Piece of wood found in burrito!

singhini

kinger101 said:

singhini said:

Kinger101

You said 
"The manufacturer is then obliged to deal with it as a complaint.  It's the law"

You provided the legislation

A combination of these:

Food Safety Act 1990

Retained EU Regulation 178/2002 (Article 19 “investigate and prevent recurrence”)

Food Hygiene Regulations 2013 (HACCP corrective actions)

General Product Safety Regulations 2005

When asked
Where does it categorically say "The manufacturer is then obliged to deal with it as a complaint"


You responded
"I said it won't explicitly state that"
"in practice, statute doesn't always tell you how you must comply with the law"

You quoted 4 pieces of legislation and not one of them demonstrated categorically that they are obliged to deal with it as a complaint. Instead you keep giving your opinion

"but there's no practical way to comply with the law without one"
"The defense of due diligence is not possible if you can't show you log and investigate incidents"
"And not a complaints procedure, and a separate procedure for members of the public" 

Theses are all opinions! 

You then tried to criticize others but clearly haven't read what they have posted (or understood what they have said). 🤦‍♀️

I did explain.  The problem is your lack of comprehension.  You think statute is a colouring by numbers approach when often it isn't.  Often they don't specify how you should do something, and there is considerable latitude to deal with it how you see fit.  Often, the only solution (as in this case is) is a fairly rigid procedure so it becomes a de facto legal requirement for compliance.

You seem to get rather angry and adopt a blinkered view.  Writing in a way which is unfriendly.  You might like to check forum rules.  I'm not the only poster you've done this to.  Avoid putting things in capitals for example.

To make it easier to understand, I asked chat gpt to explain in simpler terms.  But for you information, I do work in the food industry 

I might turn it on it's head and ask you how a good manufacturer might deal with said incident and demonstrate compliance with the law without a complaints procedure?

------------

Why a food complaints procedure is legally required, even though the law doesn’t literally say “you must have a complaints procedure.”

Think of it like this:

The law gives food companies big jobs they must do:

keep food safe,

investigate anything that might make food unsafe,

fix problems quickly,

and be able to prove they’ve done all that.

The law doesn’t tell them exactly how to do those jobs — it just says the jobs must be done.

So even though the law never uses the exact phrase “complaints procedure,”

you can’t do those legal jobs properly without one.

So stop portraying it that way.

Grumpy_chap

kinger101 said:

So even though the law never uses the exact phrase “complaints procedure,”

you can’t do those legal jobs properly without one.

You seem to be forgetting the narrow circumstance being considered by *some* contributors that the individual finding a lump of wood in the burrito and injuring themselves in the process wanted to simply bring the matter to the attention of the manufacturer so that they could investigate the root cause, implement a recall if appropriate, and prevent recurrence, but absolutely definitely not in any way make a complaint.

So, we need to accept for this postulation that the statement that something was wrong or unsatisfactory was not a compliant.
It will cause confusion when the customer service team receive the letter

"hello, I wish to bring to your attention that this burrito contained a lump of wood and I injured myself when eating the burrito, but I must say that nothing is wrong and I was totally satisfied and most definitely not complaining.  I look forward to you response."

singhini

Grumpy_chap said:

kinger101 said:

So even though the law never uses the exact phrase “complaints procedure,”

you can’t do those legal jobs properly without one.

You seem to be forgetting the narrow circumstance being considered by *some* contributors that the individual finding a lump of wood in the burrito and injuring themselves in the process wanted to simply bring the matter to the attention of the manufacturer so that they could investigate the root cause, implement a recall if appropriate, and prevent recurrence, but absolutely definitely not in any way make a complaint.

So, we need to accept for this postulation that the statement that something was wrong or unsatisfactory was not a compliant.
It will cause confusion when the customer service team receive the letter

"hello, I wish to bring to your attention that this burrito contained a lump of wood and I injured myself when eating the burrito, but I must say that nothing is wrong and I was totally satisfied and most definitely not complaining.  I look forward to you response."

How about:

Hi there,

Just a quick note to let you know that my burrito came with a surprise bonus ingredient; a small piece of wood (possibly cinnamon, though my teeth weren’t able to confirm, hence why im sending it to you). I even managed to injure myself on it which really added some unexpected excitement to the meal (your really going above and beyond the "memorable dining experience")  ha ha ha!

No long-term damage was done, just a bit of discomfort, i just thought you might like to know about the extra crunch.

Looking forward to your reply.