There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the massive beef recall related to XL Foods last fall.
The thorough report on the recall, released in early June, is a credit to the three men who wrote it: former British Columbia chief veterinary officer Dr. Ronald Lewis, Northwest Territories chief public health officer Dr. Andre Corriveau and food industry expert Ronald Usborne.
They found fault with the company and with those assigned to inspect and enforce regulations. However, it is apparent in the reading of the report that many of the problems stemmed from simple human tendencies and failings.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
The Nilsson brothers, who owned XL Foods, followed their tendency to reveal little about business operations, even when it was a matter of public safety and consumer confidence in their product.
Whether from inexperience in large plant operations, arrogance about the public’s right to know or ignorance of what constitutes an effective communications strategy, their reticence during the extended recall worsened a bad situation.
Corporate absence left Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials with the task of communication, but the report found that CFIA processes were also inadequate to meet public information needs, and health hazard alerts were difficult to understand.
CFIA inspectors embedded in the plant apparently followed a human tendency to sympathize or co-operate with plant officials and managers rather than adopt a policy of strict enforcement that might create workplace conflict.
Some have suggested that a certain “coziness” between plant and CFIA personnel, many of whom have worked there for years, allowed laxity in the application of regulations.
And inspectors may also have become so familiar with plant operations and personnel that lapses in food safety went unnoticed or at least unchecked.
Getting too comfortable was their flaw. Allowing food safety to be compromised in the first place was the plant managers’ and employees’ flaw.
Among the 30 recommendations listed in the report are several designed to mitigate potential problems created by such human reactions and frailties.
Greater emphasis on inspector training, practicing mock recall procedures and developing a food safety culture within this plant and all food plants fall into this category. So does better CFIA enforcement of its own oversight responsibilities.
On that topic, a CFIA memo to plant inspectors is telling in the very fact that it was deemed necessary. CFIA president George Da Pont summarized it: “we expect them to do their jobs, we expect them to do it with rigour and if they are facing roadblocks of any sort, senior management will support them.”
Was the perception that employers did not support inspectors at XL one of the reasons for the food contamination and recall? Though not expressed in so many words, the report suggests it was a factor.
After the report was released, federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz an-nounced a $16 million program to establish inspection verification teams that will do random and presumably unannounced visits to food plants.
It’s unfortunate that such teams appear to be needed, but if it will help ensure food safety at the plant level, the measure is justified.
The XL Foods beef recall gave consumers the impression that food is less safe, when overall statistics show the opposite is true. If a team of watchers to watch the watchers can improve food safety and consumer confidence, so be it.
The government should also wholly adopt the 30 recommendations in the report and avoid a tendency to selectively apply them as it did with recommendations from the Weatherill report, which was filed after the Maple Leaf Foods meat recall in 2008.
