Professional Conduct Guidelines
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 practiced 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 scare mongering.
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 recognized 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 labeling, 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 recognized
as a fact of life that consumers, or at any rate some organized 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 scare stories, 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 publicizing conclusions that are unsupported
or inadequately supported by facts; by making, with appropriate qualifications
and provisos, guarded statements which however lend themselves to being
generalized 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 recognized
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
emphasized 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, scrutinized
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 recognized as being valuable sources
of specific nutrients. In the manufacture of a processed preserved version
of a food generally recognized as being a valuable source of a specific
nutrient, every effort should be made, subject to the requirements of
safe preservation, to minimize 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 emphasized 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 defense 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 recognized 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 organization 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 jeopardized) 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 organization 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
Professional Conduct Guideline #2
Relations with the Media
The public is becoming increasingly aware that food is in short supply
throughout the world and that shortages of food are beginning to appear
spasmodically in Britain. Thoughtful people understand that the British
food supply is precarious, at present relying on imports for about half
its value in terms of sterling or energy. Everyone knows that food prices
are rising. People are also much concerned about the environment, the
safe use of pesticides and the safety of foods. They want food to be a
factor promoting good health. Many people wish to stay slim or to reduce
their weight. Consumer groups are troubled about the composition of foods
and their labeling These partially disparate tendencies join in creating
a new kind of public interest, some of it well-informed, in food, food
science , food technology and nutrition.
This has led to increased demand for informed opinion on food topics,
to new opportunities for qualified food scientists and technologists to
take part in television, radio, newspaper and journal communications,
and to new types of responsibility for individual scientists. Thus, the
Council of the Institute of Food Science and Technology has decided to
prepare guidelines to help members to fulfil these new responsibilities.
Council recognizes that this is an area where there are many traps for
the unwary, which can easily lead a member unsuspectingly into an awkward
position, or even one of inadvertent unprofessional conduct. Council has
therefore decided to include, with the guidance on aspects of direct ethical
significance, more general guidance on the dangers which may be encountered
and how best to avoid them.
The following points should be taken into consideration by members who
are asked to take part in television or radio programs or to write for
newspapers or journals:
1. If a scientist aims to learn how to communicate effectively through
the communication media it is essential to get to know personally some
people involved professionally with the media. It is important for scientists
to learn communication skills and to understand the professional standards
of those employed to communicate.
2. One must have a good knowledge of the subject under discussion and
be certain that any facts one quotes are true. Preferably, before accepting
an invitation to participate in a television or radio program, one should
seek time for discussion with one's colleagues. The support of colleagues
is an important element in confidence. It is difficult to know all the
necessary facts for any program, but it is an important part of self-confidence
to have time to marshal as much information as possible before the program
Much of this information will not be used but to have collected it gives
confidence and assurance.
3. If one is asked at very short notice to contribute to a program, the
subject of that program is likely to be controversial and to be one that
has caused concern among the community. In such a situation it is particularly
important to be sure of one's knowledge and skill before one agrees to
participate in the program Such assignments should not be undertaken lightly.
4. Before the actual interview or discussion it is desirable to have a
talk with the interviewer in order to agree the general area of discussion
and, if possible, to assess the skill and knowledge of the interviewer.
Collaboration with the research workers and the producer in the planning
of the content and coverage of the more structured type of program is
some insurance that one will have the opportunity of putting across one's
own point of view.
5. If other persons are to take part in an interview or discussion it
is wise to find out who the other participants are to be. It is exceedingly
difficult, and can be impossible, to refute unsound statements without
more detailed explanation than time will allow.
6. One should always remember that in a discussion the interviewer, like
a barrister in court, is experienced at the job and knows what he or she
wants to say. The interviewer also knows that if the program is to create
audience interest, which would be to his or her personal advantage, the
discussion should be as sensational as possible. The scientist being interviewed
is almost certainly less experienced at this particular job than the interviewer,
is probably in unfamiliar surroundings and usually does not know precisely
what questions will be asked. His or her strength lies in knowledge, but
to use this effectively requires an agile mind and ability to marshal
facts quickly. There is advantage in playing for time. If this is feasible
it gives one time to decide whether or not to answer a question that might
be loaded, or whether perhaps oneself to turn the discussion into a more
desirable direction.
7. In all discussion it is important to make clear distinction between
fact and opinion. Knowing the controversial nature of food problems, members
of the Institute should take a very responsible attitude about this, particularly
because, to the audience, the very fact that a person is apparently sufficiently
expert to appear on radio or television or write for the newspapers confers
authority. Great care should be taken to avoid what may appear to the
audience or readers to be an authoritative statement on a subject outside
the area of one's own expert knowledge. All that is said or written should
be expressed objectively and without fear or favour. Any advice given
should be disinterested and impartial and based to the best of one's knowledge
on established facts. Every effort should be made to identify with the
viewer, listener or reader.
8. Scientists are used to argument. They understand that refutation of
hypotheses is an essential part of scientific progress. This method is
used in the best science broadcasts. But to the scientifically uneducated
such dispute may leave with the viewer, listener or reader an impression
of doubt and uncertainty. This may be the correct impression, but care
should be taken to point out that the facts are unknown, that research
is in progress, that in time it will be possible to give a clearer answer.
To be able to convey this kind of thought successfully requires much knowledge
and humility but it can play a part in popular scientific education.
9. In many matters relating to food, e.g. toxicology or nutritional value,
it is impossible to give categorical answers. Often one has to balance
benefit against risk, but it is difficult to get this across to a lay
audience or to lay readers without appearing to prevaricate. Skill in
doing this increases with experience.
10. Facts well-known to the scientist may not be known to the audience
or readers. It is therefore important for the scientist to be patient,
to express facts simply and without jargon. It is usually undesirable
in spoken word to give complicated statistics. Most people do not comprehend
figures unless they can see a chart or diagram. The expert may feel that
it is boring to repeat simple statements. Usually, however, facts are
only boring if presented In a boring way.
11. If a program is pre-recorded or if one is interviewed by a journalist
there is always the risk that one's remarks may be taken out of context.
Even in a live program the discussion can be cut too early so that time
does not permit the development of a rational argument and the wrong conclusion
may be reached. Instances of such practices can be quoted. The greatest
safeguard is to satisfy oneself on the integrity of the producer and interviewer
and to refuse to take part in programs known to be of a gimmicky nature.
Another safeguard is to make one's most important observations quickly,
that is, to know what one wants to say and to say it without preamble.
The same advice applies to writing for newspapers. For the novice it is
probably safer, though it may be more alarming, to take part in five programs
12. For a successful live transmission one should be relaxed. Various
factors contribute to this state of body and mind: knowledge of the necessary
facts, broad appreciation of the background of the subject under discussion,
care in expressing opinions, familiarity with the trappings of the media,
i.e. lights, microphones, cameras, etc., understanding of the problems
of the producer, interviewer and other participants, the support of colleagues
and friends. It helps if one has observed previous similar performances.
A combination of these probably results in a remembered appearance that
can bring credit both to the profession and the individual. For best results
the occasion should be enjoyed.
13. A member of the Institute should consider seriously the image of the
profession reflected by his or her performance. Any performance should
display integrity and seriousness of purpose. The effect of anything said
on other members of the profession and the public should be kept In mind.
14. Many of the foregoing remarks concerning television and radio also
apply to the press. There are however some problems peculiar to the press.
For the national press, one may be asked to contribute an article; one
may be interviewed by a journalist for an attributed statement; or one
may be asked by a journalist to provide unattributed background information
for an article. In all three cases, statements will be subject to editing,
which may intentionally or unintentionally lead to misinterpretation.
In the second and third cases, intentional selection, or unintentional
garbling by the journalist may occur and result in misrepresentation.
It would be wrong to assume that this cannot happen in the more serious
and weighty newspapers. Wherever possible, one should request the opportunity
to vet the result for scientific accuracy (where time is short, over the
telephone).
15. One may be asked to contribute an article for a food industry journal.
Here, editing may occur but it is normal practice to submit a proof to
the author for vetting, and this provides an opportunity to rectify any
unintentional results of shortening. In any event, one should obtain a
precise indication in advance of the length of article required and adhere
strictly to it.
16. Members in industry may sometimes be asked to write for or be interviewed
for "house"' magazines. Here one can and should insist on the
right to vet and correct the proof.
17. Members must be careful to avoid any explicit or implied suggestion
that they are expressing the views of the Institute unless they have been
specifically charged by Council to do so.
18. No member of the Institute should take part as an Institute member
in a commercial advertisement. If taking part as a private individual,
neither membership of the Institute nor its designatory letters should
be used (except in a book advertisement in which the member is named as
author, part-author or editor; or in an advertisement describing the'
services and facilities of a research organization or the courses of an
educational establishment, listing the names of the research staff or
academic staff). Whether to participate as an individual in a commercial
advertisement is a matter for individual judgment. In exercising such
judgment., a member should have regard to the character of the proposed
advertisement, ensure that his or her participation would not reflect
adversely on the profession, and obtain assurances that no subsequent
changes will be made to the character or format of the advertisement without
his or her agreement.
J. R. BLANCHFIELD,
ISSUED BY AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL. (66th COUNCIL MEETING, 21.5.75.)
JRB/PF/SEC 74-75/315
Hon. Secretary.
Professional Conduct Guideline #3
Confidentiality of Information
1. Clause (iv) of the Provisional Code of Professional Conduct of the
Institute requires each member "to respect any confidence gained
in his or her professional capacity". The exchange of confidences
of all types is a normal part of life in modern society, and every member
will have developed a personal approach to the problem. Special standards
will apply, however, in his or her professional activities.
2. Confidential information will be received
2.1. in a personal capacity, in day to day dealings with colleagues;
2.2. in official appointments on a personal basis such as examiner, or member of an official committee;
2.3. as a consultant;
2.4. as a member of an institution such as a commercial firm, an educational establishment, a research institute, or a government department;
2.5. as an appointed or elected participant or committee member (whether In an individual capacity or representing an employer or client) in an association, federation, or professional, technical or trade body.
3. It is on some occasions quite clear whether information is confidential,
but common-sense judgment will frequently have to be applied or appropriate
guidance sought.
4. Major areas of difficulty are
4.1. knowing how far a fact or combination of facts should be treated as confidential if not specifically defined, who may legitimately have access to it and whether disclosure even in outline constitutes a breach of confidence;
4.2. knowing when the circumstances have been overcome by time and confidentiality has diminished or disappeared;
4.3. resolving problems created by receipt of confidential Information in different personal roles;
4.4 deciding how far confidential information may properly be utilized without actual disclosure;
4.5. deciding, in a particular case, whether there are considerations of public duty which override those of confidentiality.
5. No hard and fast rules can be given on any of these points and the
greatest care will often be needed. If necessary the independent opinion
of a professional person with considerable experience should be sought,
or indeed that of the Professional Conduct Committee. It should usually
be possible to discuss the nature of a problem in outline or by analogy
without breach of confidence.
6. It is possible, however, to illustrate the difficulties with some specific
situation as follows:
6.1. A member may be involved in providing factual data or informed opinion
in a legal action. The basic facts presented in open Court will cease
to be confidential, particularly after judgment has been given, but details
of the conduct of the case for prosecution or defense may need to be confidential
in the lifetime of all concerned.
6.2. A member may be aware of the processes, recipes, operational characteristics,
complaint levels or commercial data of an industrial firm. Some facts
will cease to have relevance other than historical within days, but technical
knowledge, in particular, may be a closely guarded secret not intended
for wide disclosure even within the firm itself. Even the fact that a
firm has been interested in acquiring information in a specific field
may not be public knowledge and may be of value to others. Even if a Company
ceases trading it may sell its "know-how" to a third party.
Each firm will have its own policy on such matters. Some disclose as little
as possible. Others may deliberately display the extent of their technical
knowledge as part of their external public relations. A member should
assume that all details of a company's operations are confidential in
perpetuity unless he or she is personally aware of publication or knows
the firm's policy regarding disclosure. It would, for example, be highly
improper to make such information available to a competitive organization
A member cannot reasonably conduct a professional life on the basis that
he or she has no experience in the field in question, but should be very
careful about the manner in which experience is disclosed in an application
for employment or for membership of a professional body.
6.3. A member may be asked to referee a scientific paper prior to publication.
All such dealings should normally be regarded as confidential to the publication
in question and the referee should not disclose involvement without permission
of the editor. The text of the paper will cease to be confidential when
published but details of the editorial process will remain confidential,
including for example, the number of times the paper was amended before
final acceptance. The impropriety of publishing, under one's own name,
new findings gleaned from a paper seen during the refereeing process will
need no emphasis, but there will be more difficulty in dismissing the
new findings when planning independent studies in the same field. In case
of difficulty the editor should be consulted and, with his permission,
the authors themselves.
6.4. When members receive information by virtue of membership of, or representation
on bodies as described in 2.5., they should consider carefully whether
this information is confidential to the organization of, committee concerned;
or whether it may properly be used for their own or their employers' advantage,
or may properly be communicated in another organization or committee;
and they should treat the information accordingly. This is particularly
a problem for members who participate in several activities, and necessitates
identifying and remembering the origin of information of a possible confidential
nature. It can, moreover, sometimes be unclear in which of several capacities
an individual information-donor is acting, and in which of several capacities
the recipient is receiving the information. Some organizations or committees
establish their own rules on confidentiality, and identify items which
are to be treated as confidential. Members participating in these should
comply strictly with such requirements. If a member is in any doubt as
to the propriety of using, passing on or withholding information gained
in a particular capacity, he or she should specifically seek guidance
from the body, committee chairman or individual concerned.
J. R. BLANCHFIELD,
Hon. Secretary.
JRB/PF/SEC 74-75/395
Professional Conduct Guideline #4
Conflicts Involving Professional Ethics
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Difficulties are encountered in situations where:-
(a) a given ethical principle implies responsibility or loyalty in opposing directions
(b) more than one ethical principle is involved, and conforming with one of these appears to offend against another.
1.2 This Guideline cannot give a definite course of action in the case of such ethical dilemmas, but it can, however, underline some of the forms in which ethical dilemmas arise, and provide helpful pointers for individuals to bear in mind.
1.3 In an ethical dilemma, the individual has 2 options:-
(a) Choose one of the available courses, for which decision he or she must accept responsibility;
(b) Look for a new option which would serve both apparently opposing loyalties (in 1.1 (a)) or be consistent with all the principles (in 1.1 (b)).
1.4 Where the latter solution is not apparent, the individual's decision may be made easier by consulting an independent opinion-e.g. an experienced professional person, even the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute. Confidentiality may be maintained by describing the problem in outline or by analogy.
1.5 In seeking a basis for decision, it would be all to easy to generalize on the principle that the public interest should always be given precedence over private interest. This generalization begs a number of questions which are referred to in Section 2.
2. TYPICAL SITUATIONS
2.1 Confidentiality v Public Duty to Reveal
The major instance of this would relate to the placing of unwholesome food on the market. Refer to Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 (Wholesomeness of Food), especially Section 4, which states that members should "take legitimate steps through the proper channels" and each member is expected to do this to the full extent of his or her scope for taking decisions, but members are not accountable or open to criticism for deficiencies or actions beyond their power to influence.
In the event of all the "legitimate steps through the proper channels"
being taken, to no avail, and the failure arising from a genuine difference
of opinion re the wholesomeness of the food, a last resort before considering
disclosure may be to invite the manufacturer to seek an independent expert
opinion.
"Disclosure" may imply:-
(a) a responsive action (e.g. in answer to a direct question in a court of law or public enquiry where a member cannot claim confidentiality grounds for remaining silent, as on occasion may a priest or doctor)
(b) an initiatory action-e.g. in the case of a real public hazard where (a) would be too late. It must be remembered that this is a very grave step to take, would be serious and damaging for the manufacturer concerned, and have possible adverse consequences for the individual. General knowledge by an erring manufacturer that a professional may feel compelled by his or her professional code to publicly disclose wilful irresponsibility, should ensure that the situation does not occur, but in the rare exception, the decision must lie with the individual member.
Most would probably hold that a wilful infringement such as misdescription,
failure to comply fully with a statutory compositional standard, or release
of a product batch with substandard appearance, texture or flavour, would
hardly justify so grave a step as initiatory disclosure in breach of confidence
(particularly if it were an isolated instance). Conversely, the knowledge
that, despite all legitimate efforts to prevent it, a knowing decision
had been taken to release for sale a quantity of food constituting a recognized
public health hazard (e.g. inadequately heat processed canned meat, or
a product hazardously contaminated) would indicate a clear public duty
of urgent initiatory disclosure.
Where two or more members of the profession at varying levels of seniority
have been involved in the legitimate steps taken through the proper channels,
it is generally desirable that any disclosure be made by the most senior
professional.
For issues between the extreme cases outlined above, members should consider
the following points:-
(a) the seriousness of the infringement, and especially whether the public would be only disadvantaged, or actually placed in danger (and to what extent);
(b) whether the facts are sufficiently well-authenticated and their interpretation sufficiently well based (see Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 "Wholesomeness of Food" Section 1.3);
(c) if hazard is thought to be involved, whether it is hazard that is generally recognized as such by the general body of professional experts in the field, or whether it is merely a personal view (however strongly and sincerely held). Attention is drawn to Section 1.3 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1, which warns that care must be taken to ensure that facts are not being selected, consciously or unconsciously,. to support a predetermined conclusion, or to disguise a hazard, or to warn of a hazard the reality of which has not been established.
Clause (ix) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires each member to
"support fellow members who may find themselves in difficulties on
account of their adherence to this Code and the Institute in its efforts
to protect them". If the Professional Conduct Committee is fully
satisfied that the member has acted responsibly in accordance with the
Code in a situation where the facts warranted such action, it would advise
Council that the Institute should do all in its power to support and protect
the member. Clearly, it is both undesirable and impracticable to hypothesize
in advance what forms of action might be appropriate in a particular case,
but in any event it must be stressed that the Institute itself cannot
accept legal liability for actions by individuals.
2.2 Responsibility to an Employer v Responsibility to a Subordinate
Clause (viii) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires each member
to "recognize his or her responsibility for the professional guidance
of subordinates under his or her immediate control".
A separate Professional Conduct Guideline relates generally to responsibility towards subordinates. Clause (viii) quoted above, clearly implies a general responsibility to assist subordinates in their legitimate efforts to progress favourably in their chosen career, subject to merit and ability, and it is hoped that members would defend subordinates against criticism of their professional ability if the criticism is unjust, particularly if it comes from non-technical people.
Circumstances may arise, for instance, in the event of redundancy, in
which a member is asked to take a decision or condone an action which
would adversely affect a subordinate's career or progress which he or
she considers undeserved. It must be realized that such a decision may
sometimes be necessary to safeguard the interests of the organization
In such circumstances the member should:
(a) seek to satisfy himself or herself that the prospective action is on reasonable and not capricious grounds;
(b) enquire whether the desired objective is achievable by alternative and less harmful action, and if so, whether the alternative course can be feasibly adopted;
(c) seek to ensure that any action is implemented in the fairest and most humane manner possible;
(d) advise the subordinate on ways of minimizing any adverse consequences and of optimizing future career prospects.
2.3 Promotion of Employer's Interest v Scientific Objectivity
It is clearly the duty of members to do all that they properly can to further the legitimate interests of their employers or clients. Members may sometimes find themselves under pressure to do so to an extent or in ways which would compromise their professional integrity. Alternatively, enthusiasm may inadvertently carry the individual to a point where scientific objectivity suffers. The latter problem may arise particularly where the member is working in the fields of marketing, advertising or sales, or in providing technical service support to the sales function, most frequently in connection with some aspect of the wholesomeness of food. Full guidance on this was given in Section 5 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1, to which reference should be made. Similar principles will apply to other manifestations of this conflict.
2.4 Responsibility (of a consultant) to one client v Responsibility
to another
Conflict could arise if a consultant were simultaneously to represent both sides of a transaction (e.g. buyer and seller). While it is obvious that a consultant should decline to do so, except at the specific request of both parties and under carefully predefined conditions, this is an oversimplification. A transaction may be embarked upon, initially without the knowledge of the consultant, between two firms which retain his or her services, and it is possible for partial involvement to occur without its nature becoming initially apparent. If involvement of this kind can be foreseen, or as soon as it becomes apparent, the consultant should draw the situation to the attention of both parties.
Another problem area is that of two client companies which are competitors
in the same area of the food industry. Particularly where a consultant
specializes in a narrow sector of the food industry, it is likely (especially
due to mergers, takeovers, etc) that among a consultant's established
clients there will be some in direct competition with each other in some
respect. Again, it is an easy oversimplification to state that knowledge
gained while doing work for one client should not be disclosed to another
client; but any knowledge becomes part of the consultant's mental equipment
in thinking about and solving technical problems. There is no way of evading
this difficulty, and probably the best safeguard is for the consultant
to be aware that the difficulty exists.
2.5 Responsibility to an Organization v Responsibility to the
Profession
This potential conflict may manifest itself in connection with any organization, whether it be an industrial company, a research establishment, or an academic establishment. The policy of an individual organization, aimed quite properly at safeguarding and furthering the interests of that organization, may occasionally run contrary to the wider interests of the field of which it is a part; and in the present context, may run counter to the interests of the profession as a whole. This can present a dilemma for the member employed in the organization concerned, and particularly for a senior member who may be expected to act as a spokesman and advocate for the organization (or a federal body of such organizations) in official quarters.
It would be unreasonable to expect an organization's policy to be framed in disregard of its own interests. Members, and particularly senior members in that organization should seek to ensure that in the evolution and framing of its policy full account is taken of the professional view and interests, as reflected in the policies of the Institute, both general and specific (i.e. technical or educational as the case may be). Care is taken that the policies of the Institute do reflect the professional approach and outlook, partly by the machinery of policy making and partly by the varying backgrounds of its many members.
If, nevertheless, the situation arises where a member is required by his or her employing organization to advocate or engage in actions on its behalf, which run counter to the policies of his or her profession, the member should carefully consider whether the measures or policies in question represent a proper, honest, and legitimate view for the employing organization to take. If so, the member should carry out the required task conscientiously and as effectively as possible, but in such a way that, without thereby preventing effectiveness, any implication that this represents the view of the profession, or of the individual professional, is avoided (e.g. by the use of phrases which emphasize the organization and not the individual). If, on the other hand, the member concludes that the action required of him or her is dishonest, fallaciously-based or generally contrary to professional integrity, the member should draw this to the attention of superiors through proper channels. The principles outlined in Section 5 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 (there related to debate concerning wholesomeness of food) apply with equal force to this more general area.
2.6 Possible Conflict of Loyalties to various Societies, Institutes,
etc.
In their individual professional capacities or some aspect of them, food scientists or technologists may belong to professional and other institutes, "learned societies", bodies concerned with a limited sector of food science and technology, bodies with an incidental or overlapping interest in food science and technology, and other bodies, of a federal nature, on which food scientists or technologists may serve as representatives of their employing organizations (e.g. trade associations), or as representatives of individual societies or institutes. Generally, the interests of such bodies coincide, overlap, are complementary, or at least do not clash. Where the respective interests of two or more such bodies do differ, however, possible conflict of loyalties may arise for a member active in the bodies concerned, and particularly for one serving on the respective committees.
The problem of confidentiality of information in this context has already
been discussed in Section 6.4 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 3,
"Confidentiality of Information". As regards advocacy of policy
and contribution to decision-making in this context, the following principles
should be noted:
(a) when acting in a representational role (e.g. representing a body in a federal organization or a firm in a trade association) a member should advocate the views of the body/firm represented and no other, and support proposals compatible therewith (subject to the considerations outlined in Section 2.5 above);
(b) when participating in the deliberations of an institute or society, a member should have first and foremost in mind the interests of that body, and should refrain from seeking to promote there the interests of any other body. Members should, however, seek to foster the maximum amount of goodwill and practical collaboration among organizations
2.7 Responsibility to Colleagues in a Trade Union v Responsibility
to the Profession
Professionals who support trade unionism, either considering that there is no incompatibility with professional ethics, or that trade union causes may deserve a greater loyalty, may occasionally encounter very great difficulty in deciding In particular circumstances where their greater loyalty and responsibility lie.
Individuals may not always have a completely free choice of which Union they join; and even If they join a wholly professional union, instances have arisen where a professional union has threatened the area of public interest for which it is professionally responsible, as a means of achieving its own objectives and/or gain sectional advantage. If this happens, members should consider the public interest as well as their own.
NDC/HGW/SEC 76-77
Ref. No. 1006
Professional Conduct Guideline #5
Duties Towards Subordinates
The purpose of this Guideline is to amplify and explain clause viii of the Code of Professional Conduct of the Institute which requires each member "to recognize his or her responsibility for the professional guidance of subordinates under his or her immediate control". Some part of these responsibilities may be laid down in management procedures of the particular organization The ethical points listed below qualify such procedures.
In general the member should encourage the development of independence of judgment in subordinates in their professional and scientific careers.
The member should be responsible for the induction of new members of staff, and ensure that they gain a sense of participation, and are encouraged to express professional opinions freely to their immediate colleagues.
One should ensure that subordinates understand the tasks which they have been allotted and the limits of their responsibility within the overall objective of the work. They should then be encouraged to suggest and, where appropriate, make use of their own ideas and ways of doing things. It is particularly important to acquaint them with the outcome of their work, any contribution it has made and, where it cannot be rapidly used, the reasons for this.
The member should also interpret for subordinates the objectives of the organization and guide the work so that it contributes to those objectives.
No member should ever require of a subordinate any action contrary to professional ethics as outlined in the Code of Professional Conduct.
It follows that the duties of members to subordinates should be to:-
1. Accept responsibility for their work. This can only be done if proper communication has been established by adequate training, definition of duties and clarification of objectives.
2. Ensure that they are given adequate recognition for their work, and advocate and encourage appropriate publication when possible.
3. Aid them to appreciate their own professional development, e.g. by furthering their education, widening their experience, and obtaining further qualifications and professional status, and encourage and advise them on their progress as appropriate.
4. Encourage relevant external contacts, by enabling them to attend scientific meetings and to meet other scientists and technologists.
5. Ensure that they are at all times aware of the limits of confidentiality concerning information about
their work.
6. Encourage them to practice the precepts of this guideline towards their subordinates.
NDC/HGW/SEC 77-78
Ref. No. 1007
