of Ethics Online Collection:None
Professional Conduct Guideline #1
Wholesomeness of Food
1. Introduction
1.1. One of the characteristics distinguishing a profession
from an occupation is a recognition that the profession must
be practised for the benefit of the public as well as that
of the practitioners.
1.2. Clause (vi) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires
members
"to take legitimate steps through proper channels to ensure (or assist in ensuring) the wholesomeness of any food with which he or she is concerned".
This clause relates to that area where the work of the profession most directly affects the public interest, i.e., the food actually purchased and consumed by the public. It is both the most important and most complicated clause of the Code to interpret and explain. It includes many issues and implications, some of them subject to emotional attitudes and overtones, and indeed to scaremongering.
1.3. Food scientists and technologists must maintain scientific
objectivity; not only In ascertaining facts, but in interpreting
facts, In assessing the significance of interpretations, and
in drawing conclusions. Current decisions, of course, must
be made in the light of currently available knowledge, but
this presents only a partial picture which, because partial,
may be distorted; and, as new knowledge is gained, it may
confirm the correctness of the decision or may so alter the
picture as to require a fresh decision. In assembling "the
facts", care must be taken to distinguish established
facts from unconfirmed hypotheses, and from speculation or
opinion masquerading as fact. Care must also be taken to ensure
that facts are not being selected, consciously or unconsciously,
in order to support a predetermined conclusion, or to disguise
a hazard, or to warn of a hazard the reality of which has
not been established.
2. "Wholesomeness" and Food Legislation
2.1. What does clause (vi) mean when it refers to "wholesomeness" of food? This word was selected as a convenient single term to embody a large number of aspects or attributes of a food.
2.2. "Wholesomeness" of course must include compliance
with the food legislation of the country for which the food
is intended, and it may be asked why clause (vi) was not merely
stated in terms of compliance with food legislation.
2.3. Firstly, food laws do not and cannot include explicit
details of the application of the principles embodied to every
conceivable set of circumstances, particularly those involving
new technological developments since the law was framed. In
many cases, therefore, the law has to be interpreted in its
applicability to a particular set of circumstances, and there
can be (and often are) genuine differences of opinion in interpretation.
In these cases, if the only ethical guidance provided by the
Code to members, whether in industry or in enforcement, were
the statement "comply with food legislation", this
would be to beg the question.
2.4. Secondly, food legislation is not immutable. It is a
dynamic system, with continual reviewing and introduction
of new or modified laws, arising both from new science and
technology and/or from new or changing changing social requirements.
Food scientists and technologists in industry, in research
associations, in enforcement, in government, all have a duty
to contribute, through various channels, to the discussion
leading to the framing of new or revised food legislation.
If the only ethical guidance given by the Code were "comply
with food legislation", this would again be to beg the
question.
3. Aspects and Attributes Involved in Wholesomeness
These are consumer satisfaction, compliance with compositional standards, hygienic conditions of manufacture, nutritional value, and absence of injury to health.
3.1. Consumer Satisfaction
3.1.1. Any purchaser of an article has certain expectations
(which may derive from previous experience of purchase of
another specimen of that article or of an 'article of a similar
character, or from what the manufacturer says about the article,
or from opinions expressed by others, or some combination
of these). Reasonable expectations are not unconnected with
price. The purchaser of a Mini cannot reasonably expect a
Rolls Royce specification, but may reasonably expect that
the Mini purchased will be a good well-produced, non-defective
specimen of the Mini specification. Having regard to these
considerations, if the article purchased significantly fails
to live up to reasonable expectations, the purchaser is justified
in complaining.
3.1.2. With specific reference to food products, the satisfaction
of the reasonable expectations of the consumer is one element
in the concept of wholesomeness as envisaged in clause (vi).
One must however exclude considerations of individual personal
preference (for example, the fact that a consumer might prefer
Brand A's hot curry to Brand B's mild curry does not imply
that Brand B's curry is unwholesome or a justifiable cause
for complaint; but either might merit complaint if it had
a rancid off-flavour, was microbiological ly spoiled, or contained
foreign matter; furthermore, a mild sample of Brand B's curry
might merit complaint if it was sold with the claim that it
was a hot curry and/or if previous purchases had always been
much hotter than the current purchase).
3.1.3. One must also exclude opinions of classes of consumers
to whom a product is not primarily directed. For example,
a product designed to appeal to the tastes of children is
not open to criticism because it may not appeal to adult tastes.
3.1.4. Satisfying the reasonable expectations of consumers
involves not merely the character of the product at the time
of manufacture, but also at the time of consumption.
3.1.5. It must be recognised that, even in the best commercial
practice, in a product which is basically and normally wholesome,
isolated defective specimens may occur, by human failing,
accidental or otherwise, or by the operation of the laws of
statistical probability. Exceptional instances of this kind,
however considered legislatively, should not be regarded as
evidence per se of failure to observe clause (vi) of the Code.
3.1.6. To sum up, this aspect of wholesomeness requires a selection of raw materials, an Ingredients formulation, processing methods in accordance with good commercial practice, appropriate packaging and labelling, effective quality control procedures, a distribution system and cycle, and appropriate storage, handling and preparation instructions, which, taken together, will consistently yield products such as to provide consumer satisfaction at the time of consumption.
3.2. Compositional Standards
The raw materials and their proportions in a food product
must be such as to ensure compliance with any relevant compositional
standard prevailing in the country for which the food is intended;
manufacturing methods should be in accordance with good commercial
practice and such as to ensure that the ingredients formulation
Is consistently adhered to; and appropriate quality control
checks should be carried out. Similar steps should be taken
to ensure compliance with any relevant legislation on the
types and/or quantities of additives used.
3.3. Hygienic Conditions of Manufacture
Good commercial practice should be followed in the hygiene
of the production environment; in hygienic design and operation
of production plant; in precautions to prevent contamination
of food materials and products; in effective preservation
processes; and in cleaning procedures and good housekeeping
practices.
3.4. Absence of Injury to Health
3.4.1. This is an aspect of wholesomeness in which it is particularly
difficult to draw sharp and declines.This is because of the
following factors:-
3.4.1.1. In no aspect of life is there such a thing as 100%
certain safety.
3.4.1.2. Clear, high-probability hazard is relatively easy
to prove, but it is very difficult and often impossible to
prove the virtual absence of hazard.
3.4.1.3. Any food substance (even water) ingested to excess
may give rise to hazard. 3.4.1.4.
3.4.1.4. A substance in food which may not adversely affect
the population as a whole may adversely affect an identifiable
section of the public, or certain individuals (for example
individuals with metabolism abnormal in some respect). Likewise,
there are few if any food substances which have not been alleged
to be responsible for an allergic reaction by someone somewhere.
3.4.1.5. Real life, in all its aspects, does not consist of
avoiding hazards altogether (which is impossible). It consists
partly of accepting certain kinds of hazard in order to gain
some desired end, and partly of accepting lesser hazards as
a means of avoiding greater hazards. We could avoid all hazard
from food by not consuming any!
3.4.1.6. In considerations of this kind, the choice is frequently
not clear-cut or easy to make. Either the probability or the
seriousness (or both) of alternative hazards may be insufficiently
known - and yet often a choice has to be made, on admittedly
incomplete knowledge, and in the light of the best information
available.
3.4.1.7. The balancing of one hazard against another may understandably
be the subject of considerable debate. It could perhaps be
argued in strict logic that participation In such debate should
be limited to those 'Who, by training, experience and knowledge,
are aware of the facts, and of the areas where knowledge is
lacking, and are competent to assess the significance of all
aspects of the situation. Nowadays, it must be recognised
as a fact of life that consumers, or at any rate some organised
consumer-bodies, participate in such debate, regardless of
whether or not they have the knowledge, and the competence
to assess its significance.
3.4.1.8. Unfortunately, in considering the merits of alternatives,
the debate may often be distorted by the exaggeration of the
hazard of one choice, usually accompanied by a complete ignoring
of any hazard in the alternative choice(s). This is usually
the result of activities of publicists, greatly amplified
by the media. Moreover, since highlighting the supposed dangers
of what manufacturers and technologists are doing, appears
to have far greater publicity value than any Indication that
current practice Is less hazardous than the alternative, it
Is usually current practice which attracts the scarestories,
and the alternative, the hazards of which are ignored. This
may and does sometimes alarm the public which in turn may
lead legislators into hasty action, often different from that
which might result from completely objective considerations.
3.4.1.9. It is also unfortunately the case that some scientists
sometimes provide, advertently or inadvertently, ammunition
to those whose activities distort the debate; for example,
by publicising conclusions that are unsupported or inadequately
supported by facts; by making, with appropriate qualifications
and provisos, guarded statements which however lend themselves
to being generalised entirely out of context and in a sensationalist
way by others; by making apparently authoritative pronouncement
outside the area of their particular scientific expertise.
(N.B. The subject of statements made in a professional capacity
in general, and the particular aspect of the communication
of technical information to the media and to the public, are
concerned with clause (v) of the Code of Professional Conduct,
and will be the subject of a separate guideline statement.)
3.4.1.10. Entirely unknown or unsuspected hazards may exist
which future research may reveal. Clearly, it is impossible
to take such unknowns into account when choosing a current
course of action. Equally clearly, it would be impossible
to attribute blame retrospectively to an individual for a
current course of action involving a currently unknown hazard.
3.4.1.11. New external or environmental circumstances in the
future may give rise to entirely new hazards, the existence
of which may not be recognised until later still. In the period
intervening between creation and recognition of such a new
hazard, considerations similar to those of 3.4.1.10. apply.
3.4.2. The types of possible hazard are as follows, and it
is strongly emphasised that the order in which these are listed
does not imply any particular order of importance or relative
degree of hazard.
3.4.2.1. Microbiological hazard-which may arise from the use
of unsound raw materials, unhygienic factory practices, inadequate
preservation processes, inadequate measures to safeguard against
post-process reinfection, or unhygienic practices in handling
in preparation for consumption, or some combination of these
factors. (N.B. Microbiological spoilage of a non-hazardous
character may be caused by similar factors, but that relates
more to the "consumer-satisfaction" aspect discussed
previously).
3.4.2.2. Natural toxic substances -substances naturally present
in some food materials, the ingestion of which at likely levels
of consumption may be hazardous.
3.4.2.3. Pesticide and other horticultural or agricultural
residues -which may be present in food raw materials. This
type of potential hazard is complicated by such factors as
the use (often unannounced) of new pesticides, growth promoters,
etc.; the difficulty of controlling agricultural practice
or strict adherence to recommended spraying times, application
rates, etc.; the still greater lack of information on or means
of controlling treatment practices in relation to food materials
not grown under control of or contract to the food manufacturer,
but purchased via the respective commodity markets.
3.4.2.4. Substances intentionally incorporated in foods -
for a variety of technological purposes. It is fair to say
that, in advanced countries, the safety-in-use of such substances
is intensively researched, scrutinised and legislated for.
In some instances, there may may be a known hazard involved
in a substance, but one which is significantly less than another
hazard which its use eliminates.
3.4.2.5. Toxic substances arising from processing -originating
from non-toxic constituents which may react at some stage
of processing, to make one or more new constituents likely
to be a toxic hazard if present In sufficient quantity. Vigilance
is required in considering the reactions which may occur and
the extent to which toxic compounds might result from such
reactions. Adequate safety testing of foods requires that,
wherever a reaction resulting In a toxic compound Is suspected,
tests should be carried out on the processed food and not
solely on the original components
3.4.2.6. Unusual food 'ingredients and new food processing techniques. The high degree of safety of currently available foods rests largely on accumulated experience over a long period of the consumption of these foods or of their ingredients, without harmful effects; and on long experience of the processes by which they are made. Foods which have either not previously formed a part of human diets or are made by novel processes for which there is no previous experience to draw on, require stringent safety testing before being released for general consumption.
3.4.2.7. Environmental contaminants -including such things
as pest infestation, trace metal pick-up, foreign odours,
adventitious foreign matter, against all of which the best
available precautions and measures of good commercial practice
should be taken.
3.4.2.8. Anti-nutritional factors - natural substances in
some food materials which may interfere with metabolic processes
(for example, trypsin Inhibiting factors in certain legumes,
which inhibit the conversion of ingested protein to amino-acids,
unless the inhibitors are destroyed by appropriate processing).
3.4.2.9. Adverse interaction of drugs and foods. Instances
are known, and with the development of new drugs, other instances
may arise, of hazard due to interaction of drugs and constituents
of food. The existence of such an adverse reaction does not
imply that a food implicated can be considered unwholesome
or injurious to health. In such instances, the onus is on
the medical profession, in prescribing such drugs, to give
specific warning and dietary instructions to patients concerned.
3.4.3. Having have to regard to all the factors outlined relating
to hazard, and the types of hazard which be considered, it
is possible to list ethical principles on which action should
be based
3.4.3.1. Products should be manufactured in compliance with
any relevant explicit or implied legislative requirements.
Where the applicability of legislative requirements in a particular
case is uncertain, and needs interpretation, the interpretation
should take full account of the other ethical principles indicated.
3.4.3.2. The best available measures and precautions of good
commercial practice should be be used to safeguard against
preventable known hazards, with monitoring to check the effectiveness
of the measures and precautions.
3.4.3.3. *In the absence of compelling data to the contrary,
the requirements of ethics are more successfully satisfied
when the food supply is increased to the advantage (i.e. survival
and adequate nutrition) of the population than when the food
supply is decreased to achieve an indeterminate Increment
in safety.
3.4.3.4. *When faced with alternatives, we should choose that
alternative whose worst outcome is better than the worst outcome
of any other alternative; where "outcome" involves
the cumulative net balance of risks and benefits to the population
as a whole, assessed in the light of available knowledge and
a reasoned analysis of its implications.
*These principles have been proposed by the Citizens' Commission on Science, Law and the Food Supply, "Report on Current Ethical Considerations in Determination of Acceptable Risk with Regard to Food and Food Additives" (March 1974).
3.5. Nutritional Value
3.5.1. The total diet of any consumer should be such as to provide an adequate balance and amount of known nutritional requirements. Each consumer's choice of a number of foods, and of quantities of each, however, represents one of a virtually infinite number of permutations and combinations. Such choice by the consumer is entirely outside the control of the food scientist or technologist concerned with a particular food or group of foods. With certain exceptions, discussed below, therefore, it is not normally possible to specify that an individual food must have particular nutritional characteristics. The exceptions are as follows:
3.5.1.1. Foods for which legislation specifies minimum nutritional
standards. Clearly it is obligatory to ensure that legislative
standards are complied with.
3.5.1.2. Foods for which nutritional claims are made. If nutritional
claims (whether explicit or implied) are made for a food,
then its nutritional properties should be such as to justify
the claims.
3.5.1.3. Foods which are generally recognised as being valuable
sources of specific nutrients. In the manufacture of a processed
preserved version of a food generally recognised as being
a valuable source of a specific nutrient, every effort should
be made, subject to the requirements of safe preservation,
to minimise loss of the nutrient during processing and subsequent
storage.
3.5.1.4. Novel food products which may significantly replace
foods of nutritional significance. In the development of a
novel food product likely to be consumed by the public or
an identifiable section of the public, in place of a food
of nutritional significance, careful regard should be had
to the nutritional consequences.
3.5.1.5. Food products intended for specific dietary purposes.
Where a food is manufactured for a specific dietary purpose,
then its nutritional properties should be appropriate to that
purpose, to the best of current knowledge.
3.5.2. Nutritional Comparisons
When making nutritional comparisons, for example between a processed food and a corresponding fresh food, comparisons should always be made when both foods are prepared (and cooked if appropriate) ready for consumption.
4. "Legitimate Steps Through Proper Channels"
4.1. The general requirement "to take legitimate steps through proper channels to ensure (or assist in ensuring) the wholesomeness of any food with which he or she is concerned" must take account of the widely varying functions which food scientists and technologists may fulfil. They may be employed in industry, in a variety of capacities, including research, product development, quality control, raw materials purchasing, production management, engineering, marketing. They may be employed in some aspect of enforcement. They may function as independent consultants, or as employees of consultants. They may work in research associations or in non-industrial research activities. Clearly, the ability of an individual to exercise a practical influence on factors affecting the wholesomeness of food will vary considerably according to function; and indeed may vary widely in the same nominal function in different industrial companies.
4.2. Furthermore, in any of these functions, members may be
at widely varying levels of responsibility, ranging from the
most junior technologists through middle and senior management
to company directors, with consequent widely varying scope
and ability for influencing factors involved in wholesomeness.
4.3. Clearly, in the light of the foregoing, it would be unrealistic
to require the same actions in discharging obligations under
clause (vi) from persons in all these differing functions
and at all these widely varying levels of responsibility.
It would likewise be impossible to hold members accountable
or open to criticism for deficiencies or actions which they
have no power or ability to influence. It is, however, possible
to establish an underlying principle of universal application,
namely that each member is required to take legitimate steps
in connection with the wholesomeness of any food with which
he or she is concerned, to the full extent of his or her scope
for taking decisions. For the senior manager with considerable
authority, this would imply issuing appropriate instructions
for action in areas where his authority runs. Where a member's
role is advisory, he or she cannot decide on action to be
taken, but can decide on the nature of the advice to be given.
In the case of junior members, they may have no formal advisory
function, but they can decide to give information to or raise
a query with their immediate superior. It is possible that
matters raised in this way might be based on misapprehension
due to inexperience, but very often junior staff in the course
of their work may become aware of detailed problems, departures
from standard procedures, etc., of which their superiors may
be unaware. It is therefore required of such junior members
that they bring to the attention of their immediate superior
any matter, problem or query which they think may have a bearing
on any aspect of wholesomeness of any food with which they
are concerned. As a corollary of this, it must be emphasised
that a superior should regard the bona fide raising of such
a matter or query (even if mistakenly based) as to the credit
of the subordinate, should give serious consideration to it,
and if he or she considers it mistakenly based should be prepared
to explain why this is so. (N.B. This is also Implied in clause
(viii), concerning the duty of members to guide subordinates).
4.4. Reference has been made to the fact that some members
are company directors. These are in a special position, because,
quite apart from their ethical obligations under the Code
of Professional Conduct, they have legal obligations and responsibilities
under the Companies Acts. These are not incompatible with
their ethical obligations; but whereas anyone else can justifiably
argue (if such were the case) that unwholesomeness of a food
was outside their power to influence, or that their advice
was ignored or overruled by a superior, a company director
cannot so argue. This places him in the position that on a
matter of principle there could be little opportunity to do
other than resign from the board, yet that may expose the
very principle of wholesomeness he is concerned about to worse
jeopardy. Thus some latitude in behaviour must be accepted
by those interpreting professional conduct in such instances.
5. Debate Concerning Wholesomeness of Food
5.1. Members may find themselves in various kinds of debate
relating to some aspect of "wholesomeness".
For example:
5.1.1. In discussions relating to new legislation or proposals for changes in existing legislation.
5.1.2. In appearing for the prosecution or defence in a court case (and indeed often with two members appearing on opposite sides).
5.1.3. In discussion with colleagues concerning some course of action to be followed.
5.1.4. In discussion between companies relating to the wholesomeness of a food material or food product which is the subject of a commercial transaction between them.
5.2. In these areas, many situations may arise, and it is
not feasible to lay down detailed guidelines in advance to
cover every possible situation. It is however possible to
indicate certain principles which should universally apply.
5.2.1. In any debate, members should strictly observe all
the aspects of scientific objectivity outlined in 1.3.
5.2.2. No member should ever issue instructions to or apply
any explicit or implied pressure to another food scientist
or technologist to act or argue in a way which would compromise
the latter's professional integrity.
5.2.3. It must be recognised that honest and genuine differences
of opinion can arise in the course of discussion or debate,
and that such a difference of opinion does not per se imply
that one of the parties is in breach of professional integrity.
5.2.4. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary,
a member should assume the bona fides and professional integrity
of another member who is an opponent in a debate.
5.3. Members who are in employment are not independent agents.
In external debates, they will feel obligated, very properly,
to advance and defend the interests of the organisation which
employs them. Instances might arise where they are under pressure
(whether because their superiors exert explicit pressure,
or because they may believe or be led to believe that their
jobs or their career prospects may be jeopardised) to take
some action in relation to food or to argue in external debate
in ways which would compromise their professional integrity.
Superiors involved may often not be members, nor even food
scientists or technologists. It is clearly the duty of members
to do all that they properly can to further the legitimate
interests of their employers (or, if consultant members, of
their clients). The board of a reputable organisation would
not wish its professional employees to attempt to further
its interests by means which are dishonest, knowingly illegal
or otherwise a contravention of professional ethics; and would
neither expect nor condone attempts by its senior management
to procure such actions. It cannot be ignored, however, that
occasional instances may arise. A member who finds himself
or herself under pressure of this kind, and is unable to secure
its removal, may raise the matter, in confidence, with the
Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee (who is, by
definition, the President of the Institute for the time being).
Any further steps which might seem appropriate would be taken
only with the agreement of the member concerned.
J. R. BLANCHFIELD,
Han. Secretary.
ISSUED BY AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL
(66th COUNCIL MEETING, 21.5.75) JRB/PF/SEC 74-75/316
