Our Industry: As Similar as it is Diverse

If anyone were to doubt the diversity of this industry, all one need do is glance at the covers of the 2012 issues of QA: from Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey to Abbott’s Similac infant formula. Except for the fact that both are drink products, they are about as diverse as one can get; and the processes by which they are produced are just as diverse.

Even their primary focus and critical control points (CCP) are widely divergent. At Jack Daniel’s, where the manufacture of alcohol elicits few safety concerns, precise timing of the bubbling of the yeast in the still is equated to a quality CCP. At Abbott, the primary focus is on safety, with the heated, sterilizing retort step as a CCP, and the powdered formula filler room having authorized-badge entry only.

That’s not to say that Jack Daniel’s has no food safety concerns—with its water sourced from an underground spring, the company purchased the 250 acres above to maintain its purity; or that Abbott need not focus on quality—in fact, strict infant formula regulations mandate precise quality nutrition standards.

Bringing us to the next point of divergence and similarity: regulation. While held to all standard FDA and/or USDA regulations, both Jack Daniel’s and Abbott have added requirements restricting product commerce. Jack Daniel’s must keep a close eye on its buyers, ensuring they are of legal age, even requiring website visitors to log their birth dates. But even more restrictive are the laws of Prohibition which have never been rescinded in Jack Daniel’s home county of Moore in Tennessee.

As an infant formula producer, Abbott cannot introduce its product into commerce until it meets an expanded set of FDA regulations devoted to infant formula—from specified pre-registration to ongoing ingredient and nutrient content, quantity, and quality controls.

The differences and similarities between these two manufacturers provide a composite of the industry as a whole. Even between companies producing the same type of product, the operations will not be the same. Even within the same facility, rarely are two lines exactly the same. It is why the industry can be so difficult to regulate; why the federal agencies publish guidance instead of laws; why the Food Safety Modernization Act is much more difficult to implement than may seem necessary to those on the outside.

However, it is the similarities within the industry that draw it together, the commitment to the consumer that makes food safety a non-competitive issue, and the dedication to making one’s product the best it can be that impels companies to respond with a resounding Yes when asked—“Can I come into your facility with a notepad and camera, tour your entire process, ask your people about your operations, then publish it as the Cover Story for QA?”

In QA, we make a similar quality commitment: to communicate both the similarities and the differences of our industry to help you make your operations the best they can be—to provide you with best practices from successful companies (Cover Story, page 18), keep you informed on current regulation (Legislative Update, page 16), answer common questions (Sanitary Design, page 44); help protect your product from contamination (Flying Insect Control, page 56); and assist you in finding the right person for the job (Hiring for Quality, page 48).

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.