Thursday 14 June 2018

Ethical Dilemma #5: 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.


Copyright Deborah Jones 1989

57 comments:

  1. Posted on behalf of Caroline:

    If I was joneses, I would start from the beginning. Like Ms Jones said:" they had the spirit of adventure and the desire to live life in a vital way, and they both had enjoyed this whimsical adventure." Also, she would like being an entrepreneur. In my opinion, they would not give up easily, they will start their 'adventure' again. They are not afraid of failure.

    On one hand, their factory are definitely above standard; their yoghurt are completely clean; their packaging and storage practices are totally safe. There is no any bacteria. What's more, the government inspectors are always giving them a high rating, so it means, they comply with government standards, also they did not make the mistakes.

    On another hand, I believe that Canadian Food Inspection Agency may be too diligent in this case and make some special rules for small ventures. If they can find out they way that they can afford the special rules, then they can start again. It would be no problem.

    Nowadays, more and more people want to have the healthy and clean food, Peninsula Farms's products are such!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about having special rules towards small ventures, but I think that special rules should be made after making sure that the business is meeting the government's health and safety regulations.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that CIFA should have special standards to determine small ventures did illegal things or not. In situation like this, they definitely need to have because they didn't harm anybody.

      Delete
    3. Point well taken,The fact that the CIFA have rule in taking down business is bad for the economy.The should at least allow the company even with little problems.Because the Joneses did not wrong to people so they should be given a chance.

      Delete
    4. In this instance I don't think that its even possible to take a stance with the CIFA. I don't mind that their doing their job diligently, but the way they inspected this bushiness was incredibly intrusive, and didn't even seem to take into account the companies margins, and that they would come out of this with a huge economic loss, overall I have to agree with you.

      Delete
    5. I agree that if the business has shown exemplary results in previous inspections that CFIA can afford to give a little slack when it comes to inspections. I think that there should be a limit that the product of any business can be impounded in an effort to limit the loss of revenue and if there isn't any contamination but there is loss of revenue CFIA should reimburse the business for the amount lost.

      Delete
    6. I agree with you, if the Joneses can find I way to make some special rules then they should be totally fine to start a the company again.

      Delete
    7. I agree with you in starting over. Is non-sense that with a product that is highly rank and the proves that there wasn't any bacteria in the yogurt would end this company. With all this facts and statements they should be able to convince the people and start over little by little.

      Delete
  2. If I were owner of a farm like Joneses, I would like to accuse it in a court. I think what CIFA did was too unfair for farms like them. CIFA became so inflexible that farm needed to get through formidable time even though their yogurt was unsullied. I think this something the court will consider, and they may be willing to change a law for farms which didn’t do harmful things.

    That law is to make sure there is no huge company who invades the properties of small businesses. However, Joneses business started from very small farm, and it’s owned by individuals. So, I think there should be other regulations for businesses like Joneses farm.

    Also, I think CIFA should be more flexible about the law. Nobody can be in line with the law perfectly. So, they have to get flexibility to consider whether “the illegal behave” really harms social values or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I partly agree with you about this.But this shouldn't be something taken to court the CIFA disagreed about the condition of the work.But somehow if they do the court might be in their favour but who knows.All they should do is to start all over again and try and meet their standards.

      Delete
    2. I believe that its clear that the farm suffered massive monetary losses from the inspection, and I agree that they should take this to a court with them. Why should a small business suffer when they were following all regulations, it seems in this instance they were punished unfairly for having tight margins, and should be able to receive legal help in court.

      Delete
    3. I think that you are right, going to court might be the only way that the Joneses would be able to restart their company.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you that CIFA was so inflexible in this case and accusing it in a court would be the best way for Joneses to get their money back.

      Delete
    5. I agree with you that CIFA's inflexibility cause massive damage to the farm, and it's very unfair.

      Delete
    6. I agree with you. With a court the Joneses can prove the false declarations in their product. With all these new evidence; they should win this case.

      Delete
  3. In this particular case, it sounds very unreasonable to the Peninsular Farm because the CFIA only did a cursory examination. As a consequence it drove away all the customers in the business and it's irreversible. Therefore my opinion is that for those small ventures like this, the government should pay a certain amount of money to those companies which are mistakenly halted. This gives the small ventures an opportunity to restart their business. The CFIA is too diligent in this case.

    I think the Joneses should start over again. They have the talent of being an entrepreneur and I think they enjoy facing the challenge in their business. From another aspect, they are successful in this and the only thing is the issue of the CFIA. Therefore anyway they won't feel upset about it and oppositely they should be confident about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In a case like this I would say the Joneses did not wrong.Because all they did was to produce yoghurt for people.And because the CFIA have all the power over such company they have the ability to shut down company like this as said in the article they where making profit from this type of business.The Joneses also made sure they met the government standards.

    And if I ever would to start again I would and this time I would make sure I met there expectation.Because what they experience is something to learn from and be better in the future.The Joneses also had some good yoghurt so a CFIA comment should not bring them down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you mentioned power it occurs to me that maybe too much power is given to the CFIA, which leads to the injustice treatment for the Joneses. We should adjust this govern power in order to protects the rights of small ventures. And I agree with you that we should learn from the Joneses to ensure my products meet the expectations if I were to start again.

      Delete
    2. Posted on behalf of Sihan:

      I agree. It's like what I said to make a specific rule to help those small ventures when they were halted mistakenly. And I also feel that the regulation and the system still have much to work on and improve.

      Delete
  5. I believe the CFIA was too diligent, they came to their conclusion too quickly and in the end they made a mistake which put a good company out of business. In the future they should complete their research on weather the food is ok to eat or not before impounding such a big amount of a product. Although I do not think there should be other rules for small ventures because the CFIA’s job is to make sure that the food that Canadians are eating won’t make them sick, not to make sure that businesses will still profit after making food that isn’t healthy for canadiens. In this case the Joneses should have had a backup plan just in case they made a bad batch of yogurt.

    If I were the Joneses I don’t think I would start over in the yogurt business, after going out of business, because when they started, they were one of the only people who did what they did to satisfy a want that consumers had. After everyone saw how successful this company was everyone else started doing what they did. If they were to restart and try doing the same thing again all the same opportunities might not approach them like they did the first time, and not to mention the competition there is that wasn’t there before. That is why I believe the Joneses would not be successful if they were to start over.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that small businesses that cannot afford to have their entire supply impounded should have special rules in place to prevent them from going out of business, especially if CFIA is not 100% sure that the food is contaminated. There could be rules such as the CFIA can only impound a certain amount of food, test it, and if it is contaminated then they can seize the entire stock.

    If i were the Joneses i would start over because they had a good thing going, and with a little bit of hard work they could start up their business again and get their product back on the market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with a couple things but disagree with a couple of other points.

      Considering that Peninsula Farms owned 25% of the market and sold just under $3 million per year, I wouldn't consider them a small business. Second, I see a couple of flaws of the law you say should be imposed. If only one part of the supply was impounded because of possible contamination, the rest would be able to be exported. Yes this is good if CIFA was wrong and nothing was wrong with the yogurt, but what if the yogurt is contaminated? Instead of catching it all before it is distributed, some would make it to the consumers and they could get sick and sue the company. Instead, I propose that CFIA impound all of the yogurt but only for a certain time and if they are wrong, CFIA should have to reimburse the company for the approximate revenue lost.

      Delete
    2. I disagree, and think that they shouldn’t start over, at least not with yogurt, because when they first started they had so many opportunities opened to them. But now after what they did, there are so many other businesses to compete with, and it is not likely that they will be as successful as they were when they first opened.

      Delete
    3. I like your new idea of only impounding part of the suspected food which gives less pressure to the small business. But what if the sample is tested contaminated later, the other unsafe food is already sold to the customers. How do we protects our health when you give window for contaminated food to leak to the market?

      Delete
  7. I believe that the CFIA should have attempted to inspect the business using less disrupting methods. I don't believe its right that the CFIA was able to completely halt a bushiness that was running on such tight margins, such that the short cease in bushiness could cause extensive monetary damage to their operation.

    In this case I think that the solution should be that the government should either find less intrusive ways of inspecting food producers or paying reparations if the business is found to be not breaking any regulations.


    ReplyDelete
  8. If I was to own a business such as Peninsula Farms, I would first want to be reimbursed for the supplies lost. This would help me get the business back up to speed and to help account for the money lost. Worst case it could even be brought to court because Peninsula farms would have all the right evidence to win the case.

    Next, I would slowly build and grow the business just like before. It would grow slower because all of the consumers would have moved to a different company due to the absence of Peninsula Farms but if there was still a market, they could make a return.

    I think that with the same dedication and determination, Peninsula Farms could return to it's previous state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, the Joneses have the right to go to court with evidence to win the case and not ruin their business by shutting it down.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that the Joneses could eventually build up the business like they had it before. But I don't think it would be any slower because they would already have all of their equipment and cows from when they left off and also at the very start they didn't have any customers at all and now they would have people who actually know and like the Peninsula Farms yogurt.

      Delete
    3. I think your right if the Joneses went to court they would have a high chance of winning. But I don't think if they build their business again it would be slow because if they won the case, a lot of people would want to buy from them again because of their old reputation.

      Delete
  9. If I was the Joneses I would have to think about it a lot but I think I would restart the company. I think this because they yogurt they were making was actually totally clean and it had no bacteria. Also the government inspectors highly rate the yogurt they produce. But I would have to think about it because a tiny business like the Joneses does have the money that the CFIA wants them to pay. That's why I think why the CFIA should be less strict on the way they inspect the Peninsula Farms and that there should be a law for smaller companies that can't afford such an interruption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, CFIA should not just shut down an entire business permanently because they think that the yogurt is contaminated, they should take some samples instead of the entire stock, and if the samples are contaminated, then they can seize everything.

      Delete
  10. I believe Canadian Food Inspection Agency did the right thing. This kind of food problem may affect to lots of people’s health. Punish must exist as long as someone makes mistakes. Small ventures haven’t gained trust from people or agency yet. The punishment and examination can only be harder, since they are new and can not be trusted. Maybe they do not make a big effect, but all the big companies start with small companies. They have gained trust through time. So all the rules work for both big ones and small ones. All the businesses has risk. If they cannot afford such an interruption, be more careful. If I am the Joneses, I would not start over. Because, the Joneses have already got such a loss, they cannot get another loss like that. Besides, hey may not have enough money to start over again. They should get a normal job that is less risky and have a normal life, or start a different business that may not get a big loss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your right regarding punishment must exist toward any business who violate the health and safety regulation, but I disagree with about what you said that both small and big businesses should have the same rules. I think that there should be rules that can fit the business capabilities.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you about the CFIA did the right thing. If the farms lost control of their yogurt and diary products, CFIA have the ability of shutting the business down, because it's not safe for the customers. And Joneses should not start over, because they got a fault of not controlling their diary, it's true about there will still be some people go back and buy their products, but more is the untrustworthy leaded by the Joneses Yogurt.

      Delete
    3. Even though the company is new and needed trust, what CFIA did was wrong and inflexible. they need to be more cleared that they would go through every steps to make decisions not to be unfair for certain companies such as local companies.

      Delete
    4. They did right thing on what "LAW" said, but it doesn't mean "Law" is perfect. Law is made by human which means that it doesn't fit to every situation such as Joneses farm. So, in this case, I think they should have flexibility and make exception.

      Delete
    5. I disagree. I don’t think the CFIA did the right thing, because they impounded so much of a product that ended up being perfectly fine, that it resulted in the business closing down. The fact that it was a small business shouldn’t have made a difference wether they could be trusted or not because the farms always had good ratings from gouvernement inspectors.

      Delete
  11. I believe that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was too diligent in this case because the Peninsula Farms met the government criteria and they've been serving desirable products. In addition, they always had a high rating from government inspectors. I think that as long as the Joneses had met the health and safety regulations, the CFIA should have been more flexible with them.

    In my opinion, there should be special rules for small ventures, rules that can be reasonable for their business and logistics. According to the Fast Company; a monthly American business magazine, (5 Nov. 2013), leading a small venture is one of the most stressful jobs. So, I believe there should be special legislation governing small ventures that would lead to further encouragement of entrepreneurs instead of the other way around.

    If I was the Joneses I would start over because being an entrepreneur is something that worth living for. Like Ms. Jones said, "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". I would start again and learn from my mishaps. I think if I succeed in something I would be able to do it again, I can even do it better by working harder and continuing to take well-calculated risks.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that small businesses should be given special rules. The entrepreneurs behind the face of the business most likely rely on the business as a major source of income; therefore, in order to continue making a living after a situation with say the CFIA, their should be certain guidelines that can offer owners a reassurance that they will not loose everything.

      Delete
    2. I agree that It's hard to run small ventures. However, small ventures should be responsible for their own products, or even if they become big ventures, they'll still get punished because of their products' problem.

      Delete
  12. In my opinion, the CFIA should not have seized all of $50 000 worth of yogurt; especially because the investigation was only minor. I believe it is unfair to the Joneses, they had so much going for them before this unfortunate incident occurred. Even the Government inspectors frequently gave the Peninsula Farms a high rating on regular inspections. Therefore, the Joneses were very surprised and unprepared when the CFIA had come in for an investigation of 'the plant and its procedures', but then left with $50 000 worth of produce. After considering the above, I believe the CFIA was indeed too stern regarding the procedure.

    To avoid a problem like this in the future, the CFIA should be given a special parodical that does not put a whole small business at risk for not even harming others. After the Joneses were presented with a bad reputation, due to the CFIA incident, their sales dropped incredibly along with their customers. Then, since all of their shelves at grocery stores had been replaced, they were forced out of business. It was later recalled that the earlier inspection was incorrect and that the Joneses were simply no harm to anyone. They lost everything simply for nothing. Therefore, there needs to be a rule allowing small businesses, who could lose everything, to be examined fairly and in a way so that they can continue making living.

    If I were the Joneses, I would choose to not start over with my business. Even though they are determined, the reputation of the business is now ruined. I find it hard to believe that consumers would trust the product again, even if it was not harmful. However, since they are true entrepreneurs, they should begin running a new company (with similar values) with a fresh start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you even if they Joneses start over they wont make much money as the reputation of their business is ruined after the CIFA being too diligent.

      Delete

  13. In this case, I think that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was a little too diligent. If the Joneses can afford to fix the problems they should start over. The Joneses enjoyed the process of producing milk and yogurt so it would not be a problem for them to start the business over, but it might be a little hassle. Even though the Joneses met the government standards the Canadian Food Inspection Agency did not improve. The CIFA can shut down any business even if it is meeting the government standard just like in this situation. The CIFA was a little too harsh on this business because the yogurt was very high quality and was being sold a lot, so I think that the CIFA shouldn't have disapproved because the yogurt was very safe as it was being sold to the public. Even if the Joneses start their business over again they might not get their old customers back, because the CIFA shut it down so the customers might think that the yogurt is not safe for them, hence why the business was closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that it was harsh for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on the Joneses because in the end there was nothing wrong with their yogurt but they had already lost their whole marketing business and most of their customers. But I think that if the Joneses restarted their business, most of their old customers would come back because they would probably add better detailed labels and make sure that everyone knew it was approved.

      Delete
    2. I disagree with your opinion, the quality of the yogurt should be monitored and controlled by the farmers, so if the yogurt is not safe or the quality of the yogurt is not good enough, it's the straight responsibility of the farmers.

      Delete
  14. I think that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were being too diligent. They didn’t care that the Joneses exceeded government expectations and thought there was something wrong with their yogurt that made them go out of business. Even though, after testing everything was clear and there was nothing bad about their product or how they produced their food.

    There should be rules where if small businesses like the Joneses, the CFIA shouldn’t be allowed to delay their business unless they have proof that something is wrong. It causing bad things for those businesses that could end up leading to going out of business, like the Joneses case and all of their yogurt that they had made that they didn’t sell had to go to waste.

    If I were the Joneses, I would start over, because they already had all of the cows and tools for making the yogurt and being in the yogurt business and all of their customers really loved their yogurt. Also in the article it said “Government inspectors had always given Peninsula Farms a high rating on their regular inspections” so they would be ok with the government, they would just have to change some things to suit the needs of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Farms leads to a lot of problems and issues nowadays, mainly because of the farms’ food inspection, and if they are ethical or not. People needs to know what they are eating and what is contained inside the food, so it’s critical for the industrials.

    Nowadays, more and more animal products, like yogurt, turned from 100% Pure Milk to 100% “Milkish”. Really, farms should be responsible to this issue, and also the food industrials should be responsible too. The reason why is that people don’t know what they are getting, what they are buying, and what they are eating or drinking. Knowing that the foods are not as pure as they advertised, people might got a lot of anger and the companies will not be trustworthy. When people look for good diary products, what they are looking for is not what cow the farms are using, but what ingredients and labels it got on the packagings. If the companies cannot get the labels and ingredients right, it’s really critical to the customers.

    For conclusion, in my opinion, it’s not the farms’ and the farmers’ fault, but the food industrials’ fault, and the food inspections’ fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that both farms and food industrials should be responsible to this. However, I think farms and farmers also have fault. If they take all the steps carefully, some problems will not exist.

      Delete
  16. I believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was too diligent in this case.
    The fact is that CFIA impounded more than $50,000 worth of yogurt by visiting the
    Farm with only a brief examination of the plant and its procedures, based on the fact, we all know that CFIA was too diligent in this case.

    Nobody eating their product was getting sick, and there was no proof for any harmful components of the yogurt. The CFIA ruined the company with no reason. The CFIA could’ve gotten a sample instead of the whole cooler. Also, the CFIA could observe the brand for a couple weeks and do a research for the yogurt. If they went through this process, what they did wouldn’t be unfair and rigid.

    There should be special rules for companies such as peninsula farms that can not afford such an interruption in their businesses. The CFIA can not get around ruining all small companies in a unreasonable way. If I was the Joneses, I would start over because there is nothing to do instead of starting over. Also, I would prove things to the CFIA that out farm is safe and clean to be cleared.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that they became too strict. As long as they don't make anyone sick, there should be an exception.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peninsula Farm’s yogurt products were received with immense praise for its outstanding quality. Their products and packaging process are safe from bacteria and it’s absolutely clean. However, their “perfect farm” has been damaged by CIFA’s “Too Strict” rule. If I were owning Jonses farm, I would go the court to prove CIFA made wrong decision

    For this kind of case that the small business didn’t harm any people in illegal way, I think there should be an exception. I agree that law isn’t perfect, so that’s reason why CIFA should be more fair with their rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that they should have challenged the CIFA in court because their whole business was affected and was forced to shut down. However, it was not proven until later that the Peninsula Farm was indeed following the correct parodical.

      Delete
    2. I agree, even if at the time CIFA did not know that the yogurt was clean, they should have been more carful and made sure that there was a problem before they ruined an entire business, and the Joneses should take the case to court because of that.

      Delete
  19. What concerning the food is what concerning our lives, there’s never a too dramatic act on our health. I don’t believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was too diligent in this case. In fact, they should never be described as too diligent, this unwritten rule will be appreciated when something happens where the food is actually infected but no one suspected anything at first. A home-based milk factory does raise suspicions easily, and the CFIA was just doing their job.

    On the other hand, on behalf of small ventures that cannot afford such an interruption in their business, there should be government regulated special rules to protected their work. Peninsula Farms started off as a sole proprietorship. This type of business ownership may suffer from unlimited liability that the owner could lose its personal assets. As mentioned in the story, they were losing sales and customers and was forced out of business when in fact their yogurt tested totally clean. The government should release a compensation policy where the government will pay up the loses caused by mistakes conducted by the agency. At least this way we can guarantee the basic rights for small ventures and encourage businesses in Canada to grow in numbers and sizes.

    If I were the Joneses, I would start over. They were clearly making a profit before the CFIA impounded their yogurt and there is demand on the market. And the rumour is cleared out that my products are proven to be clean. I believe my goods can compete with other brands, why won’t I start over. Later Peninsula Farms employs 42 and sells $2.7 million worth of dairy products in three Maritime provinces each year proves my point. However, I also need to accompany myself with a sense of humour, a touch of whimsy, an incredible willingness to work myself very hard and a certain willingness to take risks as Ms. Jones said in the new article her standards to become an entrepreneur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Posted on behalf of Sihan:
      I agree with you that they should start over again. It's a good point that the quality of the yoghurt is perfect therefore it will still bring many customers to their business. That's a reason why they can restart.

      Delete
  20. Food Inspection Agency was too diligent in this case?
    In my opinion, yes they were extremely diligent in this case. The government showed throughout the years a high rating to this company by their inspections on their product. There were no bacterias found in the yogurt; is totally clean. I respect that the government are doing their job by protecting us from poison products if you want to call it like that. But if a product that is no harmful for society and has a high rate of taking care of their product. Why take it down?

    Should there be special rules for small ventures that cannot afford such an interruption in their businesses?
    Yes there should be. The government should give the companies the right of defending them-selves, how? Well there should be a talk between the government and the companies that are being attack by these affirmations. On this talk the companies can easily take a step to victory if they show the government the facts. For example, in the case of the Joneses they should bring the proves that their food is totally clean and well made. With all these facts the government should give them a chance to continue in the market.

    Would you start over if you were a Jones?
    Yes, I would start over. With the prove that the yogurt is clean and free from bacterias; the costumers would trust in this company again. I would make a deal with the government and start over little by little and this time there would not be any mistakes with the inspections.

    ReplyDelete