Ethical Dilemma #5: Peninsula Farms and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency



Peninsula Farms was a small business in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, that began with one cow.  The Joneses owned the cow and kept her around to maintain their lawn.  The cow produced milk, of course, but the Joneses didn't know how to milk her.  So they learned proper milking techniques.  The cow was producing more milk than they could use, and the surplus was going to waste.  The Joneses researched the local market to find out what kind of milk product they would sell.  They discovered that whole-milk yogurt was in demand.  They then found out how to make yogurt in large batches.  They also studied the health and safety regulations to make sure they were meeting government standards.  The Joneses were so successful that they exceeded the government criteria.  The Joneses then bought more cows -- enough to make Peninsula Farms a profitable business.

Government inspectors had always given Peninsula Farms a high rating on their regular inspections.  It was a surprise to the Joneses, then, when six federal inspectors from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) visited the farm and, with just a cursory examination of the plant and its procedures, impounded more than $50 000 worth of yogurt.  This halted the production and left Peninsular Farms customers without product they wanted to buy.  The Joneses faced a total loss of more than $100 000 as they were now behind $50 000 worth of new production in addition to the yogurt that had been impounded.  (Their cooler was full of the impounded yogurt and there was nowhere to put any new yogurt.)  They were losing sales and customers as well.  The space that Peninsula Farms' product took on grocery shelves was soon filled with competing brands.  Faced with such a loss, Peninsula Farms was forced out of business.  It was discovered after the fact that their plant was above standard and their yogurt tested totally clean, with no trace of offending bacteria.

No one wants to be poisoned by the foods we eat.  The Canadian Inspection Agency does a wonderful job of protecting us from dirty factories, unsafe packaging, and dangerous storage practices.  As a result, we eat foods that do not, as a rule, make us sick.  Canadians are grateful that the CIFA is diligent in their efforts on our behalf.  However, in this case, do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was too diligent in this case?
Should there be special rules for small ventures that cannot afford such an interruption in their businesses?
If you were the Joneses, would you start over?  Explain your decision.



****Please read the article below before answering this post****



Idealism and yogurt

    New York professor of Spanish literature and management consultant find niche market making yogurt in rural Nova Scotia

Published: The Globe and Mail, August 14, 1989, Report on Business
By Deborah Jones

    Ask Sonia Jones what makes an entrepreneur tick, and she will wax poetic about the main character in Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra's seventeenth-century masterpiece Don Quixote de la Mancha. ''I love his willingness to go forth and tackle every problem,'' said the practical-looking Ms Jones, chairman and chief executive of Peninsula Farms Ltd. of Lunenburg, N.S., a maker of all-natural yogurt, frozen yogurt and ice cream.

    Don Quixote, an adventurous country gentleman addled with idealism, ''wanted his life to be useful to others: orphans, widows in need, damsels,'' she enthused.

    What have such altruistic notions to do with running a business such as Peninsula Farms , which employs 42 and sells $2.7-million worth of dairy products in the three Maritime provinces each year?

    ''The love of living and learning and helping and doing is part of the entrepreneurial spirit,'' Ms Jones said.

    She and her husband, Gordon Jones, were well-to-do New Yorkers when they moved to Nova Scotia in 1972 in search of an academic job for her and uncrowded sailing room for him. Ms Jones, a Harvard-trained professor of Spanish literature, found a job at Dalhousie University. The pair eventually settled with their two small daughters on a farm in pastoral Lunenburg on Nova Scotia's south shore.

    Starting a new business was the furthest thing from their minds. Ms Jones was happily teaching students about her first love and specialty, Cervantes. Mr. Jones had left the corporate world far behind when he retired as a management consultant.

    But then Daisy came along, and Peninsula Farms - the tale of which Ms Jones has set out in her book It All Began With Daisy - inadvertently began.

    Daisy was a Jersey cow the family acquired to have a supply of milk. However, she produced far too much milk for them to use. Ms Jones began making yogurt from the excess and then, on the suggestion of a friend, started selling some to health food stores in Halifax.

    One day David Sobey, then president of Sobeys Stores Ltd., which operates a chain of supermarkets in the Atlantic region, came calling. He told Ms Jones that if she cared to produce her yogurt more commercially he would be willing to stock it. The couple considered the offer, and decided to take him up on it - on condition he allow them to expand lowly.

    Today, the Jones's products are sold throughout the region. Peninsula Farms yogurt holds a 25 per cent share of the Maritime yogurt market, Ms Jones said, and this year the company introduced all-natural ice cream.

    She has also written a yogurt cookbook, which went on sale this year, and is working on a proposal by a Nova Scotia film production company to turn her book about Daisy into a movie.

    Peninsula Farms has not been entirely a story of adventurous romance, the likes of which Cervantes would have relished. Although they now draw a healthy salary, the Jones's did not pay themselves for eight years and, at times, their personal possessions were used as collateral for business loans.

    Indeed, the company would not have endured ''if there hadn't been this spirit of adventure and this desire to live life in a vital way, and if we both hadn't enjoyed this whimsical adventure,'' Ms Jones said.

    She relishes the idea of being an entrepreneur and teaches a course in entrepreneurism at Acadia University in Wolfville, N.S., although she is not entirely convinced that an entrepreneurial spirit can be taught.

    ''Unless you have a sense of humor and a touch of whimsy and an incredible willingness to work yourself very hard, and you have a certain willingness to take risks, you're not likely, even if you want to be an entrepreneur, to pursue it to the end.'' Ironically, Ms Jones appreciates Nova Scotia precisely because it seems to have fewer born entrepreneurs than her native United States. ''I find myself really loving Nova Scotia because it isn't grubby-grabby. . . . You need a middle ground between California crass materialism or pure drudgery,'' she said.

    And what of Daisy, with whom it all began and whose likeness is part of the Peninsula Farm logo? The cow is probably in yogurt heaven now.

    In 1981, the Jones's sold their herd and began purchasing raw milk from Farmers co-operative dairy. Daisy, who would be about 18 years old now, was auctioned off as just one of many lot numbers.

    ''We lost track of Daisy. We didn't know she was going to be famous when we sold her,'' Ms Jones said ruefully.


Copyright Deborah Jones 1989

Comments

  1. In this case the CFIA acted too quickly with not enough hard evidence. Peninsula Farms normally exceeded the CFIA’s standards yet this time, when they took a superficial and almost careless examination, they proceeded to act fast and impound $50,000 worth of yogurt which lead to Peninsula Farms going out of business. This panic may have saved some people from getting sick but it was later shown that the yogurt was clean and not harmful to the public. $50,000 dollars is also a lot of money for a small business and this punishment forced them out of business instead of forcing them to clean up.

    I believe that small ventures should have the same rules as big ventures. I believe this because people can get sick if each business has a different set of rules. There should be standard rules to protect all our health regardless of the size of the business. For example, if someone decided to buy Will’s Ice-Cream instead of Kawartha Dairy and my small business had a more relaxed set of rules, it could make people sick. I don’t think small companies should be put out of business though – unless they are really dirty and could really harm someone’s health.

    If I were the Joneses my choice would be to try my best to completely start over (unless they want to be retired) because my brand name is still good and they seem to like their job because Ms. Jones said ''The love of living and learning and helping and doing is part of the entrepreneurial spirit,''. They only went out of business because they couldn’t sell their yogurt due to impounding not because it was contaminated. They should start small and put systems in place so that CFIA could not shut them down again when they come to inspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William, I agree that small companies should be held to the same health and sanitation standards as large businesses. The safety of consumers has to be a company's first priority.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  3. Hi it's cam,

    Personally, I believe they didn't make the right choice because they were too quick to assume that their product was bad. Every single time they had passed so why was it different this time? I think these people assumed it was going to be bad and so they walked in with that mindset? When it comes to small businesses like that, they can't afford to be held back like that, the world is too fast-paced. If the CIA was actually worried they should've inspected the food longer than that because it was too quick for it to actually prove anything since after the fact the yogurt was clean. I would start over because the yogurt was never bad, so therefore people would still buy the product. It might take time for people to continue buying it like they used to but it would go back to normal after a little while. I think its good to always try again because you never know what the second time holds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you and think the CFIA needs to very sure the food is bad before impounding and stopping the food.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Cam, the CFIA needs to reassure they are right with there accusations and the Jones's family should not have suffered because of a mistake the CFIA made.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you Cam. Was there any consequences for these actions? This is why you should heir professionals. The CFIA should do better background-checks.

      Delete
  4. I think that because the CFIA agents acted way to quickly and didn't complete a finished search it reveals a problem many organizations face which is laziness. If those agents had done a full search they would have found what all the other inspectors found that made them give a good rating. Even if there was a problem it wasn't the farms fault that the older agents didn't tell them what was wrong. Either way i do not believe it was the Joneses fault and that they should have at the very least been compensated for their loss by the CFIA.

    -Devon Hansen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree they acted to quick without completing their search and they should be compensated for their losses

      Delete
    2. I agree, people are becoming too lazy today.

      -cam

      Delete
    3. I agree CFIA should have done a complete search instead of being lazy. I also agree that if there was a problem it would be the CFIA's problem not the farm owners.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you Devon. The CFIA should have compensated for this farms' loss.

      Delete
    5. Are we sure the inspectors were lazy? Maybe it was standard procedure to do a preliminary check or maybe they were just corrupt. My research could not conclude that they were corrupt or if it was just standard procedure.

      Delete
    6. Posted on Chloe:
      Good point Devon. There would be many factors that made their product seemed “unqualified”, maybe reasons that are not Jones’s fault, they shouldn’t just impound their product without giving a proper explanation.

      Delete
  5. I believe that the government agency were not diligent enough while inspecting the yoghurt. I believe that one inspection should not able to close down one business because it doesn't give that business a second chance to fix their problems, both the agency and business should have ways of double checking who is right and who is wrong. Because the business could involve the jobs of many people and it could impact the local economy if a business can be shut down by one single inspection. There should be a way for businesses to appeal for a second inspection, or receive compensation if a mistake has been made.
    There should be special rules for smaller home grown businesses because smaller businesses usually don't have the financial means to withstand setbacks in their business. If I were the Joneses, I would definitely because the yoghurt's quality was tested as above average and there were no offending bacterias. People would still crave for our product and the business will resume back to normal after a period of time. When you restart your business, you have the prior experience from before and it will be easier to not mess up. -Marcus Lam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree prior experience will make it easier but will it change how you get investigated if not you still have the same problem

      Delete
    2. I agree that they should be given a second chance and that they cant just shut down a business after one incidence.

      Delete
  6. in lots of places theres different tax laws and banking laws for small business versus big ones and that should be the same with things like this. the procedure in dealing with these sorts of things should vary depending on the business and its possibility of surviving if stuff was impounded. the business did nothing wrong an should not have been shut down for so long forcing them out. if it was a big business it would be ok just decrease in profit but for small ones its everything so the procedure should change to accompany them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. agreed, there should be different taxes and laws for smaller companies.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Jonty, smaller businesses should have different punishments then larger ventures, although I don't think it should be the reason of the business surviving, I feel they should be punished less considering their affecting less people.

      Delete
    3. I agree that depending on the size of the company and their income there should be different punishments so smaller business can have the opportunity to survive.

      Delete
  7. While the safety of consumers is incredibly important, I believe that the CFIA was too quick to jump to conclusions. It is the CFIA's job to stop all possible health hazards before they can be sold, and I understand that it is their job to stop productions if there is any doubt about the safety of a product. That being said, their mistake did lead to the failure of the business. I can't blame the owners of Peninsula Farms for shutting down their company permanently, with so much money lost. I believe that in cases like this one, there should be compensation for the product and time lost. This would prevent any more small businesses from being forced out of the market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I think they jumped to a conclusion and didn't follow through with any tests.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Maggie it is the CFIA's job to stop all possible health concerns and prevent people from getting sick. They also should have tested the yogurt instead of jumping to conclusions.

      Delete
  8. The CFIA has the responsibility to protect millions of people from harmful food and to make sure it has proper ingredients, although they were quick to assume the food was bad and impounded the food that caused the business to fail. The CFIA should only stop the business for and very small period of time or more business may fail causing people to lose their jobs and not have as much food in the community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to add that i would of tried to start again because the food was clean and made well, also you never know what will happen the next time you try.

      Delete
    2. I agree that they should re open their business so they can have a chance of being successful again

      Delete
  9. I believe that the Canadian inspection agency should have been more diligent when deciding to cease the yoghurt from the jones farm company. I also believe that the there should be different laws or standards for smaller companies like the Jones Ltd. This is because as a smaller company you’re not likely to have the funds that much larger companies must spend on the things that the Canadian inspection agency are looking for. In this case there is no evidence against the jones farm. T o put things bluntly the agency should have checked twice before punishing and ruining the Jones’s company taking a loss of over $50.000 which for small cooperation’s is a far to big a loss considering they said that they hadn’t taken a wage in over three years and had put all the efforts and time into the company. Although I believe that the standards should be I different, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell the public. So, I think there has to be something on the packaging of the products saying it follows a different system and that it’s a smaller company to make the public aware. If I was part of the jones family I wouldn't of started over as I couldn't be assured that it wouldn't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matthew, I do agree that the inspection agency should have been more diligent. But I disagree with small businesses having different rules than larger companies. For example, a small business sells contaminated yogurt to the supermarkets and a whole bunch of people become sick because the company had a different set of rules. Can you recommend a solution where a small business could have a different set of rules when its yogurt is contaminated?

      Delete
    2. Posted on behalf of Chloe:
      Great point Matthew, how can they make sure the business ventures would come back with better-qualified ingredients after they have been banned from the market? Would they still be able to keep their customers

      Delete
  10. In my opinion, the CIFA was rather too harsh with there cuts and punishments and should have done a more proper check. With the farms passed of being perfectly clean the CIFA should have either completed a closer check to reassure they were right or come in contact with the owners to bring notice to the problem before deciding to shoot straight for a large law suit putting the small family owned business into financial problems.

    I believe that if the venture is smaller they should have a slight decrease in punishment, not for the fact of them not being able to afford it (that's the companies problem) but considering they are producing to such a smaller group of people. For example, if the yogurt had been infected with bacteria it would have effected around 1,000 people or less, now imagine if McDonalds had bacteria in there chicken products. This could effect millions, therefore, I feel the larger the company and the more people harmed the higher the lawsuit.

    If I was in the position of the Jones I would have restarted my company, cleared my companies name by showing the yogurt was perfectly clean then sued the CIFA for false accusation of a health code break and used the money to reboot my brand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Carter, the CIFA should have taken more investigative action before stopping productions. Your point about smaller companies being punished less harshly because they reach less people is one I hadn't considered.

      Delete
  11. I believe that the CFIA acted too fast they did not have enough evidence. what they should have done is tested the yogurt. if they had tested the yogurt first and it durned out bad then they could or should shut down the farm. Due to their actions the family lost $100 00 and are behind $50,000. They were also losing sales and costumers.

    I think no venture should have any special rules even small ventures. the other ventures will think its unfair and complain about the special treatment.

    If I was the Jones family I would choose to start over because like what Mrs.Jones said "The love of learning and helping and doing is part of the entrepreneurial spirit", and if the CFIA wanted to shut me down I would get them to test the yogurt so they can see for themselves that there yogurt is save to eat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you and think you made a good point that even though it wasn't the Jones the should have forced the to test the yogurt.

      Delete
  12. I think that the Canadian food inspection agency shouldn't act so fast so they can get enough evidence that a product is not in the conditions it should be for it to be sold, if they've done a better investigation they could find out that the yogurt, the plant and the packing was in good conditions and the Joneses wouldn't lost $100,00 CAD and wouldn't be %50,000 CAD behind and they could still have a good amount of sales and costumers. In my opinion the CFAI should have smaller punishment in small companies so small business can solve their problem and continue in the market.
    If I was the Joneses I would start again and try to gain the confidence of the costumers again so I can be back in business.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don’t believe that they were diligent but negligent. I don’t believe they’ve corrected this mistake. There should be special rules for entrepreneurs. This was not just an interruption but a huge setback. If I were the Joneses, I would not start over. If I now know what the CIFA is capable of, I would try to avoid the same business. This might mean getting a new job but if we are not getting enough customers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that less harsh punishments would be better and that they would have reduced the damage of the mistake.

      Delete
  14. Posted on behalf of Chloe:
    I do believe the CIFA was too diligent in this case. I think that the six federal inspectors were biasing towards small business factories like Peninsula farm, they gave a “cursory examination” of the plant and procedure and jumped into the conclusion, decided to impound $50 000 worth of yogurt despite that the government inspectors had always given them a high rating on in the past. Their examination was obviously perfunctory and inaccurate since it was discovered after that their product was completely qualified for the standard and with no trace of offending bacteria. I can see why the CIFA wouldn’t trust these small factories as much as major factories since they usually have a more standardized production process, but it doesn’t make that small business any less qualified. It certainly was a great blow and disappointing to the Joneses.


    I think there should be special rules for small ventures. These ventures are not often treated as equally as big industries. In order to prevent the misjudgment on Peninsula farm from happening again, there should be rules set up to protect the right and benefit of small ventures. For example, no prejudice. Inspectors should come in with a fair and equitable mindset, run the examination properly, and make their conclusion based on the test results instead of assumptions. Also, if the owner of small ventures suspected unjustified judgement, they should be able to report and ask for another examination.


    If I were the Joneses, I would start over. I know that I already have a wide customer market, and they purchase and love my product. Although there was some unexpected setback, it was falsely accused, which means that our product is still as good. Like Ms. Jones said, “Unless you have a sense of humour and a touch of whimsy and an incredible willingness to work yourself very hard, and you have a certain willingness to take risks, you’re not likely, even if you want to be an entrepreneur, to pursue to the end”, indeed, it isn’t easy to be an entrepreneur, so I wouldn’t just give up due to this one strike. I wouldn’t just let go of the profits I have lost because it is not just about the money, it also shows our reputation. I would request clarification and penalty, to earn back the money I deserved and prove to my customers that our product is clean and above standard. I think a brand’s public praise is more important than everything, as long as we keep a good reputation, we should be able to get back on to the market soon enough.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ethical Dilemma #3: The Canadian Tar Sands and Their Impact on Wildlife

Ethical Dilemma #1: Nicotine in Beverages