{"id":2759,"date":"2009-10-08T14:03:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-08T14:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.certitrek.com\/nlpa\/2009\/10\/08\/do-your-suppliers-bully-you-into-compromising-safety\/"},"modified":"2023-06-22T06:18:20","modified_gmt":"2023-06-22T10:18:20","slug":"do-your-suppliers-bully-you-into-compromising-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.certitrek.com\/nlpa\/blog\/do-your-suppliers-bully-you-into-compromising-safety\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Your Suppliers Bully You Into Compromising Safety?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m sure the title of this post sounds outlandish to many of you. But, in the food industry, it appears to be commonplace. Or, maybe suppliers are being made the convenient scapegoat for greedy corporations that want to maximize profits at any cost. Let me tell you the story and you can decide.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t miss updates on Procurement & Supply Chain, Subscribe here!<\/p>\n

I was recently tipped off to a New York Times article (hat-tip to Dick Locke) that shares the story of a woman, Stephanie Smith, who has become paralyzed as a result of eating a hamburger tainted with E. coli. The tainted hamburger was traced back to food giant Cargill. And that\u2019s when the supplier issues boiled to the surface.<\/p>\n

According to the article, hamburgers commonly are made from meat provided by multiple suppliers. The hamburger eaten by Ms. Smith was comprised of meat ingredients from four different suppliers of Cargill.<\/p>\n

So was the meat contaminated while at Cargill (a meat grinder) or at one of the suppliers\u2019 (slaugherhouse) facilities? That\u2019s where it becomes tough.<\/p>\n

Apparently, the companies that grind the meat are not required to inspect the incoming meat for bacteria and instead require all inspection to be done by the suppliers prior to shipment. While the grinders certainly have the ability perform their own inspections, the article says that \u201cmany big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli\u201d because they \u201cfear that one grinder\u2019s discovery of E. coli will set off a recall of ingredients they sold to others.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, it appears that most beef buyers are bullied into agreements to not test the supplied ingredients for fear of having their suppliers refuse to supply them. The article quotes large grinder American Foodservice\u2019s Food Safety Officer, Timothy P. Biela, as saying that slaughterhouses \u201cwould not sell to us\u201d until American Foodservice stopped testing trimmings.<\/p>\n

So, do suppliers bully all buyers that way? No. The article cites one company, Costco, that insists on doing their own testing.<\/p>\n

Costco does this testing despite pressure from the supply base. Craig Wilson, Costco\u2019s food safety director, told the Times that a large supplier, Tyson, \u201cwill not supply us\u2026They don\u2019t want us to test.\u201d Still Wilson says \u201cIt\u2019s incumbent upon us [to inspect the ingredients].\u201d<\/p>\n

Now, despite the fact that the supply base seems to be behaving suspiciously here, I can\u2019t help but wonder if this is another case of blame the supplier. After all, if all grinders took Costco\u2019s stance, one would think that suppliers would relent.<\/p>\n

But, would grinders be hurt by adopting such a policy? Naturally. To start inspecting ingredients that are currently not being inspected would require more resources. Thus, more cost. Thus, less profit.<\/p>\n

Though opponents of testing by grinders prior to grinding contend that \u201cthe cost of testing could unfairly burden small processors\u201d (read: prevent them from making as much money as they currently do), the article clearly indicates that it isn\u2019t just the small grinders that are refusing to test. The article reports that Cargill\u2019s annual revenue is $116.6 billion. Costco, which does test, is smaller with $72.5 billion.<\/p>\n

That leaves us lots to ponder here:<\/p>\n