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.
I think the CFIA was maybe a little too diligent in this case regarding the Joneses. I totally understand, and appreciate that they're trying to be diligent with their practices, but I don't think it was needed in this case. The Joneses were consistently meeting the standards for their milk quality, and even exceeding standards sometimes. I think the decision to impound such a large amount of their yogurt was hasty, and too cautious. I think the CFIA saw that the Joneses had a small farm, and doubted whether it was sanitary, even though they really had no evidence against anything being unsanitary on the farm.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if the Joneses yogurt was unsanitary, and the CFIA didn't impound the yogurt, Canadians would've been upset and the CFIA might've been blamed for doing a bad job. In a way, CFIA needs to be a little too cautious, because they can't take the chance of people getting sick. They just want, and need to do their job well.
It's so unfortunate that the Joneses lost their business because of what the CFIA did. I think if a small business has as good as a reputation as the Joneses farm did, there should be some special rules for them. I understand that small businesses can have more potential to be unsanitary, but the Joneses had great yogurt quality every time they tested regularly. Something like impounding that much product from a small business can really impact and cripple them, as it did for the Joneses. Once a small business like that falls down, it's hard for it to pick itself up and get up.
If I were the Joneses, I don't think I'd try to start over. They had a really good business going. The big issue would be their farm might have a bad name associated with it, because the CFIA impounded their yogurt. They might not be considered a credible and good business by their local consumers anymore. Also, they suffered a great financial blow, it might be hard for them to start over and regain their footing. I don't think their business would be as profitable if they started over, because as I said they might have a bad reputation.
Even though the Joneses were consistently meeting the standards for their milk quality, a cow producing the yogurt could have gotten diseased resulting in contaminated yogurt. CFIA does not only deal with the product but also where it comes from and how it's produced. The CFIA found the plant and the yogurt totally clean however, what about the cows producing the milk used in the yogurt? Could the cows been diseased or ill? When it comes to peoples' health I don't think we can be too careful.
DeleteYou make a point that the Joneses had a good reputation but businesses have to work hard to keep their reputation and there shouldn't be special rules. There is always the possibility that a business with a good reputation could slack off, therefore, there should be no special rules.
I agree that the Joneses had a really good business going. They spent a lot of time researching local markets and finding a demand for their yogurt. Everything is in place to continue forward. With careful planning and financial assistance, the Joneses can be successful once again.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for protecting consumers from diseases and unsanitary food. I don’t believe that they were too diligent in the case involving Peninsula Farms. The CFIA must have strong laws when it comes to food and peoples’ health. The CFIA was following their ethical code of conduct when they impounded the yogurt produced at Peninsula Farms. The mission of the CFIA is, “dedication to safeguarding food, animals and plants, which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy”.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe there should be special rules for small ventures even if they can’t afford big interruptions. If their product is unsanitary and the CFIA doesn’t impound it because of a special rule, then consumers could potentially get sick. There are both disadvantages and advantages for small and large businesses. There shouldn’t be special rules for small businesses because they have advantages over large businesses already, such as tax benefits and government grants. All businesses should follow the same rules and regulations.
If I were the Joneses then I would start over. They aren’t completely starting over, they have all the assets needed to keep making the yogurt. The only thing in the way of starting up again is what consumers think of the name brand. Since the CFIA impounded so much yogurt, consumers may think that the product could be diseased or unsanitary. This could result in decreased sales. If they market their product as “new and improved” and state that it exceeds government criteria then after a few months of marketing sales should start to rise again. The Joneses may never have the sales that they used to and may have to sell their yogurt for less, although their brand name will start to grow and become more valuable. When the Joneses think Peninsula Farms are at a mature stage then they could decide to sell it because when a company is at the mature stage then it is at full value.
While I do think that CFIA should be monitoring every food product that is commercially sold quite well. I believe that they where way to diligent I this case. There is absolutely no reason for CFIA to check every product made by a company.
ReplyDeleteIn the future many things should be done differently. First of all the history of the company should influence how detailed the health analysis is. So if a company like joneses had an excellent heath rating from all of their regular government inspections. They should not feel the need to impound most of their products. Secondly there is no reason to impound that much product. They shouldn't just be taking one I agree with that. However they could just take one or two from every batch of the yogurt that was made getting a detailed test without halting the production of the company.
Finally if I where joneses I would attempt to make a lawsuit against CFIA. If I then one the law suit I would use the money I made to restart my brand and then use a lot of marketing to re-establish consumer faith in my product. I would do this because I would not want to go another seven years without salary instead of using my own money I would use the money I got. Also if I won the lawsuit then there would be some policy change in CFIA which would prevent the same thing from happening in the future reducing the risk of the business venture.
I agree with your point that the CIFA should be monitoring every food product that is commercially sold quite well, but I do not think that they where way too diligent in this case because they deal with our health. Instead, I just think they were being really paranoid and unfair because nothing was wrong with the yogurt or the production of it.
DeleteI do not think that the history of a company should influence how detailed the health analysis is. This is because if a company feels like that the CIFA will not judge them as harshly because of their previous work, they will feel comfortable enough to slack off when making their products. However, I definitely agree with the idea of taking one or two samples from each batch for a detailed test instead of making rash decisions.
I think the way you think the Joneses should restart their business is really smart. I would definitely try to make a lawsuit against the CFIA because it provides you with a good amount of money to restart the business.
I do not think that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should ever be ‘too diligent’. As stated in the question, it is the CIFA’s job to “protect us from dirty factories, unsafe packaging, and dangerous storage practices”. It is important that this agency should not take any risks because so many Canadians could be hurt if a product was unsafe to eat. However, the Peninsula Farms plant was discovered to be completely clean (in fact, above standard) and the yogurt produced was also deemed totally clean, with no trace of bacteria. If there was no unsafe packing, dangerous storage practices or dirty factories, I do not see why the CIFA could possibly feel the need to impound more than $50,000 worth of yogurt.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that special rules for small ventures that cannot afford such an interruption in their business should be made. The health of Canadians is a matter that I would not risk, as it is possible for any business to be unsanitary. If a small venture cannot afford such an interruption in their business, they should use their efforts to try and exceed government health standards to prevent any interruption from happening. Even though this was the case – a very unfortunate one - for Peninsula Farms, not all businesses are going to be exactly like them or have the production and sales process that they had. Many businesses would also take advantage of any special rules and not work as hard because they do not need to.
If I were the Joneses, I would start over. Their business was extremely successful and a book was even made about the starting of the business. The Joneses would not have to completely start over, as they know what they have to do and already have contact information for places to sell the yogurt. It is even stated in the article ‘Idealism and Yogurt’ published by The Globe and Mail that “ In 1981, the Jones's sold their herd and began purchasing raw milk from Farmers co-operative dairy”. It is highly likely that the Joneses would still know how to reach Farmers Co-operative Dairy and that they would provide resources for Peninsula Farms again. There are still risks of starting a business present and it is not easy to restart a business, but I think it would be worth the work. Mrs. Jones did claim that “''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”. The Joneses would have to face the burden of building the reputation of their company even more, considering that they went out of business because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency impounded $50,000 worth of yogurt. The business would have to use very strong marketing to promote the yogurt, and it would be very important for them to stress the fact that their plant was above standard when the went out of business.
I believe that the CFIA were not diligent enough in this case, in fact their work bordered on being irresponsible, because they just came to the Joneses farm, looked at the products and then just impounded all their yogurt. I think that was a bit rash, they should have at least done a very thorough examination of the product to make sure that it was not below government standards, not just come and say yeah that looks dirty and then leave. This was a bit too hasty on the CFIA part.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there should be special rules for small ventures that cannot afford such an interruption. If their products are not clean and safe, then they should be impounded, although the inspectors should be a hundred percent sure of their testing procedures, so they do not make mistakes like the Joneses case. There are disadvantages and advantages of having special rules for small firms. One of the disadvantages would be towards the consumer, because if the product is not clean and safe it might affect the consumers’ health in a bad way, probably making him sick. An advantage to special rules for small businesses would be promoting small-business start-ups.
If I were the Joneses I would consider taking some time off, so that the whole issue just disappears. After a good amount of time I would start the business up again, with a different name and a different everything so that nobody thinks it was the product that was classified not to be eaten. Why would I do this? I would do it because it might make a new hit and attract much more clients. On the other hand, if I were to give it the same name it might not attract as many people because the product is already known and is not a big hit anymore.
I would also consider seeking compensation from the authorities for the original business’s failure. It is all very well that consumers need protection from unhealthy products, but also small (and large) businesses need protection from over-zealous inspectors. If inspectors are so powerful that they can drive a business to bankruptcy, they must also shoulder the responsibility for their mistakes when they make them.
I agree that the Jones' were treated unfairly but there must have been something that triggered the CFIA to react so harshly. I don't think that anyone can ever be 100% sure of anything, so I disagree with your comments on testing procedures. The CFIA needs to be more organized and efficient in their procedures and complete the testing process in a more timely manner, so that businesses aren't held up for weeks on end.
DeleteI agree that businesses should be compensated for the business interruption, especially if unsafe products are not discovered in their investigation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBUSINESS: LEADERSHIP AND ENVIRONMENT
DeleteAlex Westcott
Ethical Dilemma | Peninsula Farms
The CFIA is to ensure that all Canadians are protected from contaminated and unsanitary foods. There is little room for uncertainty, and the agency should never be accused of being “too diligent”. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for the health of Canadian citizens. Therefore there should be no hopeful thinking or taking of risks, as the matter is quite serious. However, the Peninsula Farms company was above government health standards. The plant used safe packaging, proper storage practices, clean factories, and was in fact free of any harmful bacteria. Despite the healthy environment and safe conditions in which the Peninsula Farms plant obtained, the CFIA still impounded more than $50,000 worth of yogurt. I cannot help but disagree with this action.
I personally think that it might have been more appropriate for the agency to remove a few from each batch, and then send the selected yogurt off to be properly tested. The actions taken by the CFIA were quite extreme in my opinion, their reasoning must have been valid. Although it would have been better for the popular yogurt brand, if the health inspectors took a different and less drastic course of action.
I do not think that there should be special rules for smaller ventures. Regulations should be equally enforced for all businesses sizes, as the health of Canadians may be at risk if facilities are not up to standard. This may in fact mean that small businesses must pay very close attention, as health standards are frequently being extended and adjusted. If a business cannot afford production interruptions, similar to the one encountered by Peninsula Farms, it should be making even more of an effort to correspond or even exceed government health standards. However, these efforts may be ignored, as they were in the Peninsula Farms’ case, although it is very uncommon.
The Peninsula Farms was an extremely popular and successful business, therefor I see no reason to not start over. As stated in the introductory blurb “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”. The business started off very small, and eventually became a high source of income. However, it is not just a case of re-building, and farming. The Joneses family must also re-build their reputation as worthy entrepreneurs. They will also have to put in lots of work and effort into marketing. It may be difficult to promote their previously popular product, and to attract consumers. However, I do think that the business could once again be a hit
Yes they took it way too far in the wrong way. Its one thing to overreact but to overreact and it turns out your wrong is just disgraceful. Its rather unbelievable a government agency such has the CIFA could mess up. It happens but usually further testing is given to prevent this type of incident.
ReplyDeleteI believe they should have some rules for small ventures. Rules like allowing monitored production or an ultraviolet cleansing ray of some sort while continuing production is so much more sensible and definitely helps the company. As the Joneses I would have definitely started over. Just because you go under doesn't mean your going down like Lehman Brothers.
Lots of companies have had bad patches. Sprint had a rough patch but is doing fine now. I would have released an article or report on my products confirming its quality. The milk can be bought as can the cows and if I had done that well then I would have money left over to buy them with. If it takes off within a set time period then I would continue production. If not then I would take it off the market.
Also I'm starting a two week vacation on friday so ill get as much as I can done before I leave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWeek 5 ethical dilemma
ReplyDeleteI believe that CFIA serves an important role in ensuring food produced in Canada or brought into Canada is safe to consumers. I understanding the need for inspections, however, in reading this article and others about Peninsula Farms, I question the severity of how CFIA went about this inspection. In an article from Costal Communities, it explained that inspections of the plant had always been done by the province, but that a change in government roles and responsibilities moved the inspections to CFIA. Shortly after the change took place a group of CFIA agents made a surprise inspection on Peninsula Farms. They questioned many things, including the temperature of the milk and record keeping. The Joneses called in an expert who tested and told them and CFIA that the temperatures and computer systems were accurate. CFIA was still not satisfied, and said they’d send samples for more testing. The Joneses also sent samples to an independent lab. In both cases the yogurt came back fine.
The problem I think was CFIA took too long and it seems like they weren’t sure what they should be doing or looking for. As milk has an expiry date to it, all the Peninsula Farms yogurt ($50,000 worth) was stuck in a freezer and could not be sold. And, the owners couldn’t produce more product because the impounded yogurt was in their freezer still. So they couldn’t sell or produce for a few weeks, which when you are a small business is really a problem. So, I think that CFIA was doing their job, but there was no flexibility in working with this company. CFIA took their time, which cost Peninsula Farms value time and money…forcing them to close the plant. As there had never been any issues in the past with their food products, I feel that CFIA was excessive in their handling of this. Peninsula Farms had a very good track record of going above and beyond the government’s expectations, and also none of their customers were reporting that they were feeling ill after having the yogurt. So, I don’t think they should have impounded such large quantities of yogurt, and I do believe they were too diligent in this case.
I think there should be special rules for small business that cannot afford this type of interruption, ONLY if there isn’t a public risk. In this case there was no risk, it was an inspection. There were no complaints and no evidence that the products were making people sick. I think the rule should be that when undergoing inspection only a small % of their product should be held for inspection, which wouldn’t impact their profit. This would let the inspectors do testing and also let the company stay in business while its being inspected.
If I were the Joneses I would do everything in my power to continue the business because I see profit in it. They had a good consumer base and were doing financially well. Even though their product had been replaced I would have still tried to get a spot back on the shelves and begin to rebuild. I also think there should also be a way for them to get compensated for their loss from the government in a case like this.
Sites referenced:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/04/05/ns_pennisula000405.html
http://www.coastalcommunities.ns.ca/magazine/backissues/v8_i1.html
Week 5: Peninsula Farms
ReplyDeleteJoel McGarrity
The Canadian Inspection Agency is a government agency that was formed to protect consumers from harmful products. The Joneses were a highly educated and driven couple who successfully produced a product which sold 2.7 million dollars worth of dairy products in the three Maritime provinces each year and employed 42 people. I don not understand why these two entities couldn’t come together for a successful outcome for both parties.
I believe that Canadians are grateful for the work the CFIA does and believe that it is a necessity in our country. The CFIA is entitled to enter a business and inspect their operations and make sure they are meeting government standards. The Joneses had always succeeded government criteria. When the CFIA visited and suspended the operations of Peninsula Farms, I believe that this decision might have been made too quickly. The CFIA has procedures that they must follow when they visit a business. Their policy states that “An inspector has provided the operator with a copy of an inspection report prepared by the inspector that sets out the grounds for suspension, the required corrective measures and the dates by which those measures must be implemented in order to avoid suspension and cancellation.” Sometimes people who work for companies with authority can throw their weight around. I think this may have been the problem in this situation. I am not sure the Joneses were give time to fix or test the problems the CFIA found. It is noted that, “It was discovered after the fact that their plant was above standard and their yogurt tested totally clean, with no trace of offending bacteria.”
I believe that there should not be any special rules for small ventures. I think that the standards should be kept the same for all businesses big or small. A small business has just as much potential to poison or kill an individual as a large business. If small businesses sell a product to a larger company, the larger company may distribute it and affect a greater number of people. The poor product from the small business may be the seed that grows in a larger company.
The Joneses are entrepreneurs who have a lot of money and spare time. I believe that if they loved what they were doing with Peninsula Farms, then they should continue. Quoting Ms. Jones, she said, “The love of living and learning and helping and doing is part of the entrepreneurial spirit.” They are obviously business people who know that failure or setbacks are part of doing business.
In conclusion, I believe that the CFIA has a lot of power and can easily destroy businesses and cause unemployment. I think that they need to use their power carefully and work with people, and not against them.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-79-840/page-5.html#h-11
http://bb1lcs.blogspot.ca/2013/06/week-5-peninsula-farms.html