Food Safety
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Food Safety
  • NEWS
    • Latest News
    • White Papers
  • PRODUCTS
  • TOPICS
    • Contamination Control
    • Food Types
    • Management
    • Process Control
    • Regulatory
    • Sanitation
    • Supply Chain
    • Testing and Analysis
  • PODCAST
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Food Safety Five Newsreel
    • eBooks
    • FSM Distinguished Service Award
    • Interactive Product Spotlights
    • Videos
  • BUYER'S GUIDE
  • MORE
    • ENEWSLETTER >
      • Archive Issues
      • Subscribe to eNews
    • Store
    • Sponsor Insights
  • WEBINARS
  • FOOD SAFETY SUMMIT
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • Archive Issues
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Contact
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
ManagementRegulatoryBest PracticesFDAFSMA

Are You Ready To Address Whistleblower Complaints? Preparation Is Key

October 1, 2013

Since the enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, industry personnel, consumers and commentators alike have questioned whether the government would allocate sufficient resources to fully implement the food safety preventative measures that FSMA embodies. FSMA is complex. It comprises approximately 50 new regulations, guidance documents and reports to Congress. FSMA is expensive. The cost to implement FSMA is estimated at more than $1.4 billion. FSMA presents a fundamental shift in the manner in which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) polices food safety, focusing on prevention of, rather than reaction to, food borne illnesses. And, FSMA shifts to food companies the responsibility for utilizing science-based processes that ensure the food products they manufacture, transport, handle and sell are safe for consumption. Given those dynamics, including limited government resources, some have questioned whether food companies will be able to operate under the radar of FSMA and FDA.

Congress, however, built into FSMA a powerful deterrent for any food company that might consider skirting the preventive processes for which FSMA calls or otherwise placing unsafe food into the supply chain. That is, FSMA encourages employees to blow the whistle on their employers’ unsafe food practices. FSMA Section 402 prohibits a company from discharging or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee who refuses to participate in activity that the employee reasonably believes violates FSMA or who reports to his employer or to the government a violation of, or any act or omission that the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, FSMA.

The full deterrent effect of Section 402 remains to be seen. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is charged with investigating FSMA-related whistleblower complaints, employees only filed 40 complaints during 2011 and 2012, and the DOL completed 22 of those cases. Surely, the whistleblower provision has yet to have the regulatory impact Congress intended. But, as the food industry progresses under FSMA, and employees become increasingly aware of their rights under the whistleblower provision, it is likely that the number of whistleblower complaints to the DOL will increase.

Moreover, whistleblower complaints do not necessarily end with DOL action. In some circumstances, employees may pursue their grievances in court. The first such litigation commenced this past June 2013. Entitled Chase v. Brothers International Food Corporation, and pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, a former Brothers International Food Corporation employee claims that Brothers International terminated him in retaliation for raising with Brothers International food safety concerns regarding the company’s re-dating and sale of expired food and the potential for bacterial contamination in the company’s rehydrated apple crisps.  Further, Chase claims that following his complaints to Brothers International the company required him and others to sign a nondisclosure agreement, that the company treated him less favorably in conjunction with that agreement and that he was terminated when he refused to execute the agreement without first having the ability to consult his attorney.

Brothers International denies Chase’s claims and has filed a motion to dismiss Chase’s complaint at the pleadings stage, without further investigation into Chase’s allegations. Therein, Brothers International contends that Chase’s complaint is fatally defective because he pleads no fact allegation that he engaged in protected activity within the ambit of FSMA. Further, Brother International argues that Chase did not alleged facts demonstrating that he possessed a reasonable, objective basis to believe that Brothers had violated FSMA. To that end, Brothers International includes in its motion publicly available information that Brothers International contends exonerates it from any contention that it violated applicable standards and of which Chase should have been aware prior to making his allegations and filing suit. It is not surprising that in his opposition to the motion, Chase disagrees with Brothers International’s take on the applicable standards, asserts that his claim is viable, and asks the court to allow the parties to proceed with the litigation.

On September 18, 2013, the court took Brother International’s fully-briefed motion to dismiss under advisement. (As of the date on which the author submitted this article for publication, the Court had yet to rule on Brother International’s motion.) As an initial matter, the Court will need to decide whether Chase has met federal pleading standards for asserting a claim. In addition, the Court will have to decide what legal standard applies to a claim for violation of FSMA’s whistleblower protection provision. Congress included no such standard in the provision itself.

Regardless of its outcome, the Chase v. Brothers International litigation underscores the need for companies governed by FSMA to properly prepare for the possibility of employees blowing the whistle, whether an employee is well intentioned or not. Even if a company has done nothing wrong, a whistleblower complaint may take on a life of its own and tarnish a company’s brand and reputation. In a similar context, industry members need only look to the cautionary lessons the recent controversy over “pink slime” provides for food companies that operate in the information age. Facts regarding the safe nature of manufacturing and handling processes and the safe nature of a food product may not resonate with individual consumers and consumer advocates. In short, the viral uproar regarding “pink slime” and the resulting damage to the manufacturer of the lean finely textured ground beef demonstrates the need for food companies to be proactive in establishing policies that promptly address the concerns of whistleblowers.

How may a food company prepare for whistleblower claims? For starters, food companies should educate their employees on FSMA, and the programs and processes by which the company intends to comply with FSMA and its implementing regulations. Simply stated, FSMA compliance in the first place is the best way to ward off employee complaints. Even so, whistleblower claims may be inevitable. Companies thus should craft and employ a whistleblower policy that provides a clear procedure by which employees may report known and suspected violations without fear of discrimination or retaliation. Education is essential to the success of any such policy. That is, employees, supervisory personnel, human resource administrators and leadership all should be informed of the policy, and management should receive training on how to implement and audit the efficacy of the policy. Through proper and prompt consideration of whistleblower complaints, companies may be able to reduce the likelihood that a whistleblower complaint will be filed with the DOL or pursued in court, let alone limit the harm to brand and reputation that often accompanies government investigation and litigation.

John T. Shapiro is partner and member of the Food Industry Team at Freeborn & Peters LLP (Chicago).

>
Author(s): John T. Shapiro

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • people holding baby chicks

    Serovar Differences Matter: Utility of Deep Serotyping in Broiler Production and Processing

    This article discusses the significance of Salmonella in...
    Meat/Poultry
    By: Nikki Shariat Ph.D.
  • woman washing hands

    Building a Culture of Hygiene in the Food Processing Plant

    Everyone entering a food processing facility needs to...
    Facilities
    By: Richard F. Stier, M.S.
  • graphical representation of earth over dirt

    Climate Change and Emerging Risks to Food Safety: Building Climate Resilience

    This article examines the multifaceted threats to food...
    Risk Assessment
    By: Maria Cristina Tirado Ph.D., D.V.M. and Shamini Albert Raj M.A.
Subscribe For Free!
  • eMagazine Subscription
  • Subscribe to eNewsletter
  • Manage My Preferences
  • Website Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the Food Safety Magazine audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of Food Safety Magazine or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • Deli Salads
    Sponsored byCorbion

    How Food Safety is Becoming the Ultimate Differentiator in Refrigerated and Prepared Foods

Popular Stories

recalled sysco and lyons imperial nutritional shakes

Listeria Outbreak Linked to Nutritional Shakes Served at Healthcare Facilities Causes 14 Deaths

Image of fish on ice

Common Fish Food Poisoning Types and Prevention Methods

Scientist inspecting food substance with microscope

FDA Announces ‘Proactive’ Post-Market Chemical Review Program to Keep Food Supply Safe

Events

June 12, 2025

Additive Bans Ahead: Your Guide to Avoiding Risk and Maintaining Agility

Live: June 12, 2025 at 12:00 pm EDT: From this webinar, attendees will learn how ingredient bans will impact product development, labeling, and sourcing.

View All

Products

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

See More Products
Environmental Monitoring Excellence eBook

Related Articles

  • Preparation Is Key to Staying off FSMA’s Annual Mandatory Recall Report

    See More
  • Are You FSMA Ready?

    See More
  • The FSMA Intentional Adulteration Rule Is Here: Are Processors Ready?

    See More

Related Products

See More Products
  • 9781138198463.jpg

    Food Safety Management Programs: Applications, Best Practices, and Compliance

See More Products

Related Directories

  • Genista Biosciences Inc.

    At Genista, we combine big-corporation capabilities with personalized attention and care. Our dedicated team is available 24/7 to address your inquiries and provide emergency testing services, ensuring the safety of your food products. We understand that the food industry operates around the clock, and we are committed to being there for you every step of the way. Trust us to prioritize your safety and deliver unmatched customer service.
  • SoftTrace Ltd.

    SoftTrace has being providing innovative Software solutions to the Dairy industry for over twenty two years. Our experienced team fully understand the many challenges facing today’s dairy industry. Since the beginning, our customers are at the centre of what we do, SoftTrace takes pride in having developed and maintained strong customer relationships building up a strong Dairy manufacturing client base. Our software solutions form a key component for dairy manufacturing in Ireland, the U.K, Europe and North America.
  • FoodReady

    FoodReady offers complete FSQ (Food Safety & Quality) software to digitize everything related to quality, food safety, sanitation, and traceability. FoodReady also offers complete consulting services for GFSI audit-preparation, HACCP consulting and development, process authority, FDA consulting, USDA consulting, and master sanitation consulting services from a team of longtime auditors, former Directors of Quality at the largest food companies.
×

Never miss the latest news and trends driving the food safety industry

eNewsletter | Website | eMagazine

JOIN TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Directories
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • eNewsletter
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2025. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing