It’s TGIF—the day most of the working class looks forward to. Friday signals the weekend break, offering a chance for revitalization: to rest, recharge, reduce stress, and, more importantly, provide time for essential errands.

Yes, Virginia, I look forward to weekends to do my routine rounds. I head to the Salcedo organic market on Saturday and/or walk the expanse of the carless streets surrounding the Ayala Triangle, eventually ending up at the Legaspi weekend market on the other side of the Makati Central Business District.

This activity provides more than just a chance for exercise; it’s also an opportunity to check on inflation, which, in most instances, is dictated by the supply chain.

Inflation 101 tells us that supply chain disruptions—triggered by bottlenecks due to natural disasters, changes in customer demand, or product recalls—significantly fuel upward price adjustments, particularly within the tradable segment of core inflation.

I am exacting when it comes to the quality of goods; I fully subscribe to the idiom of “quality over quantity.” This brings to mind the recent difficult decision regarding a Nestlé infant formula recall, which focused squarely on quality control.

The situation piqued my interest both as a journalist and as a chemist to look deeper into the narrative of the precautionary recall and how the flaw was detected. That’s right, Virginia: I am a chemist by education and a journo by profession.

From what I gathered, Nestlé initiated a voluntary global recall of specific batches of infant formula due to potential contamination by cereulide—a toxin produced by Bacillus cereus that can cause vomiting and diarrhea in babies.

An industry player pointed to Nestlé’s stringent adherence to quality control (QC), which identified the source of contamination from a global supplier. They took action and officially alerted the relevant trade associations so that other manufacturers could be informed.

I can fully relate to Nestlé’s strict QC protocols; my sister-in-law served as the chief chemist for Nestlé USA in Glendale, California, before the headquarters moved to Virginia.

Through its testing system, Nestlé was able to detect the issue at levels measured in nanogram quantities (one nanogram is equivalent to one-billionth of a gram). As it was explained to me, these quantities wouldn’t necessarily trigger symptoms under typical consumption patterns, but they were enough to warrant a precautionary removal under internal safety protocols.

I salute Nestlé for recalling the product from 60 economies. In my view, it was a difficult decision, but it is far better to take the controlled reputational hit of a voluntary recall than the catastrophic liability of an undisclosed quality issue discovered by external parties.

In an industry where consumer trust is everything and quality risks are increasing—due to climate change’s impact on agricultural inputs and supply chain complexity—the question isn’t whether recalls will happen. Rather, it is whether manufacturers have the detection systems to identify problems before they become crises.

But again, that only works if your testing systems are sensitive enough to detect the problem first.