My point, which will inevitably be straw manned to hell and back, is that a large part of the reason these systems all came about is to cheaply satisfy externally imposed requirements (save energy, facilitate audits, remove responsibility from store employees, etc, etc) that the peanut gallery (and more concerningly, real people doing real work deciding things) cheers for when examined in isolation.

Requirements in the food industry come not just from government rules and suggested best practices (that are more than suggestions in practice) but also indirectly as a result of requirements imposed by insurers, financiers and trade groups. In response to this companies that run supermarket chains or manufacture major brands of food have not quite the same verbosity but certainly comparable degrees of retention in their record keeping as medical and aviation.

This monitoring and control is increasingly centralized in response to all these requirements because it's most efficient that way. If you're gonna have one guy in an office deciding things you might as well automate away the middle man and have him set them too and let the people on the ground spend more time doing their core work.

If fifteen of the twenty thousand dozen systems (pulling that number out of my ass FYI) in an industry are being centrally controlled through computer systems it's inevitable that some of them wind up off the VPN and this happens. It's just a natural tradeoff or risk you run when doing that and it's completely foreseeable.

But the internet peanut gallery will not generally have any sort of adult discussion about these tradeoffs because "we saved X (maybe X is money, maybe energy, who knows, who cares) by operating the fridges more centrally" is a nice easy win for them and rather than have a discussion about subjective and hard to pin down long tail risks it's easier to just screech about "we should fine the people who did it wrong" or whatever when one of those long tail risks rears its ugly heads.