Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Sundae surprise: How a puppy has tested my trust in certain brands

This weekend, I had my own personal revelation about my inherent trust in the safety of the U.S. food supply, and the very real feelings and beliefs that come from that trust being challenged. This epic story revolves not around the humans living in our house and their food, but instead around our beloved family dog, Sundae.

Sundae at roughly five months old
Sundae just turned eight months old on Jan. 25. We rescued him from an organization when he was just two months old, back in August. Sundae has been your typical nose-oriented puppy: sniffing around, rambunctious, curious, vocal, stubborn, and super-quick at picking things up, running away from us and eating them. Sundae has been on a figurative (and frequently literal) short leash because of his puppy mischievousness.

Last Thursday evening, Sundae started to show signs of lethargy and his eyelids looked a little puffy — I thought he was having a small allergic episode to a new treat I gave him that morning (more on that below) or maybe was developing a “doggie cold,” so I began monitoring him. His condition was worsening, so I took him to our veterinarian Saturday morning. By then, he was drooling and shivering a bit, and vomited at the vet’s office. The vet took a blood test, and then told me Sundae needed to go to the emergency vet’s office, as his liver enzyme levels were as much as nine times higher than they should have been.

After a stressful weekend with Sundae hospitalized (made worse by COVID preventing us from being able to see him), I can tell you that Sundae is much better today; his liver values have crept back down; and we will be able to bring him home today. He’ll still be working whatever it is out of his system, but we’ve at least ruled out a foreign body and much more serious diseases.

Some of you smart readers will have already figured out where I’m going with this. Sundae’s ordeal has basically been settled to: “It was something he ate.” That’s where my trust has been tested, and I have responded in what I would call a “typical consumer” fashion.

I didn’t suspect his dog food, made by a major-brand manufacturer. My default belief was, “I will check, but I bet it isn’t the food. They’re a legacy company with a good record.” Even the vet said to me what I was thinking: That manufacturer does a great job and has a great, clean history, but let’s check just in case. All that based on the brand alone.

We moved to the treats, focused on one particular bag of treats, because it was the only new type of treat he’d received in the last month or two. The brand? Don’t know that brand from Adam — I’d never heard of it, and I’d only bought the treats because Sundae seemed to love them during our puppy training sessions weeks ago.

I dug around for recall information, and so did the vet, and we didn’t see anything.

On request from my colleague here at We R Food Safety!, I sent photos of the packaging and treats to him, and he had issues with the labeling, description of the treats, and the actual formulation of the treats as well. Upon looking at the package myself, I was able to find some confusing wording, some misleading phrases and such — things that I didn’t notice when I bought them because I trusted the store that sold them to me.

And here’s the revelation. Despite 15 years around this industry, I’ve reacted as a standard consumer might. Here are some “typical” feelings and beliefs I’ve gone through this weekend:

  1. I trust the heck out of that major international dog food brand, because I’ve never had or heard of an issue with them before.
  2. I don’t know that treat manufacturer’s brand, so I suspect them as the issue, since they’re the newest experience I’ve had.
  3. I had doubts about the actual treats, so now I’m going to take it out on that entire treat segment for the potential outcome of one experience.
  4. I also had doubts about the big-box retailer who sold me those treats, and I will likely avoid shopping at that big-box retailer for the time being, whenever possible.
  5. Even if I should be able to somehow prove that Sundae maybe picked up a wayward pill or piece of chocolate or sugar-free gum, I’m still down on those treats and that brand. The damage is done and will be difficult to repair.

Are these feelings and beliefs fair? Nope, many of them likely are not.

However, they are REAL, and they are likely a very good example of what any consumer goes through when their inherent trust is challenged or broken.

Our food supply is the safest in the world because of processors and producers like you.  You legitimately care and take the time to keep it safe. Whether you’re a big, multi-national brand or a small-town shop, you have dedicated customers who trust you and your brand. Don’t ever do anything to jeopardize that trust!

I recommend that you take it a step further and let your customers know what you are doing around food safety that helps assure them and their families that you are selling them safe and wholesome food.

While you may not have a lot of time on your schedule to do these types of things it is critical to make time to communicate with your customers about how you are keeping them safe.  If you don’t, you may find yourself in a spot where you have nothing but free time because you have a shuttered business.


— Andy Hanacek, vice president of Communications, andyh@werfoodsafety.com

Monday, January 18, 2021

Train properly, document thoroughly to capitalize on prime opportunities

Flexibility: It’s the primary aspect of small businesses that keeps them relevant through difficult periods, such as the one we are attempting to emerge from now (COVID-19). The ability of small meat processors to move quickly to meet specific consumer demands makes them indispensable. The ability to quickly adjust pro
ducts or processes to accommodate the consumer is truly a premium-value asset that opens opportunities and can benefit the bottom line.

Large, multi-state supply chains often have issues getting solutions quickly to the final consumer. As most small slaughter facilities have already seen, production demand for halves and quarters of beef and hogs has skyrocketed as consumers have come directly to their shops and storefronts. While the increase in production demand has been an excellent opportunity for the bottom line, it’s important to note that it can, and often does, lead to other stresses.  

When adding production, we need to examine closely the changes we make to the process to be sure we are following the proper procedures and food safety protocol.  This ensures safety of the product and that we don’t create additional problems further down the line.

Stresses on employees, processes and facilities add up. The stress of employees who are now working overtime and the true ability of production to adjust to these changes can affect the long-term health of the organization. Some processors might need to consider hiring a contractor for cleaning and sanitation or limiting offerings for a period of time in order to handle the changes. Other processors may have a good core team to fight through the transitional period — a team that will then become essential for company growth after the stresses are relieved.

In tough times like these, you may need the help to get things done, and the crucial thing to remember is that time needs to be taken to train properly.  No matter how quickly you feel you need to move to take advantage of the new opportunity, you must keep that training process slow and steady, in order to be sure new team members understand the consequences of not following your processes and procedures, particularly when it comes to  food safety and hygiene, along with traceability. 

The last thing a processor wants is a recall or required additional handling. All these things cost money, which new hires may say they understand, but you must be sure they do. Ask them to repeat the consequences in their own words, giving you insight into any loss in translation between what you are saying and what they are hearing.

Poor training costs you money and business, and your employees their jobs, if you lose your business. Good training does not have to threaten or frighten them, but instead must help them understand the real-world consequences of not following protocols and endangering consumers’ lives. The costs of taking your time and training properly and thoroughly are easily absorbed into the efficiency of the process over time. 

Changes to your process or products also must be reflected in your HACCP plan, where applicable. Get input from your operators and employees to make sure the changes don’t lead to unintended consequences on other parts of the process or business. Traceability, sanitation and food safety issues could arise. 

Finally, make sure to document any changes so you do not have issues with food safety or regulatory compliance. 

With the proper approach to training and documentation — two items small processors can be particularly nimble on, given the size of their workforce — there’s no reason small processors shouldn’t be able to capitalize on any opportunity consumers throw their way.

— Matthew Bayer, sales representative, mattb@efspol.com

Friday, January 8, 2021

Vilsack nomination bad news for meat industry

It is strange to be writing about politics on a food safety blog, but that is the world we are in right now.

With the announcement in December that Tom Vilsack would be President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, many of us with first-hand knowledge of how he works were dismayed. Vilsack, as you likely know, served in the same role for eight years during Barack Obama’s two terms as President.

"USDA building" by brittreints is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Vilsack represents the “safe” choice in terms of party politics: Selecting either of the other two candidates for the position would have caused fighting within the Democratic party. So, President-elect Biden decided to avoid that conflict and nominated Vilsack, despite wide-ranging opposition to his selection from a variety of groups and individuals.

The grapevine talk says Vilsack was very good at raising money for the administration and will return to doing that again. Real-world history displays incidents few can forget: how he fired Shirley Sherrod; and a disdain for minorities, and small farmers and agriculture-related businesses that he was never able to hide. That disdain spilled over into FSIS rulemaking as well, with little to no consideration taken for the impacts on small and medium businesses.

The colossal disappearance of small plants during his last tenure set the industry up with a very weak fortress to use in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic over the last year. This time around, small processors should anticipate more of the same: a push for excessive regulation and oversight, which in turn will result in further erosion of their population.

Large processors will have a different experience with Vilsack in charge — if not an equally uncomfortable one. Processors “with money” should expect to see the FSIS undersecretary — with FSIS personnel in tow — knocking on their doors to solicit donations to the party at his behest. We can also expect him to negotiate settlements with the unions, who in turn make large donations to the party, and so forth. 

The key for everyone at this point is safety in numbers. I am recommending to all our clients that they become members of an applicable, national trade organization. It is going to be critical for everyone that our voices be heard. We R Food Safety! has been active in working with the American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) and will continue to support AAMP; additionally, I have directed our team to reach out and become more involved with other trade organization partners as well. The goal is to strengthen and enhance proactive dialog with those in Washington. 

We R Food Safety! is not a lobbying group, and I don’t intend for us ever to become one. Nevertheless, we are going to take a much more active approach in supporting those that are working directly in Washington as a result of this Cabinet nomination.

During Vilsack’s first stint as Secretary of Agriculture, we did see evidence that he dislikes negative press intensely, as he offered to rehire Sherrod after the public outcry. With that in mind, while we hope we don’t have only negativity to discuss through Vilsack’s tenure, my team of experts and I will continue to write and advise on food safety through a variety of publications and outlets, with the goal of making sure that what comes out of Washington supports the industry and the American consumer.

Andrew Lorenz, president, andrew@werfoodsafety.com