A common issue that comes up in food safety discussions, especially in boardrooms and C-suites, is how do we argue for better than compliance food safety? While it is true that not all food safety programs are compliant, many are, but the most critical piece is that while most programs will pass an audit for compliance, many won’t prevent an outbreak.
Frequently in the food industry, food safety teams are provided with an annual budget, usually determined by non-food safety personnel. This budget covers everything from personnel to equipment improvements to testing expenses. These budgets help ensure the company remains in compliance with regulations and meets customer requirements. But as often occurs with our own personal budgets, there are concessions. Items that go onto the “nice to have” list instead of the “must have” list.
What happens when the food safety budget doesn’t align with the needs? Or when food safety expertise argues with those holding the purse strings that more aggressive or expensive techniques, processes and services are needed? How is the decision made? What evidence can a food safety professional provide to prove the point?
One place to start is a commonly discussed topic, the often vague and frequently used concept of “risk.” While food safety usually comes down to whether someone will get ill, it is also important to talk about the other risks in the room (business, legal). Not because they are more important, but because they are often unspoken but still carry enormous influence on decision-making. Business and legal risks aren’t just about the direct costs. It comes down to far more than that, and as with a brand-building exercise, the details of these decisions significantly impact on the company, its brand, the reputation, the price point, etc.
Food safety risk and the business and legal ramifications cut through all layers of an organization, erasing the history of compliance that once stood there. Warren Buffett famously said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and five minutes to ruin it.”
Good questions to discuss are:
- What are the risks and costs of losing customer/consumer confidence?
- What’s the risk of civil litigation and liability (with and without an outbreak)?
- What are the costs of a recall?
- What damage is done, and for how long, when consumers associate your product as one they shouldn’t buy?
So, when considering whether to invest in a new hygienic piece of equipment, drain or real-time monitoring of antimicrobial injection…really consider what it costs not to.
Don’t gloss over the statistical design and value of a testing program when evaluating your testing budget. Not all approaches are the same and certainly don’t offer the same levels of protection/assurance. A test is never just a test, and the value of a testing program is critically dependent on the assumptions by which they were designed, the methods used and the overall process in which the sample was collected.
The take home point is that food safety doesn’t need to stop (and shouldn’t) at the “are we compliant” phase. I never liked the C grade in school, and neither should you. Want the ‘A’? Design the budget and process to give it to you.
Building resiliency and confidence in risk management in your food safety program is not out of reach. It starts first by designing the budget that supports the company and reputation you mean to build. WG Science works with our members to learn and support you on how to optimize your program, leaning into new approaches for food safety data and collection system. Data is easy to collect for compliance, but using data to drive comprehensive food safety control and risk reduction takes a special sort of focus.
WG data efforts aren’t just a program – they are a piece of a broader initiative to redefine what food safety control looks like across our food supply. We focus on driving enhanced value, efficiency and efficacy. Food safety doesn’t have to be just a cost-center, it’s a critical piece of a broader long-term strategy for your company. Join us.