Role of Food Industry Self-Regulation in the Future - Essay Example

Task: Role of Food Industry Self-regulation in the future Introduction An industry can be best regulated, if its regulation at local level is promoted. If at one end, self regulation of a few industries such as Tobacco appears to be a miserable failure; then at the other end, self regulation of marine and forestry industries has been very successful. Similarly, food manufacturing companies are undertaking self regulatory actions because of the increasing concern for public welfare and as a result of possible government regulations. For example, in the UK prior to the elections of 1997, the Labour party proposed a plan of “Food Safety Agency” to promote food safety (Jukes, 1999). The political parties are actively taking part to propose changes in the UK’s Food Safety Enforcement to protect the consumers and to ensure the compliance of the companies to the effective enforcement system (Jukes, 1993). Although a number of key reforms were made in UK’s food safety regulatory structure in 2002 however, most of these reforms dealt with the changes in the central government arrangement for hygienic and safe food rather than local enforcement. In this report, the self regulation of food industry in the context of its role in future has been discussed. Self Regulation The degree to which an organisation is responsible to manage risks depends on the nature of business. However, in a food industry, the responsibility of the organisation increases because the user of the product manufactured by the food company is at risk. Therefore, the self regulation of food industry is highly encouraged nowadays as compared to other industries. Industry self-regulation is a process that involves an industry – level organisation setting rules and standards with regard to the conduct of firms within the respective industry, (Gunningham and Rees, 1997). In other words, the industry associations or the companies should come up with the policies and minimum standards to avoid risk. In 2002, when the reforms in food safety enforcement of UK were made, the local enforcement remained untouched because it was being considered that state was responsible to ensure the minimum standards and the role of the individual businesses was overlooked. However, nowadays, it is being considered as the responsibility of both the state and the individual companies to determine how the risk can be managed and because of this reason the self regulation of UK food industry has increased. In short, government regulation and self-regulation are not mutually exclusive but rather a part of a continuum or put differently, complementary partners. For instance, Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) was set in 1998 as a collaboration of the UK Government, consumer organisations and the food industry. Hence, the future of the food industry self regulation ought to be founded on the lessons learnt from the past of other industries’ self regulation. As an example of self regulation, I would like to quote the example of Tobacco self regulation, so that the concept of self regulation could be understood and its comparison could be made in different industries. In 1954 the tobacco industry invested heavily in the publishing of the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in almost all of the American newspapers. It noted that the public’s health was the industry’s primary concern and pledged a variety of good-faith charges. What followed were decades of deceitfulness and measures that cost millions of lives. This is because the tobacco industry made a playbook, a script, whose emphasis was personal responsibility, buying out scientists to deliver research that instilled doubt, criticised the “junk” science that identified harms related to smoking, made self-regulatory pledges, lobbied with substantial resources to stifle government action, introduced “safer” products, and simultaneously manipulated and denied both the addictive nature of tobacco products and their marketing to children. The food industry self-regulation script is both similar and different from the “tobacco industry self regulation script.” Therefore, food is obviously distinct from tobacco, and the tobacco industry differs from the food companies in significant ways, however there are important similarities in the actions that these industries have taken or may take, in response to concern that their products may cause harm. Actually, the idea to promote self regulation at local industry level has been promoted to increase the participation of industry in its own regulation. Self regulation of food industry usually covers two aspects: the first, basic guidelines or code of practice which usually deal with the contents of the product; the second, the compliance to the code of practices. Although self regulation cannot be mandated by government legislation in all industries however, it is mandated in the food industry because of the nature of industry. Since the aim of self regulation is to ensure that the food manufacturing companies are not deceiving or misleading their customers therefore, along with the government regulation, the volunteer codes and individual initiatives taken by the food companies do play a very significant role. The role of food industry self regulation in future Although the view of self regulation of UK food industry seems pretty good however, according to Arculus (2009), only the good regulation is the foundation of economic activities whereas, the excessive regulation may stall productivity of the companies. Arculus has clearly identified the regulatory burdens which could result in excessive regulations such as statutory instruments, poorly drafted bills and overlapping legislations. Therefore, those who criticise that self regulation at local level should not confuse it with excessive regulation. Moreover, Arculus also suggests that the way to legislate does play a very significant role in bringing positive results therefore, consultation on legislation, improving impact assessment and economic costs analysis are very important. It means that in consideration to Arculus view, if the self regulation of food industry is promoted, it will result in the betterment of the related economic activities. Hampton and Macrory argue that effective regulation reduces the burdens imposed on the businesses therefore, regulators are responsible should be careful in their decisions and they should be transparent and accountable for their role in economic progress. It means that Hampton and Macrory encourage the self regulation of industries. In a BIS report (2009), it was found that FERA is an organisation which is implementing Hampton’s principles in regulating the business especially in developing strategies for inspection and regulatory affairs. Because of this reason FERA has been able to implement its strategies successfully. Rogers defined the priorities to ensure national enforcement of policies in 2007 for LA regulatory services and he the top most priority was the “hygiene of business” because of the high potential of losses to economy and public. In consideration to Roger’s view, in the UK to ensure food safety, various government organisations are actively working. Food Standards Agency is a governmental organisation, which sets the policy however, the enforcement of the policy is ensured by 434 Local Authorities. It means that even if the policies are set the state level, to ensure their enforcement requires the participation of local authorities (Parliament UK, 2009). BRE report on health and safety outcomes came up with the analysis of how health and safety affects the small businesses and the report came up with the idea that self regulation is very important for the companies at individual level to avoid unnecessary burdens, ill health etc (BRE, 2008). The Regulatory Enforcement and sanctions Act 2008 also aims to coordinate the regulatory enforcement of local authorities and to develop the provisions for the betterment of local regulation offices (OPSI, 2008). This act introduces provisions with the aim to reduce regulatory burdens on the state. In short, the Act supports the self regulation of the industries to reduce the regulatory burden on UK economy. The total cost incurred by the UK government in regulation is £100bn, which is equal to the total income tax bill of UK. Therefore, the self regulation of food industry will be really beneficial for the government as it will reduce the costs of regulation to a great extent. Moreover, the concept of earned autonomy which supports self regulation has the potential to help the UK government to reduce direct costs on businesses by £7.5bn, increase GDP by £16bn (CMI, 2005). Conclusion . In conclusion, it can be argued that when regulations are set at the state level by government regulatory agencies, then to ensure their enforcement, the self regulation at local level becomes very significant. Hampton, Macury, Arculus and various other researchers have proved the importance of self regulation for an industry to lower regulatory burdens and other problems. Therefore, in order to reduce ill-health, food safety risks and public safety concerns in future, the self regulation of food industry should be highly promoted. References Arculus, D. 2009. The Arculus Review: Enabling Enterprise, Encouraging Responsibility. [Online] Available from: http://www.epfltd.org/images/Arculus%20Report.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2010]. BIS. 2009. A Hampton Implementation Review Report. [Online] Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file53850.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2010]. BRE. 2008. Improving Health and Safety Outcomes. [Online] Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lgp/071008/brereport.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2010]. CMI. 2005. Earned Autonomy. [Online] Available from: http://www.nsf-cmi.com/publications/background%20to%20earned%20autonomy.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2010]. Gunningham, N. & Rees, J., 1997.Industry self-regulation: an Institutional perspective. Law Policy. Law Policy.19 (4):363-414. Jukes, D. (1993) Regulation and Enforcement of Food Safety in UK. [Online] 18(2), 131-142.Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCB-45JK47M-5&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1993&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1340850096&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5318dae7072857e22b8c67444f5d4985 [Accessed 19 May 2010]. Jukes, D. (1999) Food Law. [Online] Available from: http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/uk/AGENCY1A.HTM [Accessed 19 May 2010]. Kagan, R. A., & Scholz, J.T., 1984.The Criminology of the Corporation and Regulatory Enforcement Strategies. Enforcing Regulation. 67-95. OPSI. 2008. Regulatory Enforcement and Regulations Act 2008. [Online] Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/pdf/ukpga_20080013_en.pdf[Accessed 19 May 2010]. Parliament UK. (2009) Food Hygiene Standards. [Online] Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn326.pdf [Accessed 19 May 2010]. Read More