United Fresh Global Food Safety Conference 24 April 2009

Comparing Canada’s Food Safety Programs in the Fresh Produce Sector with Programs Available in Exporting

Countries

Global Conference on Produce Food Safety Standards

Las Vegas, Nevada24 April 2009

Albert ChambersMonachus Consulting

Monachus ConsultingUnited Fresh Conference – 24 April 2009

Presentation Outline

• Introduction• Brief Description of Canadian Programs• Comparison Project

• Description• Findings• Conclusions

• Ongoing Activities


Introduction

• Presenting on behalf Canadian Produce Marketing Association - over 670 international & Canadian members … responsible for 90% of the fresh fruit & vegetable sales in Canada

• And the International Federation for Produce Standards - an international forum to address issues which require international harmonization or standardization for the produce sector


Canadian Produce Food Safety Programs• Programs

• On-farm Food Safety Program developed by Canadian Horticultural Council for growers, packers & storage intermediaries

• Repack/Wholesale Food Safety Program developed by Canadian Produce Marketing Association

• Design Characteristics• HACCP-based food safety requirements• National programs• 3rd Party conformity assessment• Government recognized• GFSI or GFSI & GlobalGAP benchmarked

• HACCP Program • Site/farm specific application of Codex HACCP

approach using a full hazard analysis (biological, chemical & physical) to identify all control measures (prerequisites & CCPs) needed to produce safe food

• Or, HACCP-based Program • Where the hazard analysis is generic (i.e. covers all

producers or users in a given sector) and results in a list of commonly accepted hazards (biological, chemical & physical) and related controls that are then translated into a series of GAPs (or GHPs) & CCPs to which users shall adhere. (Canadian definition)

Monachus ConsultingAssisting Canada’s Agri-food Industry to Adapt and Prosper

HACCP can’t be done on farm, or can it?


2007/8 Joint Comparison Project - Participants

Joint Comparison Project - Objectives• Compare Canadian fresh produce food safety

programs with those of other countries.• Enable the industry to determine how its food

safety programs could be accepted internationally;

• Provide a basis for Canadian stakeholders (wholesalers, retailers & food service distributors) to assess the acceptability/ equivalence of programs available in other countries.

• Work done in 2007 with some additional comparisons in early 2008



Joint Comparison Project - Outputs• Environmental scan of fresh produce food safety

programs: farm/packer/storage intermediary & repacker/wholesaler

• Comparison criteria• Comparison of CHC on-farm (CanadaGAP) &

CPMA repack/wholesale (RWFS) programs with other programs to establish commonalities & differences

• Comparison of government recognition & private benchmarking schemes

• Final report providing comparisons, conclusions & recommendations.


Joint Comparison Project - Methodology

• Steering committee identified key exporting countries

• Extensive Internet & Literature search• Documents used in comparisons

• Generic HACCP model• Program requirements ( the standard)• Audit checklist• General scheme requirements for certification, etc


Comparison Criteria - 1• General characteristics:

• ownership• commodity scope (fresh produce, integrated)• chain scope (grower/packer/storage/repacker/

wholesaler)• content scope (food safety, environmental, etc)• geographic reach (national, international)• participation ( # of participants, certificates)• recognition (government &/or customers)• other factors (infrastructure sharing)


Comparison Criteria - 2• Program/Food Safety content

• HACCP or HACCP-based or “sewn together”• Relationship to Codex Alimentarius principles,

guidelines• CCPs (if any) identified• Detailed analysis of GAPs or GMPs against

either the CHC or CPMA programs• Record keeping requirements


Comparison Criteria - 3• Conformity assessment:

• Certification body requirements (including accreditation)

• Audit attributes (frequency, duration, use of random/ unannounced audits, etc)

• Audit scoring approach• Auditor competency/qualifications, training

requirements, etc


Comparison Output• Three types of comparison:

• Described (i.e. programs for which limited information can be accessed) – Result: summary of available information with source details

• Benchmarked (i.e. programs determined by GlobalGAP or GFSI to be equivalent) – Result: short description

• Compared (i.e. access to hazard analysis &/or detailed requirements) – Result: 10-25 page fact sheet rolled up into Final Report tables on content & conformity assessment


Programs - Described• Americas: Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Costa

Rica, Mexico, Peru • Africa: Ghana, Kenya • Asia - China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, South

Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam

If we looked again 2009 – we would find many more programs

Farm/Packer/Storage Programs Compared• Canadian (2)

• CHC potatoes • CHC greenhouse

• United States (6)• USDA Fresh Produce • California Leafy Greens • PrimusLabs Ranch• PrimusLabs Greenhouse• Davis Fresh ProCert• SQF 1000

• International (5)• GlobalGAP (fruits &

vegetables) • ChileGAP• NewZealandGAP • FreshCare (Australia)• PPECB (South Africa)



Repack/Wholesale Programs Compared• Canadian (1)

• CPMA Repacking & Wholesale

• United States (4)• PrimusLabs.com

Packinghouse• Davis Fresh Packing

Facility• Scientific Certification

GMP Packing Facility• AIB Produce & Fruit

Packinghouse

• International (2)• PPECB Off-Farm

Produce Handling (South Africa)

• QS (Germany)


Final Report• Individual comparisons are “rolled up” using

tables & symbols to facilitate comparing key elements:• Comparable to Canadian program ●●• Missing key requirements ●• Has additional requirements ●●●• Requirement not mentioned ▬• Note is made of requirements with “record keeping”

(R)• Report available at:

www.cpma.ca/pdf/FoodSafety/JFSCP_May_2008_ENG.pdf

http://www.cpma.ca/pdf/FoodSafety/JFSCP_May_2008_ENG.pdf

http://www.cpma.ca/pdf/FoodSafety/JFSCP_May_2008_ENG.pdf


CHC/US - Example


CHC/International Example

Monachus ConsultingCPMA Webinar – 12 November 2008

CPMA/US Example


Conclusions (1)1. Programs in fresh produce sector are rapidly evolving in

response to global buyer demand2. Rigorously applied HACCP-based approach generates

comparable programs • CHC & CPMA Programs are currently comparable or more

comprehensive• Programs that do not use HACCP-based approach have

deficiencies that reflect their underlying objectives (e.g. focus on biological hazards)

3. Trend in conformity assessment is to accredited 3rd party certification bodies• The Canadian programs are implementing this approach• US Programs use a variety of certification approaches

(government staff, 3rd Party auditors, etc)

Conclusions (2)4. Audit Approaches vary:

• Annual audits predominate• Some schemes permit a group or multi-site certification• Risk based frequencies are being introduced

5. Private Benchmarking & Government Recognition schemes• Have similar characteristics • Appear to provide similar results • Benchmarking could be used as a proxy for full comparisons

6. Comparison template provided demonstrated value to all segments of the supply chain, particularly retailers.


Conclusions (3)7. Good comparisons require detailed program information

(e.g. generic model, auditable requirements & conformity assessment scheme)

8. The Joint Comparison Project is the largest fresh produce program review to date

9. Competitive intelligence monitoring & “best practice adoption” are an essential part of the global fresh produce industry’s future – Joint Comparison Project needs updating & deepening



On-going Activities (1)• United Fresh Produce Association

• Using report as part of broader assessment of US schemes

• International Federation for Produce Standards• Members: Canada, USA, United Kingdom, Chile,

South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Norway• Using report as a reference document for discussions

of harmonization of fresh produce food safety standards

• Engaging other stakeholders (e.g. GFSI) in discussions about harmonization of fresh produce standards


On-going Activities (2)• Canadian Stakeholders

• Reference document for assessing foreign schemes• Basis for discussions on customer requirements &

recognition of CHC & CPMA Food Safety Programs• CHC launched its program – now CanadaGAP - in

September 2008 • Major retailer – Loblaws:

• Requesting CHC program (or GlobalGAP/GFSI) of Canadian & other suppliers for 2009

• Requesting CPMA RWFS program or equivalent• CPMA board – Meets in May 2009 to consider plan to

launch its audit/certification scheme

Thank you to the United Fresh Produce Association

for the invitation and to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association for its

support

Albert ChambersMonachus [email protected]


United Fresh Global Food Safety Conference 24 April 2009

Business

joint comparison project

fresh produce sector

chemical

south africa

recognition

chc

haccp