|
|
|
You are here: Home > Current Topics > At your Leisure > 26 February 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
To see the Biz/ed Learning Pathway for this resource, please follow this link. |
When, in February 2007, Cadbury announced the recall of a wide range of confectionery products, observers could have been forgiven for feeling a sense of 'déja vu'. For in the previous year, the chocolate manufacturer had faced a similar situation, with a multi-million pound reversal following health and safety concerns over some of its products. The 2007 case is unusual in that it became hot news at the same time as another food manufacturer faced its own health scare. Taken together, Cadbury 2007 and Bernard Matthews 2006 illustrate different ways of dealing with product safety fears. Cadbury's problems of 2006 may be about to reach their own serious conclusion. Those of Bernard Matthews may be only just beginning. This At our Leisure investigates the topic of product safety in the food industry and asks 'when is it right to go for a total recall?'
The backgroundThe recall of thousands of Cadbury Easter products was due to the chocolate being processed on the same production line as was used for products containing nuts. This fact made the Easter chocolates potentially harmful to consumers with nut allergies. Cadbury said that recalled chocolate eggs could be repackaged with the correct labelling and later re-sold. But the company still faced a big bill for the product recall and advertising campaign to inform the public of their rights to return the offending chocolates. The advertising campaign was launched immediately after the Food Standards Agency was contacted and informed of the possible contamination. This reaction was in contrast to Cadbury's treatment of a scare one year earlier, when they had to recall one million chocolate bars following the discovery of salmonella in a factory in Herefordshire, UK. In that case, Cadbury took five months to tell the health authorities of the scare - an error that cost them an estimated £20 million to recall the bars, advertise the problem and change their production techniques. 
A chocolate bar may be your favourite pick-me-up, but for those with nut allergies, choosing the right one can be a minefield. For Cadbury's, they have to ensure all their products are properly labelled. Copyright: Trafoo, from stock.xchng. Two sides of this well-known chocolate manufacturer were seen in their handling of these two product safety scares in consecutive years. The 2007 product recall revealed some notable differences in the ways the company faced up to its responsibilities. informed the relevant authorities, and kept the public updated about the circumstances. It was not the same in 2006. As a result, Cadbury face charges in the UK under environmental health laws for the salmonella outbreak. But in addition, it is believed that the European authorities will take action against the company following its failure to inform the authorities when levels of risk rose to the public as a result of consuming Cadbury's products. Cadbury's PR (Public Relations) efforts can be seen in the context of another food manufacturer's struggles with safety concerns. After the detection of avian (bird) flu at one of its turkey farms in February 2007, Bernard Matthews, the producer of the infamous Turkey Twizzler, adopted quite different tactics to those used by Cadbury. An outbreak of avian flu was confirmed at the Bernard Matthews slaughterhouse and processing site in Suffolk, UK in early February 2007. Within a week, nearly 160,000 turkeys at the factory had been culled. The H5N1 virus which had been detected in dead turkeys at the site, causes bird flu, but is not thought to spread easily between humans. But an outbreak of the disease does pose a risk to the public; it also brings into question a number of other issues:
On the first question, there is still uncertainty over the origin of the virus. The H5N1 virus had been found in January on a Hungarian goose farm. UK authorities believe the Suffolk outbreak may be an identical strain of the bug. Bernard Matthews has a processing plant in Hungary, but this site is more than 100 miles from the goose farm. In terms of openness, the company says that it has done all it can to inform the authorities. But a European Commission health spokesman, interviewed on BBC Radio 4, believes otherwise, noting questions about the levels or speed of cooperation between Bernard Matthews and the UK authorities. At the time of writing, it is unclear whether there was indeed a 'dragging of feet' over calling in the Government-appointed vets, when the outbreak first occurred. If this proves to have happened, then Bernard Matthews could face heavy fines from the UK or EU. But perhaps it is the message that the outbreak gives to consumers that should be of greatest concern to the company? There is growing evidence of consumers becoming unhappy about intensive food production. Whilst people continue to demand low prices for food, perhaps the demise of 'factory farming' is a long way off. But consumers are unlikely to be comforted by the news that some Bernard Matthews' turkeys are imported into the UK in a semi-processed state, with their breasts being used in everyday food products sold in the supermarkets. 
The most recent scare in the UK concerned avian flu found in turkeys at a Bernard Matthews farm in Norfolk. The company's speed of response was called into question by many. Copyright: Dria Peterson, from stock.xchng. |
Cadbury's contamination testing procedures came under scrutiny as a result of a public health scare. They had to change the way they produce their chocolate as a result. Now, products are released for distribution only after tests for salmonella prove negative. The source of the contamination, in this case, was believed to be a leaking pipe at the firm's Marlbrook factory in Herefordshire. The latest news at the time of writing (Feb 2007) was that Cadbury faced prosecution by the UK and EU authorities for its failings during the 2006 salmonella scare.
Cadbury are the world's largest confectionery manufacturer, but they lost 1% of their market share as a result of the incident. It is unclear whether this loss of market was due to consumer 'turn-off' or because willing buyers of their products couldn't actually buy Cadbury products, as they had been removed from the shelves.
The 2006 salmonella outbreak, which left dozens of people suffering from food poisoning, may have been a salutary lesson for Cadbury. If they are severely punished for their failure to face up to their responsibilities, then Bernard Matthews ought to be watching very carefully. Some way down the line, their business could face similar action from the authorities.
What should businesses do when faced with public health issues?Four key reactions to public safety scares which all business organisations would do well to bear in mind, are listed below:
|
Use the following resources to help answer the above tasks:
