The catering company SORI-AL has reacted to the decision of the National Food Authority (AKU) to allow the normal continuation of its activity, following inspections carried out regarding two reported episodes of health concerns among students of the Security Academy.
In a public statement, the company claims that for more than two months it has faced accusations of a "massive food poisoning", while official verifications, according to it, have not confirmed a link between the food prepared by SORI-AL and the health condition of the students.
"Two months of accusations. A completely different official conclusion," the company's statement reads, emphasizing that throughout the period it has cooperated with state institutions and has made its premises, documentation, and products available for inspections.
According to SORI-AL, official documents show that the QSUT has not confirmed any diagnosed cases of food poisoning and that there is no medical report linking the patients' symptoms to the food consumed.
The company also states that food sample analyses conducted by the Food Safety and Veterinary Institute (ISUV) have resulted negative, while the State Health Inspectorate has not found any violations. Also, according to it, the AKU has completed the procedure without identifying any violations and has allowed the resumption of activity.
In its response, SORI-AL also refers to clinical data for students who presented at the QSUT. The company says that in the first episode, out of 45 people who presented, 43 were discharged within a few hours, while in the second episode, out of 67 people, 66 were discharged after a short period of monitoring.
SORI-AL raises concerns about damage to its reputation, arguing that public opinion was formed before the completion of official procedures.
COMPANY REACTION
For more than two months, public opinion was confronted with news and statements claiming that “SORI-AL” had caused a massive food poisoning. Today, after the completion of all official verifications, it turns out that no institution has confirmed such a conclusion. However, the damage to the company’s reputation has been caused and cannot be undone with just a report or an administrative notice.
Throughout this period, "SORI-AL" has cooperated without any reservations with every state institution, has opened its premises for every control and re-control, has made all required documentation available and has waited for the completion of the verifications without conducting trials in the media and without prejudging the work of the authorities.
Official documents speak clearly. The QSUT confirms that no patient has been diagnosed with food poisoning and that there is no medical report linking the patients' health condition to the consumption of food prepared by "SORI-AL".
Meanwhile, the analyses of food samples taken during official controls by ISUV have resulted negative, a result also confirmed by analyses from an accredited private laboratory.
The State Health Inspectorate has not found any legal violations, while the Institute of Public Health has confirmed that it has not conducted laboratory analyses of the food. Likewise, the National Food Authority has completed the control procedure without finding any violations and has allowed the company to continue its normal activities.
Clinical data shows a different picture. Even medical data, according to the company, does not match the perception created in public opinion.
In the first episode, out of 45 people presented to the QSUT, 43 were discharged within 1 to 4 hours, while only 2 stayed longer for monitoring. In the second episode, out of 67 people presented, 66 were discharged within 30 minutes to a few hours, while only one person remained hospitalized for several days.
“These are official medical facts, not interpretations,” the company emphasizes. For this very reason, “SORI-AL” believes that protecting a business’s reputation cannot be treated as a secondary issue, especially when public perception is created before official verifications are completed.
In recent days, state institutions have reacted to the damage to the reputation of businesses through false comments and ratings on social networks, emphasizing that the protection of business is a public interest. “SORI-AL” states that it supports this standard, but raises a question: When the reputation of a business is damaged by communications or actions of public institutions themselves, which are ultimately not supported by official documents of their procedures, who is responsible for the damage caused?
In a state of law, the truth should have the same public resonance as accusations.
