'Name and shame' unfair to firms
The chairman of the Society of Food Hygiene Technology (SoFHT), Neil Griffiths, has hit out at the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) policy of naming and shaming companies suspected of infringing food safety.
Griffiths said the FSA's policy of openness in reporting such incidents could unfairly damage the reputation of many food and drink companies which often had no opportunity to defend themselves.
"I am uncomfortable about the development of the name and shame idea in the industry," said Griffiths.
He said naming a company irreparably damages a manufacturer's or its brand's reputation, even if the FSA is subsequently found to have made a mistake.
While court action gave the opportunity for companies under prosecution to be exonerated, Griffiths said it was often too late by then. The damage was done as soon as a company was identified by the FSA.
"Mistakes can be made and have been made," he said.
Griffiths admitted the FSA policy had succeeded in making companies change their practice, but he believed that was outweighed by the reputational harm it could cause as a result of a wrongly made charge.
"To be fair to the government bodies it is an effective way of making the industry take notice, but there are chances that they will get it wrong.
It's all very well saying it works overall, said Griffiths, but what about the poor company that suffered the consequences?
Griffiths predicted the FSA would increase its efforts in naming and shaming rather than relying on going through the courts.
"There will be more and more of this type of concept in the future, rather than a reliance on prosecution, which is unfortunate," he said.