Ethical Dilemma #6: 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.

Comments

  1. As awful as it is that the Jones's suffered because of an over-critical judgement from the CFIA, I don't believe that the agency was in the wrong. It is their job to keep consumers safe and healthy, and I don't think they would have impounded the yogurt for no reason. Perhaps it was an error of judgement or someone accidentally made a mistake in the inspection. According to the CFIA website, they make around 350 recalls on foods each year. I don't think that is a really large number, and they likely consider very carefully about whether or not foods meet their standards. They must have had some justifiable reason for impounding the Jones's yogurt, and were just considering the health of the public.
    It sounds like the Jones's are very passionate about their business, and love working in entrepreneurship. If I were them, I would try starting the business over, now that they know there is nothing below standards about their plant. Sonia has a teaching job providing income, and Gordon was a management consultant so he probably has quite a bit of money saved. The business was selling $2.7 billion worth of product yearly for them, and they also had a 25% share of the Maritime yogurt market. Because of this I think they could make back some of the assets they lost when the business was forced to close. They also would have a great time doing it.
    If the Jones were in a different financial situation, I would say that they should stick with the losses they had already suffered, and not take any more risks or spend more trying to reopen the business. It sounds like they were in a lot of debt when it closed, and reopening without sufficient funds would be very risky.
    I don’t think that there should be special rules for small businesses that can’t afford such an interruption as the CFIA caused Peninsula Farms. There are rules in the business world for a reason. They keep employees and consumers safe, and employers as well. Although it might be more financially difficult for small businesses to comply with rules, and especially any interruptions that may be caused by them, I think it is still important for all businesses to follow the regulations that are set.
    I am sympathetic to the Jones's situation, and although I believe that the CFIA was simply doing their job, I think that because they made such a mistake they should have provided the Jones’s with a formal apology and monetary compensation for the devastation their business suffered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with what you are saying about the CFIA impounding the Jones' yogurt for a good reason. I really don't think as an agency they would go around impounding everybody's belongings for no good reason.

      Delete
    2. I agree, the CFIA has to have a good reason to impound the yogurt, they wouldn't do it for no reasons.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you, There's definitely a reason why they impounded all of their yogurt from them but when the CFIA puts recalls on other food they usually have a reason for it like salmonella in meat, or contaminated with something. It's strange that they didn't give the Joneses a reason.

      Delete
    4. I strongly agree with your point that CFIA won't recall business's food for no reason. And the business should all follow regulations that are set, this really important.

      Delete
    5. I totally agree that the CFIA wouldn't just Impound all the yogurt for no reason they must have had a really strong reason to impound all the yogurt.

      Delete
    6. Posted on behalf of Zoey:
      I agree with your response. CFIA has an important job and wouldn’t shut down business for the fun of it. In this case they could get fired. I like your response.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that the CFIA would not go around impounding innocent people's belongings as an agency. I'm sure the CFIA had good reasoning for the act they made. Since the agency also monitors the health of animals along with potential consumers it is possible that the act of the impound was for the safety of Daisy, the Jones' cow. Peninsula Farms was behind production and had lost many customers and sales because of the agency taking away $50,000 worth of yogurt according to the passage above. I think that it would be highly ethical of the CFIA to tell Peninsula Farms what they had done wrong and what safety procedures they did not follow. It seemed quite devastating to me for the farm to be shut out of business because of this low rate of production, but I think maybe we will be lucky enough to see that name back on the Sobey's shelves some time in the future safe and ready to enjoy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with some of the points in this piece, such as the fact that the CPIA wouldn't go around intentionally shutting businesses down and taking people's livelihoods. However the CPIA is run by humans who, like everyone else, are prone to making mistakes. It was later discovered that the accusations against the business were false.

      Delete
    2. You made good point and I agree there has to be a reason they wouldn't just take it away. I agree CFIA should help inform companies what is wrong and how to fix it.

      Delete
    3. CFIA should have better inspecting procedures to make sure this doesn't happen anymore.

      Delete
    4. I think that this is a great point but there is a lot of corrupt government workers and I think that you are right when you said they should have been told at the time why all of their product was being impounded.

      Delete
    5. Posted on behalf of Zoey:
      I believe your right that the CFIA only did this because they need to keep people safe, and or animals. You made a good argument.

      Delete
  5. In the end of this the Joneses lost $100,000. That’s a lot of money to lose for any business let alone a small milk company. They sold the milk/yogurt for longer than 8 years in Lunenburg Nova Scotia and there were no problems that people argued about after consuming the milk/yogurt product. In the first 8 years that their small business was around they didn't get paid any money. They were doing all of this work and got nothing in return.The small business shut down not long after this because of a problem from the CFIA. They were forced out of their work by competition from other brands. They ended up selling their cows in the end and gave up on trying to make yogurt. To get approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency they do multiple tests to make sure they are right. There was some kind of a problem with the testing so they had to temporarily shut it down. After a while they came out and said that their product tested clean from any bacteria. CFIA comes around regularly to test peoples products and we have seen lettuce,eggs,etc.. And they were put out of stock for a while until they tested safe. It was easy for them to get back in business because they are uch a big company unlike the small business in Lundberg. It’s horrible that they lost so much money when they didn't make a lot in the first place but even though they lost so much money if there was a problem in the beginning from the testing and someone got sick there could have been bigger problems. I believe there should be special rules for small ventures when they get a recall warning because most small ventures can’t afford to come back after it therefore their product gets discontinued and the shelves get stocked with different products. It’s not fair towards the business if the testing does come back safe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, CFIA should give compensation to Joneses for their mistake.

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with the points you've brought up. Small businesses are at a higher risk of shutting down, especially after such as lose. While to massive organizations losing 100,000 dollars isn't cause for concern, for a small business such as Peninsula Farms, a lose like that can not only put them at a massive disadvantage to their competitors, but also ruin the business completely.

      Delete
    3. I agree, maybe the Jones's should not have been penalized as much as they were being a small business in Lunenburg. Possibly the CFIA made a mistake that costed the Jones's their business and could have been avoided.

      Delete
    4. Although I think that the CFIA was simply doing their job, I agree that it was not fair to the Jones's, especially since the testing was faulty and they had to appeal for more.

      Delete
    5. I agree with you point of view in terms of protecting such small ventures from these external factors. Even-though it is the responsibility for such small businesses to expect the unexpected, as even when companies have an excellent business plan there still will be unexpected bumps and mistakes, I believe in this specific case it is quite unreasonable and unacceptable.

      Delete
  7. Canadian Food Inspection Agency is a regulatory agency that is dedicated to the safeguarding of food, plants, and animals. Also, enhancing the health and well-being of people in Canada, and their environment and economy. It is their job to keep us healthy and safe. This agency is founded by the government in Canada at 1997. Now about the Joneses, they lost $100,000 because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency impounded more than $50 000 worth of yogurt from them. Since the agency is officially founded by the government, I don't think they would just impound foods for no reasons. The CFIA must have inspected some possibility of the yogurt pollution to make the decision of impounding the products. From my point of view, the Joneses should have discuss further on why did they have this concern and request further investigation of the yogurt, and just verify again to make sure there is nothing wrong with it.
    But if it still doesn't work, they could start the business again instead of giving up. They already have the techniques, so it wouldn't be too hard for them to start over. Not only it's a family business, they already have some good reputation throughout the area. Long story short, I will support the Joneses to restart the business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, In the article it said that they had shelves full of their yogurt so it must have been a popular brand. It's CFIA job to make sure the food were eating is safe but maybe before they impounded $50,000 worth of yogurt from them, they could have tested it again unless their was actually something wrong with the yogurt.

      Delete
    2. I agree with most of the point you have made. While the CFIA is a government sanctioned organization, it is still run by people. People that are prone to making mistakes. While I'm not doubting the professionalism and beneficial impact that this agency has achieved, a simple mistake is still not a far fetched theory.

      Delete
    3. I agree with your support of the CFIA, it is their job to make sure we are safe and so they wouldn't want to take any chances with products. I agree that the Jones's could have engaged in further discussion with the CFIA and request more investigation to come to an agreement about the problem.

      Delete
    4. I agree CFIA is here to keep use safe and make sure food is up to standers. I totally agreed further contact should have been made by the Joneses. Hopefully they can find a way to start again with the right rules.

      Delete
    5. I think that for the Joneses it's a heavy hit, start again is not easy, especially for the business that lost everything, I think CFIA should do something to make up for their loss.

      Delete
    6. You said about how the CFIA must have found some possibilities to why they impounded the yogurt, I may have a thought that's likely untrue. The CFIA impounded it because at that time, they couldn't easily trust a small yogurt provider compared to big yogurt providers that were already known to be clean and widely used, so they assumed that it wasn't clean and got lazy so they impounded it.

      Delete
  8. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals, and plants, which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy. I don't think that they will recall businesses' food without reasons, their first mission is to make sure that the food their citizens eat is safe and healthy.

    I believe that the Joneses case is a mistake that CFIA did, that time's working system was lack of timeliness, although this mistake can be understood. Unfortunately, by this mistake, Joneses lost more than $100 000, even they were behind $50 000 worth of new products in addition to the yogurt that had been impounded.

    For this, I think CFIA should give compensation to Joneses for their mistake. I have deep sympathy for Joneses' experience. Small ventures face challenges both at the beginning of their development and during the transition period of their growth. They should get the protection and respect they deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Steven. There had to be a reason for the CFIA to put a recall on their product. If they didn't lose $100,000 I believe they would still be in business. CFIA should have also told them why they thought they should be a recall on their yogurt since it was proven that their product was above standards.

      Delete
    2. I agree, an agency as massive and influential as the CFIA should have been held responsible for essentially ruining a small business, and at least compensate by donating the money that was lost to Peninsula Farms.

      Delete
    3. I agree, the CFIA is a business that can not be lazy and I don't think that the CFIA impounded $50,000 worth of yogurt for no reason.

      Delete
    4. I completely agree that the CFIA was working according to the rules, but their mistake did cost the Jones's a lot of money and they definitely deserve compensation from the agency.

      Delete
    5. I agree that the CFIA should give some sort of compenstation to the Joneses for their mistake.

      Delete
    6. I completley agree with Steven's comment because the CFIA does make mistakes but they also help the world so much more. and i also agree that the Joneses should have some type of compensation for the mistake the CFIA made.

      Delete
    7. I agree that they should consider some procedures considering small businesses because of the Jones case.

      Delete
    8. I agree that the CFIA made a mistake with the Jones's case.

      Delete
    9. I like the points you made and I agree that because the mistake was made from the CFIA they should give compensation to the Joneses.

      Delete
  9. While the actions made by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or CFIA were indeed a mistake, this does not at all justify what they did to the Peninsula Farms business. This agency's error caused the family run business to collapse in mere months and forever impact the lives of the Joneses. The temporary halt in production, plus the impounded produce started a chain reaction that ended when the whole business itself was completely run into the ground.

    After the CFIA conducted and completed a routine check on procedures and the plant itself, they impounded around 50,000 dollars worth of produce and stopped it from being shelved and sold in stores. This only set the business back a further 50,000 dollars in new production and estimated total monetary loss of 100,000 dollars, but also damaged the business's reputation. Since the halt on production a lot of consumers and customers were left frustrated and irritated that the Peninsula Farms yogurt suddenly disappeared off the shelves of stores. Another factor contributing to the collapse was the competition. As customers that once relied on the yogurt supplied by Peninsula Farms, migrated to other companies in their misfortunate absence. This not only made their competition stronger, but also made it more difficult to gain the support they once had after letting so many of their customers down. They started losing customers more and more, which finally resulted in the total collapse of the business itself. A collapse that shouldn't have happened as further and more in depth analysis of the produce showed that there were no signs of a potentially hazardous invader in the yogurt. While the CFIA were responsible for the fall of Peninsula Farms, I still believe that organizations such as the CFIA are extremely important. They conduct routine checks on businesses making sure that consumers get the safest and most beneficial product. Many companies try to cut corners, by reducing the sanitation or adding dangerous chemicals to produce to decrease production costs, and these agencies make sure that this doesn't happen and that customers rest easy knowing that the food they purchase is safe.

    In my opinion, I believe that in this instance, the CFIA weren't as diligent as they needed to be. They didn't examine the product as rigorously as they needed to, and because of this they ruined a business that was innocent all along. I also believe that there needs to be a system put in place to support smaller businesses when trouble such as this arises. The government can supply businesses with money and other forms of support to keep the business afloat until the speculations are proven to be true or not. Personally, if I was put in the Joneses position, I would still try my best to keep the business running. While it is indeed hard to re-popularize your produce after losing so much money and customers, I believe that with hard work, dedication and patience it's possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have the same belief as you about how the CFIA wasn't "as diligent as they needed to be". Seeing that a more in depth search would have proven their conclusion wrong, I believe they should have looked closer at the situation to check themselves on their decision.

      Delete
    2. I think that since after the fact, it was discovered that Peninsula Farm's plant was above standard and their yogurt tested totally clean, with no trace of offending bacteria, that their reputation was not damaged. During the time period before that was proven, I understand how their reputation could have been temporarily damaged, but in the end their business was proven to be above standard as far as health regulations, so their reputation in the end, was not damaged.

      Delete
    3. I concur with you where the there should be some kind of support provided to smaller businesses when it comes to such unreasonable external reasons, which caused the whole company to go down. I also agree with you in terms of the difficulty of re-popularizing such company, as that is a very interesting aspect to view, since it is possible, however will require high intelligence and dedication.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, the CFIA error cost the Jones's a business that was definitely growing and perhaps this all could have been avoid if the CFIA was more thorough in their inspection. But I do think that there has to be some reasoning behind the CFIA's choice.

      Delete
    2. This is an interesting thought. I have been arguing that the CFIA impounded the yogurt out of diligence. The idea that they actually weren't thorough enough could actually be the case though. If they had conducted further testing then they would have discovered the original tests were inaccurate. It would be nice to see their reasoning for seizing the yogurt, as I find it hard to believe that the agency would do that without a motive.

      Delete
  11. Considering the importance of maintaining a range and options of safe food products to the public, I believe the CFIA action on behalf of such and other cases was and should mostly be solely to ensure the safety of food products, which the CFIA's purpose is to improve the health and well-being of the people in Canada through such constant monitoring on not only the foods itself that are available to the citizens, yet such agencies also watch over the animal's health. However, I understand that the CIFA would be considered too diligent in this case, reflecting that Joneses' product was often exceeding the government regulations, and there were no signs of potential health issues mentioned or shown from its consumers, therefore acting only base on the cursory examination is slightly careless. Even though it is not entirely clear upon the reason for such action from the CIFA, I still believe there must be some cause leading to such a decision, which could potentially save lives if that was the case. However, it could be accurate where the CIFA might be unnecessarily overly cautious than being practical.

    In terms of the common reasons most small businesses and startups fail, fundamentally lacking intelligence and capital, such entrepreneurs should acknowledge the difficulty and understand what they are getting into in the first place. However, even though the CFIA is working considerably on maintaining the standards for the people in Canada, I believe in this different case, the CFIA action was unreasonable, considering as mentioned that the small company was often up to standards on the government's regulations, and where there were no health problems from the consumers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you stated about how the CFIA was "unreasonable" since the farm was cleared by the government. They were "up to standards on the government regulations" and I believe that fact should have prompted the CFIA to conduct a more thorough search before making their harmful decision.

      Delete
    2. I think that the CFIA was right to exercise caution, as it involves the health of the public. I agree though that it was unreasonable of the CFIA to cause such devastation to the Jones's business without further testing or explanation. They definitely should have provided reasons for their concern before taking action, but I do not believe they were wrong in their decision to take precaution as it is their job.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you on your point on how the agency should have been more thorough. The CFIA's mistake terribly affected the farms business. If the CFIA had conducted a more thorough inspection maybe Peninsula Farms would still be a running company.

      Delete
  12. The CFIA works in our best interest to keep us safe so I believe they would not impound $50,000 worth of yogurt if there was nothing wrong. Possibly the CFIA had made a mistake in their inspection but ultimately I believe it is better to be safe than sorry. The CFIA also inspects the animals so perhaps they did not find something in the product but in the cows. Although I do think it must be hard to lose a business you are so invested in, I believe it would be in their best interest to try and start their business or possibly try a different line of work, after all their yogurt was successful and they started to make other dairy products like ice cream before they eventually went out of business. Peninsula Farms sold “$2.7-million worth of dairy products in the three Maritime provinces each year” according to the article Idealism and yogurt, this is just another reason why I think it is a smart idea to start up again. I do feel for the Jones’s, perhaps if they were a bigger business at the time they would still be in business although some may argue that the Jones's should have never been penalized because there was nothing wrong and that is true, I still believe there has to be reasoning behind the inspection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point about how it's important to be "better safe than sorry". They must have had a reason. However, because of the fact that the farm passed the government's inspection, I disagree. It's my belief that that should have prompted them to have a more complete search of the farm.

      Delete
    2. I feel like both sides of the argument have equal weight. I fully agree that there was reason for the CFIA's actions, perhaps a mistake in the testing. It is important to be concerned for the health of the public. Though it was unfair of the agency to not give reasoning for the decision, and compensation after they caused the downfall of the business.

      Delete
    3. I agree with the idea of better safe than sorry because even though the Joneses lost quite a bit from this situation, there would have been an even bigger issue that affects even more people if there was an issue with offending bacteria that caused food poisoning.

      Delete
    4. I understand and I agree Canadian Food Inspection Agency has to be safe then sorry. If there was a problem I still think there should be a certain time to fix and they have to deal with the yogurt and the CFIA shouldn't just take it away. I do agree though if it was bigger they could still be in business.

      Delete
  13. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency dedicates itself to keeping Canadians healthy and safe. The inspectors provide security for the people of Canada and their work is incredibly beneficial to the public as it prevents sickness and saves lives. This being said, perhaps their method when dealing with small businesses could improve in some areas. There is much diversity in the realm of food business. Stakeholders have questioned the negativity that some new regulations will bring to mostly small businesses, and there is currently an effort being made to remedy the situation. It’s my opinion that there do need to be some changes brought to the rules in the CFIA concerning micro businesses. Had the government inspectors not have approved of the health and safety in the farm, I would support the decision made by the CFIA to be on the safe side. However, I disagree with the way the CFIA handled the situation. I believe the agency should have been more thorough in their search before they confiscated yogurt that would have provided the farm with $50 000. Their hasty and misinformed decision placed Peninsula Farms in a detrimental position, that caused them to lose a lot of customers and profit and to eventually completely close down. The one mistaken inspection destroyed a business that brought a lot of positivity to the food market. I believe it is very important that new rules are made to prevent an issue like the one of Peninsula Farms. Small businesses should not be penalized for not having the same resources as larger businesses. This situation should be considered greatly in the CFIA as they strive for more fair regulations concerning small businesses.
    Had I been in the position of the Joneses, I would be truly undecided as to what I should do. I believe that had my financial state allowed it, I would start over. The Joneses were quite passionate about their business, and I believe that passion for your work is what makes a good business. I would have wanted to continue doing what I loved and serving the best that I could.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you on your point on how the agency should have been more thorough. The CFIA's mistake terribly affected the farms business. If the CFIA had conducted a more thorough inspection maybe Peninsula Farms would still be a running company.

      Delete
    2. Your point that the CFIA needs to relook at how they test miro business I agree with completely. You have made really good points here that I agree with.

      Delete
    3. I understand what youre trying to say, however like you stated at the beginning of your comment, the CFIA saves lives and prevents so much sickness. The people working those jobs will have personal judgments and bias, and will almost certainly make a mistake once in awhile. However i do agree with your statement that more communication could have helped create a more helpful and less damaging solution.

      Delete
    4. I agree that the CFIA's one mistake cost the Joneses their whole business, but I think that the CFIA should be able to apply the same rules for their inspections of any company. Regardless of the size of the business, food poisoning can come from anywhere and cause harm.

      Delete
  14. I believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was just doing their job to keep Canadians safe. While I sympathize with the Joneses, the CFIA was trying to protect Canadians and not take any risks. I do not think that the CFIA were too diligent in this case, because they were doing a thorough inspection to make sure they do not overlook any dangers. It would be more harmful if it turned out that there was offending bacteria and many people got food poisoning. However, the CFIA did make a mistake that cost the Joneses a lot. I believe that the CFIA should give some sort of compensation for the damage they caused to Peninsula Farms. The Joneses lost more than $100 000, which is a significant amount. The CFIA could have given some sort of compensation such as half the loss or full compensation.

    If I were the Joneses, I would try to start over because they were once a successful business, they have the proper equipment, there was no offending bacteria (so their brand isn’t harmed), and they clearly show a passion for making whole-milk yogurt. Even though their loss of $100 000 would be a setback, they made $2.7 million a year so they would probably have the sufficient liquid and non-liquid capital to start their business up again.

    There should not be special rules for small ventures that cannot afford such interruption in their business, because the CFIA should be able to do their job and do their best to keep Canadians safe. According to the Government of Canada, about 4 million (1 in 8) Canadians are affected by a food-borne illness every year. Food-borne illnesses affect many Canadians every year and the CFIA is trying to help make these numbers decrease. The CFIA should have the right to inspect any business, regardless of the size. The size of the business does not matter because any business can cause food poisoning, and the CFIA should be able to protect Canadians from that.

    Resources:
    Yearly food-borne illness estimates for Canada
    https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/food-borne-illness-canada/yearly-food-borne-illness-estimates-canada.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the CFIA was just trying to protect consumers. I also agree that with their passion for this business and the profit they were making they could try and start the business again, and it would also make them happy to do so. That's pretty shocking that so many canadians are contracting food-borne illnesses, 1 in 8 is a significant amount!

      Delete
  15. Canadian Food Inspection Agency is meant to protect the health's of Canadian citizens. Canadian Food Inspection Agency is meant to help keep people safe and they have certain policies to follow. The situation was that they were making yogurt and although it was passing the test there are laws. Sometimes these laws aren't always the best and don’t make sense. But while the laws are laws there should be some flexibility. I think there needs to be more research on both sides. The Joneses needed to not only do research on how to make yogurt but also know the laws around it. And the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should have also looked at the test and figured something out. A possible solution could have been to have them not be able to sell till they could get the right contractions without a fine or their yogurt being taken away. I know not all laws can be bent and bending some laws could put the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in trouble. So, although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a job, I feel some more communication could be helpful. The Joneses did make good yogurt as for what everyone said and their story and how they did it are great but communication and laws need to be improved to help fewer small companies go out of business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you point that there needs to be more research on both sides.

      Delete
  16. I do not believe that an agency can be too diligent. If the agency follows all the rules and regulations it should turn out just as good or bad as it would for any big or small businesses. In this case, though, Peninsula Farms has always come up with high ratings and all of a sudden out of nowhere the business production is halted, that is where I think it isn't right. In this case where the record of Peninsula Farms has always been good, I'd say that the agency did the wrong move. It would be different if every time Peninsula Farms was inspected, their methods and health quality was questionable, but the fact that they have always had a high rating it doesn't make sense to me for them to be put out of business so suddenly. How can you just stop their whole production when over time the record of Peninsula Farms has been almost perfect? I feel like there should have been a different medium to take a look in this matter especially that their fridges were full, and the Peninsula Farms were stopped from sending their products out, and they had to stop the production of their yogurt because they had no more space in their storage.
    I also do not think that over all there should be special rules for specific businesses just because they are small because in the end, the big corporation as well as the small all food ends up in the hands of the consumers. I think that the rule should always be to have the equal and the same. The other side to this is that as a small venture, who doesn't have space or any other means, you have to look at their record. I do not think that there should be rules for small businesses because even for the bigger businesses who have always had a clean record if there is one batch of food that the agency goes to test and it shows something negative the same precautions would be put into place. They should then be able to find means to have them keep being in business while their product is being tested out, and only if the inspection comes out bad then you take all the appropriate actions. Being that Peninsula Farms was still a small business with a clean record, and they were told to stop, then being in debt which they couldn't manage, and all their product was brought in and replaced by competing brands. As it turned out that Peninsula Farms actually had no issues I think that the agency is the one at fault.
    Personally if I were the Joneses I would not want to start over. If I already tried something and it failed I would probably try something new. In the case that I were the Joneses and I did start over with the same business , bad advertisement will always be bad advertisement and I think that because of what happened with the agency there will always be a bad reputation that comes with their company. On the other hand If I were the Joneses and I absolutely loved what I did then maybe I would want to start over with the same business.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Joans went through an awful thing, although when you go into this type of business you need to be ready for anything. I don't think that the CFIA did the right thing. They were very careful and took every pice of information that could affect the process. If they weren't careful then we would all have probably aten food that was harmful. The dairy industry has to be more careful because it can go bad so quick and it is much easier for bacteria and other things to arise in the product. There are cases like the Joanes where it wasn't right that they got shut down, but there are many cases were food companies aren't being safe and the food is dangerous. The fact that it was actually safe when the CFIA said it wasn't goes to show that maybe there way if testing isn't accurate and instead of it being that safe products are unsafe it could be letting unsafe foods be passed. I think that the CFIA needs to reconsider how they are testing the plants where the food is made and the actual food. They are a part of the government so if they are making mistakes and more companies end up like the Joanes they might get mad and work together to do something about it.
    If I were the Joanes I would have to look at what they had. If I still had all of the machinery, factory and cows then I would consider reopening. It could be good for the business because people will miss their product so their market might go up and then they could be making more money then before. If it was something that I really enjoyed doing and it would make me a profit well I was doing it all the better. The Joanes were one unlucky case and the CFIA should be doing better and not shutting down small companies like the Joanes, but they are just doing there job and we do need the CFIA.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is very important to maintain a range of options for safe food production distributed to the public. The CFIA's purpose is to improve the health and well-being of the people in Canada through a pattern of constant food monitoring and reassuring customers that their health comes first. CFIA also monitors animal health and treatment to ensure meat sold to the public is healthy and safe. I therefore support CFIA’s mandate to monitor the health and safety of food sold to the public. However, in the Joneses Yogurt Companies case, I feel that the CFIA misused their power and shut down their company prematurely before investigating all details of their food production. I feel that the CFIA was far too diligent in this case, falsely accusing the company of poor advertising on their products placing the public's health at risk. In fact, Joneses' products were often exceeding the government regulations, and there were no signs of potential health issues mentioned or displayed by its consumers. It is not entirely clear upon the reason for such action from the CFIA.

    Most small businesses and startups fail. There are several fundamental reasons for this including, lack of structure, poor planning, cost, location, government support and productivity. Entrepreneurs are eager for their businesses to succeed and flourish, however, many of them lack the knowledge and understanding of what makes a business successful. They focus on productivity and lack those standards outlined by companies like CFIA, resulting in their downfall. Joneses was a small company that unfortunately was targeted by CFIA for their lack of insight on food health and safety, even though Joneses felt they were providing safe food to the public. As a small company, they were not able to fight against the CFIA’s case and ultimately shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In my opinion, the CFIA should have done a better inspection, they never gave a specific reason to impound all the yogurt. However, the CFIA are humans as well, we all make mistakes. Maybe the search wasnt thorough but everyday they make searches and find verdicts. Their job is to keep the public safe and that is exactly what they were trying to do. I believe that as the truth about the farm came to life, they should have given some sort of recompense to the Joneses. So that they have the opportunity to start the very profitable business again. Although, the second article made it seem like Mrs. Jones thought of it as a "whimsical adventure" and looks back on that time joyfully. To conclude, I believe that the CFIA simply made a mistake and I sympathize with the Joneses as well but we have to look past the CFIAs failures and notice how many lives they save and how much sickness they prevent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the CFIA try to keep the public safe and that they probably did a mistake by closing the Jones's business.

      Delete
    2. I agree with this point but personally I think that they made a mistake and didn't own up to it. This is why they didn't get compensated for the time they didn't have there equipment. Also in your point you say their job is to keep the public safe but in this context they actually destroyed a successful business potentially putting the owners into bankruptcy.

      Delete
  20. I don't think think The CFIA was in the right here. They could have made clearer inspections bwire impounding so much product that does so much damage to the industry. It is obviously good that the CFIA is making sure that we are eating healthy, but are they crossing the line here. Is it worth it for them to impound so much clean product causing loss to the family while on many other cases they have made sure the people were eating healthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I was jones I would start over as that's what entrepreneur is about, failure.

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

  22. It is the typical success story of a business and that upon receiving an inspection, they are closed even though they fulfilled the necessary requirements. However, even though they sell their cows, they bought raw milk from Farmers co-operative dairy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think that this should be looked over again and the owners of the business should be compensated. I think this because the government made a mistake that ended up shutting down a family business that started from one cow. Most of the big companies are unfriendly to there cows and treat their employees badly but this company is friendly to their cows and takes care of its workers because it is a small family business. Now the business has to shut down and it makes me sad to think that something like this can happen and no-one can do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it makes me sad that this family business got shut down and they are friendly to other cows but other bigger businesses aren't as friendly to their cows and they do fine.

      Delete
  24. I strongly think that the CFIA would not just go around impounding people's belongings and that they had a strong reason for impounding all their yogurt. Since the CFIA also looks at the safety of the animals it could have had something to do with their cow. I feel that it would only be right if the CFIA told the Joneses what they did wrong and what they needed to fix so they could fix it and start going again. I think it is really sad that a nice family business like this that treats their animals well unlike other businesses that don't treat their animals as well to see them shut down makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In the end of this the Joneses lost $100,000. That’s a lot of money to lose for any business let alone a small milk company. Most of the big companies are unfriendly to there cows and treat their employees badly but this company is friendly to their cows and takes care of its workers because it is a small family business. I don't think The CFIA was in the right here. They could have made clearer inspections with impounding so much product that does so much damage to the industry.



    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with you where it is understandable and commendable that the CFIA's responsibility is to protect the consumers, where although business was never equal, in this case, it is considerably unreasonably unfair. I agree that if they have enough resources, mainly money, I will start over, despite the mental strength required. I believe many do not see the view where such failure can be an underestimated opportunity to regrow.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Posted on behalf of Zoey:
    The Joneses had a great business going on. They started from scratch and worked there way up, they started from not even knowing how to milk a cow. I think it’s horrible that the Joneses lost $100 000 but the CFIA had to do what they had to do. The CFIA has to keep everyone safe and not get sick from what the consumer is purchasing, they did the right thing even though it was horrible for the Joneses. The CFIA wouldn’t go around and attack small business just to attack them, they would do this only to keep people safe and not in any danger. Even though that it really sucks for the Joneses, business is really hard and not easy but I think they should try again. I think because that they had such a good business going on they will redeem them selfs and make things right.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ethical Dilemma #3 - Is it Time to Ban Zoos?

Ethical Dilemma #4: Healthy Competition or Unfair Monopoly?

Ethical Dilemma #5 Chicken Farms - how ethical are they?