly. As a result, in the absence of a crisis, there is often reluctance at the leadership level to invest significantly in food safety.

With that said, the reality is that food safety is both profitable and good for business. That is why a strong food safety culture can be so important. As an industry, we must continue to challenge ourselves and not tolerate the historic roadblocks of “We’ve been doing it this way for decades,” “We’ve never had a problem” or “We should expect to find pathogens.” Each of these food industry axioms represent a step toward surrender and failure. Consider the difference between the following statements: (1) “We had a few environmental samples test positive for Listeria, but it’s okay because we are expected to occasionally find it,” or (2) “We had a few environmental samples test positive for Listeria, and we need to take action now because if it’s in the environment it can get into our products, and we could face a recall, an outbreak or even criminal charges and jail time.”

The first statement creates a perception of low risk. It is dismissive. It trains the executive to believe it is okay for Listeria to be in the facility. In turn, those food safety expenditures seem nonobligatory.

The second statement clarifies both the severity and the reality of the situation. It puts the C-Suite on notice that if there are pathogens in the facility, there is high risk and they must be eliminated. Food safety professionals understand the science, the risk and the consequences. While it may not be realistically possible to teach the C-Suite the science, it is certainly possible to share the consequences. Blue Bell, which was targeted by the Department of Justice, is a prime example.

Too often, corporate leaders in the food industry have a perception of operating in a low-risk environment, when the risk is actually high. An integral part of a strong food safety culture is to resist surrender and resignation. We need to do things differently, we need to assume we do have a problem and we should never “expect” to find pathogens. If food safety professions can begin to change the dialogue, perhaps we can change the misconceptions of the C-Suite and, at least when it comes to Listeria control, begin cutting down the culture of complacency.

Cutting down the culture of complacency

Join for free* to continue reading.