Crockett Honey

After nearly thirty years in the food industry, I still find procedures that are perfectly audit-ready. They contain all the right words, reference the correct regulations, and satisfy every documentation requirement. Then I walk out onto the production floor and watch what people actually do.

More often than not, I discover that the team has developed a process that differs from the written procedure. Most of the time, it isn’t because they’re cutting corners or compromising food safety. They’re simply performing the task in the way that makes the most sense to them.

That observation has changed the way I approach document control.

Rather than trying to force operators to follow a procedure written from behind a desk, I start by understanding why the process evolved the way it did. If the team’s method is safe, compliant, and produces the intended result, then often the document—not the employee—is what needs to change.

The goal is simple: when an auditor asks an employee how a task is performed, the answer should match the written procedure because the procedure reflects reality.

This approach doesn’t just make audits smoother. It builds trust throughout the organization. Operators stop viewing QA as the department that writes rules no one understands and instead see food safety as a partner in solving problems. Supervisors spend less time correcting the same behaviors, training becomes more consistent, and new employees learn processes that actually reflect daily operations. When documentation and reality align, compliance becomes part of the work instead of something added on top of it.

I believe most people come to work wanting to do a good job. As supervisors, managers, directors, and food safety professionals, our responsibility is to build systems that help production succeed while meeting regulatory requirements and industry best practices. Compliance should support good work, not compete with it.

That also means explaining the “why.”

People naturally look for efficient ways to complete repetitive tasks. If we don’t explain the reason behind a requirement, shortcuts become tempting because the risk isn’t visible.

Imagine a packaging operator trying to stay ahead of the production line. A package falls onto the floor. From the operator’s perspective, it may look perfectly clean, and placing it back on the line seems harmless.

Instead of responding with, “Because the procedure says so,” I prefer a different conversation. I ask, “Would you want the steak you serve your family packaged in something that was on the floor?”

The strongest food safety systems are not built on binders full of procedures. They are built when written expectations, daily practices, and employee understanding all align.

The discussion immediately shifts away from rules and toward the customer. Suddenly the decision isn’t about passing an audit—it’s about protecting someone’s dinner table.

That perspective changes behavior far more effectively than another reminder about GMPs.

At the end of the day, every person working in a food facility is also a consumer. We all expect the same things when we buy food: that it is safe, unadulterated, honestly represented, and delivers the quality we paid for.

When employees begin seeing themselves as consumers instead of simply operators, everyday decisions take on new meaning. Food safety stops being another task on a checklist and becomes a personal responsibility.

The strongest food safety systems are not built on binders full of procedures. They are built when written expectations, daily practices, and employee understanding all align.

When that happens, audits become easier—not because the paperwork is better, but because the system genuinely reflects the way safe food is made every day. That is food safety culture.

Closing thought

Walk into your plant each day with curiosity. Even after decades in this industry, there is always something left to learn. Instead of becoming frustrated by the procedures people aren’t following, ask why. If the process is safe and compliant, perhaps the document—not the employee—is what needs to change. Ask not what is in your SOP, but what is my SOP missing? That single question can transform not only your documentation but also the way your organization thinks about food safety.