22 replies to this topic

[AZuzack]

https://www.foodsafe...ive-credibility

 

I read the article today.  I remember the PCA incident.  It strongly impacted how and what I sign my name to, as well as my views on releasing product after deviations.  When I saw the "or didn't" at the end of the title, there was that sinking feeling.  I don't think that enough has changed.  

 

Case in Point - Boar's Head Plant in Jarratt, VA caused 10 deaths.  It was closed "indefinitely."  Now it is going to re-open.  Unless it was bulldozed and rebuilt in the last year, the types of problems they had don't just go away.  There are Civil Cases pending but no criminal charges.  

https://www.food-saf...main-insanitary

 

Case 2: Listeria in Blue Bell Ice cream caused 3 deaths.  Also no criminal charges.  

https://archive.cdc....3-15/index.html

 

What is the point in GFSI of Sr. Management Commitment if Senior Management is NOT held accountable for the failures that result in death?  

 

 

[MDaleDDF]

In the PCA case there were emails identifying upper management as directly responsible for the decision to ship product known to have failed path testing.

In the other cases, there were not.     

[AZuzack]

In the U.S. a email showing knowledge isn't needed.  The Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) Doctrine, also known as the "Park Doctrine," holds company officials criminally liable for food safety violations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This doctrine is a tool used by federal prosecutors to hold executives accountable for corporate misconduct. 

 

For Boar's Head, there should have been meeting notes with signatures.  Anyone with a GFSI cert would have monthly meetings to discuss relevant food safety topics.  Essentially you're saying that Big companies are immune to prosecution and PCA was easy because the top of their company was likely in-plant.  

[MDaleDDF]

That's not at all what I'm saying.   Not even a little bit.   The law requires proof of willful disregard.  Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and it can be very difficult to prove something like this without a smoking gun, which there was in the PCA case, and there is not (or has not been made public) in the other cases.   That's all I am saying.

Essentially what you're saying is every time there's an event an executive should be locked up.   I disagree with that as an automatic premise.   Every case is different.   A blanket 'lock someone up' statement seems over the top to me, and difficult to prove.

Edited by MDaleDDF, 22 September 2025 - 01:56 PM.

[MDaleDDF]

A quick google:

 

"Prosecuting under the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) Doctrine is difficult because

it imposes strict liability, holding officers accountable for violations even without personal involvement or knowledge, which challenges traditional notions of criminal responsibility. Prosecutors use the doctrine, primarily for public-welfare-related offenses like in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) context, when a violation occurs within the company and the officer had the authority to prevent or correct it but failed to do so. However, this strict standard can lead to legal challenges, concerns about fairness, and a potential reluctance to apply the doctrine broadly due to its departure from traditional criminal law principles"

 

Using this as a prosecutor would present multiple challenges, which is why I would imagine prosecutors are not interested in pursuing it.

[G M]

The "do something" impulse might make the mob happy in the short term, but it isn't sustainable justice. 

 

Maybe next year the executives aren't enough and they want to sacrifice everyone in QA for their perceived failure.  I think we'd all prefer there needed to be a clear set of evidence.

[MDaleDDF]

QA is definitely at risk for this as well.   Whenever we do something in here, the owner and I take it very serious on a personal level, because we're well aware if something goes terribly wrong, WE are the ones going to jail for it.   Plus I wouldn't be able to live with myself...

 

Food safety is job 1.   Period.

I'm the same way when I take people out on my boat.   Dad always taught me taking people out and having a good time on the boat is not my job as the captain.   

My job, every time I leave the dock, is to get everyone back to the dock alive.   I still think of it like that to this day, every time I leave the dock with folks in my boat.  Having a good time is secondary...

[AZuzack]

I don't want to lock people up but I want corporate leaders to be held accountable when their product kills someone.  Maybe that's community service; maybe that's a small amount of time served (even if it is only 1 week) so that there's at least some inconvenience on their life for the extreme inconvenience their company's negligence inflicted on the victim's families. 

 

I guess I'm just angry because I was naïve in thinking the PCA trial and outcome was going to positively change food safety.  Current reflection on the subject shows that it hasn't.   

[kfromNE]

Look up Kerry and cereal. Their QA Director was fined after instructing his employees to ignore results. 

It's hard to prove sometimes. Also - not everything makes news. So repercussions could have happened but you would never know about them. 

 

Speaking from experience - having someone get sick b/c of the product produced at your facility - the worst feeling in the world. It doesn't go away after a day. It stays with you for a very long time. Even when it wasn't intentional and you did everything you could to fix it. Still my biggest fear. 

[MDaleDDF]

You openly lament "there's no criminal charges", and say you don't want to lock people up.   You speak of justice, but want people held accountable with no proof of wrongdoing.   You suggest that if found liable for killing someone, community service or a week of incarceration is a viable punishment.    I think you're kind of all over the place here, just imho.

 

As far as the impact of the PCA, I think it's been huge and that it shook the foundations of food safety and food manufacturing when it happened.   I don't think we're ever going to get to a point where food carries no risk, and unfortunately, that people won't die due to food illness world wide, or even just in the States.   Scampi and I had this discussion long ago on another topic.  I certainly would WANT that as a food professional, but I just don't see it...not anytime soon anyway.   How many people currently die in the US due to food illness annually?   Anywhere from 3-5000.   How many are we talking about due to PCA?   Boar's Head?   I don't want to go full actuary, but those don't even scratch the surface.    But that doesn't mean the PCA incident had no impact on day to day operations at facilities and executive board rooms world wide...  

 

What do you mean by "current reflections that show it hasn't"?

Any data I've looked up shows since the 2008 outbreaks are down, but those that happen are more severe, which is troubling...

Edited by MDaleDDF, 22 September 2025 - 05:54 PM.

[GMO]

Think things are bad in the US?  The penalties in the UK are laughable.  Apart from it not being funny because there have been some awful deaths, especially with allergy in food service but also micro related, especially in hospital settings.

 

The problem is there is the tendency in the US to look for the smoking gun that someone knew that they were shipping material which could kill / hurt a consumer.  Not that there was a high rate of failure, but as I understand it, the PCA case, they knew the results failed, but they knowingly shipped THAT batch with failed results.

 

Now similar happened in the UK with Cadbury's and Salmonella in the early 00's.  Nobody died but nobody was prosecuted either.

 

So in the US you need a smoking gun. In the UK, even if you have the smoking gun, you might get away with it.  To be fair legislation has tightened since but finding a situation where someone was actually sent to prison is EXTREMELY rare.

 

Is prison the solution?  It focusses brains here with Health and Safety legislation that's for sure.  As do fines for simple non compliance.  And they're A LOT tougher than food safety penalties with personal liability for directors etc.  There has to be some consequences for both the wilfully actively and criminally, you WILL kill someone dangerous (PCA) and the wilfully extremely negligent (probably Boar's Head and others).  BOTH need to feel the pressure of SOMETHING to cause change, or both will happen again.

[MDaleDDF]

 or both will happen again.

Both will happen again, guaranteed.    

Are the boots on the ground not actually more at fault?   I'd think a plant manager or on site QA/QC tech would be more liable than an executive in some office somewhere...that probably doesn't even know the first thing about actually producing product.

Punishing Boar's Head, and punishing some shcmo who had no hand in the issue are two different things.    If the question is how do you make it so this doesn't happen again, good luck.   I don't have an answer for that...   But it starts with us, right?   We're the food safety folks.   All I can do is my best in the facility I work in, everyone else as well.   If someone or a team of people are lax about it, this is what you get.   

Edited by MDaleDDF, 22 September 2025 - 06:25 PM.

[AZuzack]

I'm lamenting that we refuse to try to hold the people in charge accountable.  They need to be held accountable to some extent, any extent that isn't simply some insignificant fine.  For a non-food but relevant example of a pointless fine, Travis Kelce was fined $15K this weekend.  It's laughable that anyone thinks he cares enough about $15k to change his behavior and even more laughable that the press reported on it unless they were hoping the Swifties would respond with vengeance.  

[GMO]

I would never hold a QC or QA more to account than an MD.  Much as I wouldn't with health and safety. 

 

How many QCs or QAs are fed up with raising things which are wrong with nothing happening to improve it?  No the person assigning budgets and benefiting most from profits is most accountable if the way those profits were generated hurts someone; whether that's an employee or customer.

[G M]

I'm lamenting that we refuse to try to hold the people in charge accountable.  They need to be held accountable to some extent, any extent that isn't simply some insignificant fine.  For a non-food but relevant example of a pointless fine, Travis Kelce was fined $15K this weekend.  It's laughable that anyone thinks he cares enough about $15k to change his behavior and even more laughable that the press reported on it unless they were hoping the Swifties would respond with vengeance.  

 

Accountable for what?  There needs to be an action, or lack of action in the face of significant warning, for accountability.  What is or isn't being done that you want people punished for? 

 

By most measures executives today are paid far higher than their counterparts were decades ago, if you want them to take the fall for everything the company does expect that executive pay package to grow exponentially.

[GMO]

Accountable for what?  There needs to be an action, or lack of action in the face of significant warning, for accountability.  What is or isn't being done that you want people punished for? 

 

By most measures executives today are paid far higher than their counterparts were decades ago, if you want them to take the fall for everything the company does expect that executive pay package to grow exponentially.

 

They already do for safety at least in the UK.  The law here, for safety at least is "reasonably practicable" which means that you need to have provided resources, have systems etc and definitely not cover anything up.  But the lack of direct "cover up" would not be enough to prevent at least a fine or potential personal action if there has been f all investment in safety, no systems in place, etc etc.

In practice it's only the blatant cover ups which lead to sentences and imprisonments are rare but fines are HEFTY.

[GMO]

So this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  No cover up, just the liability was they didn't have a safe system of work in place.  £1 million fine.

 

Grocery wholesaler fined £1 million after worker killed by reversing HGV – HSE Media Centre

[Scampi]

Legally in Canada the people at the top are responsible, for everything.  It is their legal responsibility to know what is going on

 

It is my responsibility to pass the information on for example have a monthly meeting that the president sits in on, and I report everything, lab results, complaints everything.  GFSI are supposed to enforce the management commitment, but the onus is still on us to ensure a proper paper trail and react to the things that are within our power

 

Since the dawn of the commerce, ethics and integrity have almost always taken a back seat to profit. This should not be a surprise to anyone

[AZuzack]

I should leave the arguing to the author.  He states it better than I did.  

Here's part two of piece:

https://www.foodsafe...sts-food-safety

[MDaleDDF]

I would never hold a QC or QA more to account than an MD.  Much as I wouldn't with health and safety. 

 

How many QCs or QAs are fed up with raising things which are wrong with nothing happening to improve it?  No the person assigning budgets and benefiting most from profits is most accountable if the way those profits were generated hurts someone; whether that's an employee or customer.

They're more accountable than the crew that's supposed to be cleaning the machine?!?!?!   I disagree, respectfully.   The obverse would be charging a QA crew with an accounting error.... which makes as much sense as a pig in a prom dress. 

Travis Kelce and Taylor swift?   Lol.   Really?   Okay.....Go Lions..... since we're talking football too.   

 

"I should leave the arguing to the author.  He states it better than I did.  

Here's part two of piece:

https://www.foodsafe...sts-food-safety"

 

I personally prefer the term discussing, not arguing, but I digress.  In this article the author states:   "Each of these cases involved systemic failures, preventable harm, and corporate knowledge."   If he has proof of a preventable harm with corporate knowledge, he should share it, not just state it.   That would indeed be a crime, and a smoking gun.   Where is it?   He says this and never gives proof of either...  (which is BS, like this article, imho, again, respectfully)...

This article is reckless at best in its lack of presenting actual evidence to support its very serious claims.

 

And I agree with what Scampi says, but her statement doesn't mention proof needed for criminal prosecution of "people at the top":   

 

"To charge a food executive, prosecutors must prove that their actions or omissions demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness that directly caused a person's death.  Unlike a civil lawsuit, a criminal charge requires proving intent or a gross disregard for human life beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't disagree with someone being faced with criminal charges if there's evidence of gross negligence as in the PCA case, but this whole 'grab your torch and pitchforks' mentality is beyond me. 

 

Too many feels, and not enough actual law in this discussion...

 

[AZuzack]

They're more accountable than the crew that's supposed to be cleaning the machine?!?!?!   I disagree, respectfully.   The obverse would be charging a QA crew with an accounting error.... which makes as much sense as a pig in a prom dress. 

Travis Kelce and Taylor swift?   Lol.   Really?   Okay.....Go Lions..... since we're talking football too.   

 

"I should leave the arguing to the author.  He states it better than I did.  

Here's part two of piece:

https://www.foodsafe...sts-food-safety"

 

I personally prefer the term discussing, not arguing, but I digress.  In this article the author states:   "Each of these cases involved systemic failures, preventable harm, and corporate knowledge."   If he has proof of a preventable harm with corporate knowledge, he should share it, not just state it.   That would indeed be a crime, and a smoking gun.   Where is it?   He says this and never gives proof of either...  (which is BS, like this article, imho, again, respectfully)...

This article is reckless at best in its lack of presenting actual evidence to support its very serious claims.

 

And I agree with what Scampi says, but her statement doesn't mention proof needed for criminal prosecution of "people at the top":   

 

"To charge a food executive, prosecutors must prove that their actions or omissions demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness that directly caused a person's death.  Unlike a civil lawsuit, a criminal charge requires proving intent or a gross disregard for human life beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't disagree with someone being faced with criminal charges if there's evidence of gross negligence as in the PCA case, but this whole 'grab your torch and pitchforks' mentality is beyond me. 

 

Too many feels, and not enough actual law in this discussion...

You say discussion but you aren't discussing.  You're dismissing and attacking.  You aren't open to any idea that differs from your view of evidence.  People died from a company's product.  That IS the evidence.  You want evidence of culture of profits over safety or of knowing decision.  That isn't needed because the top management is responsible for the company's action whether or not they have direct knowledge.  People died.  The company's and CEOs are being given fines that don't amount to anything.  Yes it was a football reference because it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of fines on people with large amounts of income.  

[GMO]

They're more accountable than the crew that's supposed to be cleaning the machine?!?!?!   I disagree, respectfully.   The obverse would be charging a QA crew with an accounting error.... which makes as much sense as a pig in a prom dress. 
 

 

100% they are accountable.

 

Remember the role of a Director is not just as a figurehead, they are directly accountable for the business and are paid accordingly.  I say this as a former director myself.  It means your neck on the line if something goes wrong, just as much as the responsible person will also have their neck on the line. 

 

I think you're mixing up accountable and responsible?  

 

Perhaps this is why so many people just don't get the food safety culture thing.  Ultimately the culture becomes what you're prepared to put up with, ignore and bypass as a leader.  In every site I've worked at where there was a major issue, I can think of zero occasions where leaders weren't warned.  One site I can think of where they listened and we'd started making things better, we just weren't fast enough before the crisis hit.  The others all chose not to act, normally for financial reasons.

 

Accountability goes beyond the cover up but it's as much about how, as a leader you seek out the data to ensure that your processes are operating as designed.  That you set the tone and you expect from your direct reports certain standards.  You resource the ethical requirements of business appropriately and have the right touch points to know they're on or off track.

 

That is absolutely the role of a business leader.  A business making food does not have someone at the top who, excuse the pun, gets to wash their hands of food safety because someone else is doing it.  That leader is accountable, much as they are accountable if someone dies in an accident or if their profitability tanks.  That's the job!  Otherwise why the vast salary?

[GMO]

This might be interesting for people.  It's a UK Health and Safety example from the HSE (the regulator in the UK) on what actions you should take as a leader for Health and Safety:

 

Leadership checklist - HSE

 

And this is the legal responsibilities:

 

Legislation on leading health and safety - HSE

 

There are some interesting passages in here which I would love to be as strongly worded and applied in food safety legislation but ARE applied in health and safety legislation in the UK, so it's not impossible!

"Case law has confirmed that directors cannot avoid a charge of neglect under section 37 by arranging their organisation's business so as to leave them ignorant of circumstances which would trigger their obligation to address health and safety breaches."

 

"Those found guilty are liable for fines and imprisonment. In addition, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, section 2(1), empowers the court to disqualify an individual convicted of an offence in connection with the management of a company. This includes health and safety offences. This power is exercised at the discretion of the court; it requires no additional investigation or evidence."

 

"Individual directors are also potentially liable for other related offences, such as the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. Under the common law, gross negligence manslaughter is proved when individual officers of a company (directors or business owners) by their own grossly negligent behaviour cause death. This offence is punishable by an unlimited fine and a maximum of life imprisonment."

 

Note that it even goes onto say that EVEN IF there is a specific person who has H&S in their purview, the board are collectively liable.  

 

My point being that if that's possible for health and safety, it's possible for food safety.