-- OPINION --
During this holiday season, families across the country are filling their carts with the same familiar brands they've trusted for generations. At the same time, a lawsuit against Campbell Soup Company is raising an unsettling question: how safe do we really feel feeding our families this year?
The case has nothing to do with a contamination event or an outbreak. Instead, it centers on a secretly recorded rant by a senior executive who allegedly described Campbell's soups as “food for poor people,” slammed ingredient integrity, mocked consumers, and made racist remarks about employees. The recording surfaced because an employee raised concerns about what he heard. Weeks later, that employee was fired. Only after his termination did the company place the executive on leave and then part ways with him.
In other words, someone spoke up and was punished for it.
That should be a warning to the entire food industry, as this situation reveals something deeper than a single person's bad behavior. It exposes how leadership in some companies truly feel about the value of food safety, quality, their employees and consumers.
I've worked in food safety and quality for roughly 20 years. Like thousands of professionals across the country, my job has been to build systems, training programs, and practices that protect public health. What I've seen, repeatedly, is food safety and quality professionals being treated as obstacles rather than guardians. We are labeled “the food police.” We are blamed for slowing production when we raise concerns. We are dismissed as difficult when we insist on compliance. And when we call out something that puts the public at risk, we are often treated as if we're the problem.
Yet many of us stay. We stay because people across the country depend on us. We stay because we know that families will gather around tables expecting the food in front of them to be safe. We stay because we believe integrity matters.
That's why Campbell’s case strikes a nerve. It isn't about whether the executive's comments were correct. It's about what those comments reveal: a senior leader openly disparaging the quality and suitability of his own company's products and mocking the consumers and employees who depend on them. That is food safety and quality issue long before a single lab result, audit, or corrective action ever enters the picture.
On paper, our preventive tools have never been better. Testing is more sensitive. Traceability is more advanced. Data systems are more sophisticated. But the outcomes tell a different story. Regulatory oversight is being gutted, and the frequency of recalls, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to recalled foods is not decreasing – all issues that a strong culture and genuine accountability in industry should prevent.
When better tools do not lead to better outcomes, that is not a technical failure. It is a leadership failure.
The comments made in the Campbell's recording expose another truth: racism and classism are food safety risks. When leadership mocks their employees and customers, they signal a belief that some lives and roles are worth less than others. The impact of such a dismissive mindset is significant because the people doing the most critical work – mixing ingredients, cleaning equipment, and monitoring critical processes are often the least valued, least protected, and are disproportionately represented by marginalized communities.
Yet these people are the backbone of food safety and quality. Without their vigilance, no executive initiative, marketing campaign, or certification can guarantee a product is safe. They are the ones who carry the responsibility, worry, and burden of catching problems before they reach the public. They are the ones who lose sleep over “what if’s” and near-misses. For every recall headline, there is a technician who was ignored, a manager who lacked the access and/or authority to intervene, and a frontline worker who will face blame for a failure they were not empowered to prevent.
A company’s commitment to integrity is often demonstrated through posters, slogans, and checked boxes. But culture is not what a company says. Culture is what a company does. It defines who is listened to and who gets ignored. It shapes who is protected and who gets punished. In the Campbell's case, the employee who spoke up was terminated before the executive who made the remarks was held accountable. The lowest paid person bore the highest cost.
That is not just a leadership failure, it is a culture failure.
If brands want to build consumer trust and protect public health, then “culture” has to mean something real. It has to start with thinking about the people who will produce and eat their products, not just how quickly or cheaply it can be made. It needs to protect people who raise concerns, rather than retaliating against them. And it must recognize that racism, classism, and intimidation are not just individual workplace issues, they influence how companies treat the very people responsible for getting their products to the table.
To the frontline workers, inspectors, auditors, and FSQA professionals who hold the system together every day – you are the reason our food supply is as safe as it is. We are grateful for you, and you deserve to be respected, empowered, and valued for your voices – even when leadership doesn't want to hear it.
About the author: Azure Edwards, M.S., is a food safety and quality professional with more than 20 years of experience strengthening compliance systems, rebuilding safety cultures, and supporting frontline workers across the food industry. She is the founder of Pacific Blue Horizon Group, a consultancy focused on food safety culture, risk communication, and operational integrity.
