Terror and Food Safety Respond to Common Sense
Read the crawling message across the bottom of the screen on any cable news channel. Recently these messages have been suggesting government concern about terrorist activity within the food industry. The two primary suggestions in these messages are that employers should begin extensive background investigations of new workers, and that supervisors should be aware of unconventional behavior such as workers remaining at their job location after their normal work hours.
Among many who see these messages, the initial reaction will be one of doubt. Many food industry workers are relatively transient, so how could a background check be thorough enough to catch a terrorist, some will ask. Others will question the cost involved in instituting comprehensive checks, and civil liberties advocates will maintain that such investigations can be intrusive into personal privacy.
Background checks aside, many knowledgeable people in the food industry honestly doubt that food or water represents a viable option for causing widespread damage. Simply pouring a quart of ricin into the city water supply won't accomplish anything, because one quart in millions of gallons doesn't provide the necessary concentration of toxin. Emptying a pipeline into the lake would be needed. The same argument can be made for most food products. Contaminating one package of ground meat may be possible, but killing several thousand with bad hamburgers would probably be a futile undertaking.
However, many experts in the field of industrial security say that background checks make perfect sense. In fact, they say that background checks should be a normal part of every hiring process. A good background investigation, one that costs $75 to $150 per person, is any company's first line of defense against loss or liability. A thorough background check provides a good barrier against hiring individuals with a past history of theft, workplace violence, or substance abuse or distribution.
On the theft issue alone, background checks make good economic sense. A thief in the warehouse can easily pilfer as much as $60,000 in merchandise a year. The saving that comes from not hiring one thief should pay for 400 or more extensive background checks. Workplace violence or substance abuse is even more expensive. One incident with a disgruntled worker or one injury accident caused by an intoxicated worker can easily lead to a lawsuit with a six-figure settlement cost.
Experts caution that purchasers of background checks get what they pay for. Inexpensive, superficial investigations are relatively worthless. More extensive checks that make use of readily available public records will help companies avoid hiring their own problems. One good method of investigation is to match an applicant's prior employment and residence history to a credit search. Information from the two sources should be closely parallel. Another good tool is to double-screen the applicant's social security number. This technique checks the SSN to ensure that it is a valid number and that it actually matches the person using it.
Thorough background checks will bring to light the fairly high percentage of omissions and errors found on many employment applications. Using an investigative service can make the process more accurate. For instance, many company human resource departments ask for and use permission to check references. Security consultants say a better way to operate is to ignore references and check on past work history using public sources. In addition, investigative companies have access to information databases that are too expensive for individual companies to access. Expect a good background investigation to take a while — three to four days — much of the information has to be researched manually, because it is not kept on any central computer file.
Even the best background checks will not prevent all problems. To help ensure that their workplace and products remain safe, food companies should use employees as their eyes and ears. Companies should let workers know to look for suspicious behavior and give them a safe and secure way to report what they see, industry sources say. In particular, workers and their supervisors should be on the lookout for people who interact poorly with others or who exhibit other odd behavior patterns. Food adulteration probably requires a large amount of contaminant or a continuous application of contaminant. One way to interdict contamination efforts is for companies to increase the frequency of package and locker inspections on the property.
Terrorist activity in the food industry has two potential bad outcomes. If successful, terrorist contamination could harm large numbers of people. Just as bad, a contamination incident would sow fear, possibly panic, in the public. The potential for economic harm from a contamination incident probably outweighs the direct consequences.
Common sense and continuing to operate prudently are the best defenses against terrorism and any other workplace problems. Food distribution companies must maintain a sense of perspective and balance. Heightened security is no reason to run a company like a prison camp, but a diligent outlook is not an excuse to believe that “it can't happen here.”