The term “ethics” refers to the moral principles that govern our behavior or decision-making. Human decision-making involves a multitude of cognitive processes that model our experience, values, beliefs, goals and potential consequences, among others, to produce a decision. When making impactful food safety decisions, especially forward-looking decisions, the “ethical” or “right” course decision is both highly subjective and in some cases not clearly evident.

Food safety decision-making can be extraordinarily complex and often involves choosing between difficult options. Consider the following hypothetical: A company learns that faulty equipment created an intermittent condition in which a small percentage of ready-to-eat products manufactured over the previous two months may have possibly been slightly undercooked. Listeria is a known hazard for some of the ingredients used to make the finished products. In the event any pathogens may have been present in the ingredients, it’s thus possible, but unlikely, that the products could be contaminated. The company had not received any complaints relating to the product, which has a two-month shelf life. The company leadership know that if it recalls two months of product, it will lose its two biggest customers, which will bankrupt the company and result in the layoff of most employees. Company leadership must decide what to do.

While there is risk, it could be argued to be extremely low. Does the company recall the product at the risk of going out of business? To further complicate matters, research in human decision-making demonstrates a strong tendency to make the choice that best maintains the status quo. Thus, not only is the choice itself difficult, but the CEO’s brain is unconsciously primed to make the choice that does not cause change.

Paradoxically, as our hypothetical illustrates, the company president or CEO may not always be optimally equipped to make the most difficult decisions. Rather, ethical food-safety decision-making may sometimes require the delegation or sharing of decision-making authority. In other words, because the best way to ensure sound decision-making is to correct for bias and subjectivity, we can work to remove ourselves from decision-making that involves conflicted interests. That’s why, in some cases, when they know or are familiar with the parties, judges will recuse themselves from a case.

In the realm of food safety, many companies delegate the decision of whether about whether a recall is appropriate in a given set of circumstances, to the company’s head of food safety and quality. In other cases, the decisions are made by committee, often with insight and input from the corporate leadership teams, internal food safety teams and outside food industry lawyers. In other cases, when a decision is made and another opinion or perspective would be useful, credentialed and experienced food safety consultants can be a good resource to study the facts and chime in.

Delegating, or at least sharing, the decision-making for difficult decisions that could implicate our own interests is not only the best way to ensure ethical, unconflicted (or de-conflicted), decision-making, it also leads to better decision-making. And, in the end, you can always test your final decisions against the time-tested mantra “what would 12 jurors think.” If you do, you will always reach the most ethical decision.

The ethics of food safety

Join for free* to continue reading.