IFST Food Auditing Conference Why Are We Where We Are? The Origins and Development of Third Party Verification Kevin Swoffer KPS Resources
Feb 02, 2016
IFST Food Auditing Conference
Why Are We Where We Are?The Origins and Development of
Third Party VerificationKevin SwofferKPS Resources
Nat and the Stones• Marks & Spencer Food
Division founded in 1948• Directive of Work dated 1st
November 1948 listed; Control of raw materials Specifications for use of
raw materials Inspection of finished
products including production
Source: Thought for Food, Food Trade PressISBN:0900379359
The Rationale For The Development of Retailer Brand Standards
• to assure product safety • to provide brand protection• to meet legislative requirements• to promote business improvement and
efficiency • to promote consumer confidence
Food Safety Act 1990Under section 21 of the FSA the definition of the ‘due
diligence’ defence is as follows :
“...it shall...be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or by a person under his control”
Requirements for the Retailer Own Brand
b) satisfy themselves that the intended supplier is competent to satisfy themselves that the intended supplier is competent to produce and/or process the product specifiedproduce and/or process the product specified, that he complies with all relevant legal requirements and that he operates systems of production control in accordance with good manufacturing or agricultural practise;
c) from time to time make visits to suppliers, where practical, the verify point b) or to receive the result of any other audit of the suppliers systems for that purpose;
Source: Food Safety Act 1990 Guidelines on the Statutory Defence of Due Diligence Feb 1991NCC LACOTS The Institute of Environmental Health Officers NFU The Retail Consortium FDF
The 1992-1998 “Free for All”
• Retailer technical resources were reducing and under pressure
• Third Party Inspection was seen as a means of meeting legal compliance but freeing resource
• no “standard” approach • confusion and conflict
Status of UK Retailers - Nov 1996
• third party and own inspection with some 20 approved Auditors
• did not accept any third party but introduced their own self auditing scheme
• did not accept any third party and inspected using their own technologists
• accepted a limited number of third party inspection bodies and undertake some inspections by their own technologists
• accepted a limited number of third party inspection bodies
SAFEWAY
SAINSBURY
TESCO
ASDA
SOMERFIELD
UK Food Safety Standards 1996
The Development of the BRC Technical Food Standard
• Supplier/Retail Customer Standard which sits within a company’s systems and procedures
• derived from UK Retailer Codes of Practice and Inspection Standards
• satisfied the requirement for Retailers to inspect their own brand suppliers under the UK Food Safety Act, Due Diligence Defence
• superseded the inspections carried out by the individual Retailer’s technical staff
• driven by efficiency, cost and sharing of “best practice”
The Development of the BRC Technical Food Standard
Problems• “new ground”; very competitive organisations working
together • focussed on own sector, no requirement to worry about
anyone else • some more “active/ committed ” than others• protectionism experienced both Company and individual
• compromise • continual change in member group technical teams
throughout development Source Food Marketing Institute Conference New Orleans November 2001 K Swoffer
The Future of the Standard
• re-establish the co-operation of 1997/1998• meet CIES requirements and look toward other Standards• improve systems • change the stance of ‘job done’• BRC to provide a stable environment to develop Standards
and relationships• think “outside the box”• recognition of “good but need to be better!”Source Food Marketing Institute Conference New Orleans November 2001 K Swoffer
Lessons Learnt!• non commercial• non recognition of success• mis-understanding of individuals and recognition to fully
comply• the need for review • the need to ensure everyone is ‘running at the same
speed’• the need to control services to the process• the need to take the next step - we ‘stopped’ too soonSource Food Marketing Institute Conference New Orleans November 2001 K Swoffer
Development of Schemes
Requirements
Principles
Standards
Schemes
Product Specific / Customer Specific Requirements
Standard vs Scheme
Developing Scheme Systems 1998-2011
Global Food Safety Institutive GFSI launched at the CIES Annual Congress in
2000, following a directive from the food business CEOs.
Food Safety was then, and is still, top of mind with consumers. Consumer trust needs to be strengthened and maintained, while making the supply chain safer.
Managed by The Consumer Goods Forum
« Safe Food for Consumers Everywhere »GFSI Mission
Driving continuous improvement in food safety to strengthen consumer confidence worldwide
GFSI Objectives
GFSI Breakthrough – June 2007 The following companies came to a common
acceptance of GFSI benchmarked standards, and now many other companies have followed suit
Benchmarking – What does this mean?
« Once certified, accepted everywhere »
Some Companies Now Accepting GSFI Recognised Schemes
GFSI Guidance DocumentObjectives• Sets out the requirements for
food safety management schemes and the key elements for the production of food and feed
• Provides guidance to schemes seeking compliance with the GFSI Guidance Document and recognition by the GFSI
• Defines the requirements for the effective management and control of conforming schemes
• Puts in place transparent procedures for the GFSI benchmarking process
Requirements for Food Safety Management Scheme
Ownership and Management
Scheme scope Scheme Development and MaintenanceScheme GovernanceScheme Management GFSI Relationship
Site
Accredited 3rd Party Certification(GFSI Model)
ISO International Standards
Organisation
IAF*International
Accreditation Forum
AUDITOR
ABAccreditation Body
CBCertification Body
GFSIGlobal Food Safety Initiative
SCHEMEStandard +
Mgmt System
Cons: Oversight adds costs High std for emerging
markets
Pros: Benchmarking of schemes Consistent delivery of Schemes Multi-stakeholder approach Acceptance by industry Requirements for schemes & auditors
GFSI Certificates Globally in 2010
Thank you for attention
Kevin [email protected]