In essence, suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of fresh produce must comply with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and should have internal complaints-handling processes in place.
This is a noble idea, but how will it work? Is it as simple as a consumer saying to a retailer, “I’m unhappy with these potatoes – look at the marks on them”, and the retailer being compelled to do something about it? There might be nothing wrong with the potatoes, but nine out of 10 times the retailer will replace the product or refund the customer.
Unsafe products
In short, the CPA affords consumers greater protection from poor quality or unsafe products. The problem with fresh produce, however, is that Mother Nature was not kept in the loop when the laws were formulated. The process of senescence, which kicks in immediately when a fruit or vegetable is picked, is unstoppable. A product is at its best immediately after harvesting.
After that, it’s on a downhill slope until it is either consumed or discarded because it’s no longer edible. The fresh produce industry has numerous methods of slowing the ACTprocess down and extending shelf-life, but it cannot stop the inevitable. The supply chain, from orchard or land to retail shelf, holds enormous potential for products to be ‘damaged’ in ways not faced by manufactured products, yet I get the impression that fresh produce has been tossed into the same basket by the CPA.
Who is to blame?
So how does a retailer handle a complaint from a customer? What are those ‘internal complaint processes’ referred to earlier? And who is ultimately responsible for the problem? The farmer? The retailer? Someone else in the supply chain? Sometimes it’s almost impossible to determine where and how the problem was caused.
The whole concept of the CPA is highly laudable. When it comes to fresh produce, though, I wonder whether the authors of the Act didn’t miss the target.
