Global Food Safety Initiative

Implementation and Perspectives

Philip G. Crandall; Corliss A. O’Bryan    Department of Food Science, Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

1 Introduction

In the 1970s and 1980s British private label brands, including Sainsbury’s, Asda, Tesco, and Waitrose, saw a doubling of their market share (Surak and Gombas, 2009). By 2005 private labels accounted for 40% of retail food sales in much of Europe (Surak and Gombas, 2009). However, with this rapid growth came a major problem; before this time the retailers’ food product suppliers had ensured that their products met safety and quality standards. With the growth in private labels, retailers now had to assume some of the burden of protecting their own private brands, which inevitably led to an unprecedented proliferation of customer corporate audits and third-party inspections. As a result, international food suppliers were spending a disproportionate amount of their staff time and food safety capital complying with varying audit requirements. This led to widespread efforts to harmonize the dissonance among these competing standards.

Australia developed their Safe Quality Food (SQF) 2000 code in 1994. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) was founded in 1998. In 2003, German retailers organized the International Food Standard (IFS), which was the same year the French government organized the Federation of Commercial and Distribution Companies (FDC). The Dutch Foundation of Food Safety Systems (SCV) developed their own standards in 2004. The Danes had requested ISO to develop an international food safety management standard, which was published in 2005 as ISO 22000. While these efforts represented progress, multinational suppliers still had to comply with multiple audits to sell food products in different countries to differing retailers often with differing standards (Surak and Gombas, 2009).

In 1953, the Food Business Forum was organized in Europe and a U.S. office opened in 1956 (GFSI, 2012). Membership continued to expand over the years and in 2000, CEOs of several global companies came together at The Consumer Goods forum to discuss how best to spend precious food safety resources (GFSI, 2012). This was done against a backdrop of high-profile food recalls, quarantines, and negative publicity for the food industry. There was also an element of “audit fatigue” for manufacturers who had to endure multiple and sometimes contradictory retailer’s or third-party inspections, some having more than six audits per year. There was also a lack of agreement on food safety certifications and acceptance among manufacturers. This all combined to form a need for harmonization of national and international safety regulations. They initially agreed on “benchmark” standards by developing a model that determined equivalency between existing food safety schemes. Today, international food safety experts across the entire food supply chain meet in technical working groups, stakeholder conferences, and regional events to share knowledge and promote a harmonized approach to managing food safety across the industry in a noncompetitive environment (GFSI, 2012).

To be certified, a food manufacturer must be audited by a third-party auditor against one of the schemes recognized by GFSI. These third-party auditors belong to a group that provide certification services known as certification bodies (CBs), which are also key stakeholders within GFSI and the technical working groups. GFSI’s mantra from its inception has been, “once certified, accepted everywhere.” There are several steps essential for an organization to perform to prepare for a GFSI audit.

2 How Does a Food Manufacturer Begin the Process of Becoming GFSI Certified?

According to Petie (2012) if a customer or company requires that products be produced in accordance with GFSI, the first step should be to thoroughly research all of the recognized schemes. The currently recognized standards are available from the GFSI’s website (GFSI’s recognized schemes, 2014). Individual schemes are broken down by the type of food product that a company produces to help identify which scheme would be most appropriate for the organization. The categories are shown in Table 1. Within each category, there is a list of suggested schemes that are appropriate to that category of food. For instance, in the Farming of Plants category, GFSI has approved production schemes represented by Primus GFS, Global GAP, or Canada GAP.

The next step is to visit the websites for each suggested scheme to get copies of details and supporting documents to understand the requirements of that particular scheme. Each scheme differs in matters of process, focus, and how often audits are required. For example, BRC audits the whole system every year, while SQF has an initial document review and facility audit in the first year and then only a facility audit in the years that follow. A scheme should be chosen that fits each individual business, a scheme that is widely recognized by retail customers and has been used by suppliers making similar food products. Additional details on these initial stages to become certified can be found in Mensah and Denyse’s (2011) article on implementing food safety management systems in the UK.

Once a scheme and CB have been selected, a company must decide whether to hire an experienced consultant or “go it alone.” A search of the internet for “GFSI consultants” returned more than 30,000 hits. Because GFSI auditors are not allowed to provide corrective consulting for the company they are auditing, the company must be prepared with documentation to support their food quality and food safety program before commencing the audit. Wellik (2012) called for “Say what you do, do what you say, and prove it.” Written procedures must be developed that address compliance with each specific requirement of the chosen scheme. For example, detailed written procedures would be developed for monitoring the performance of suppliers and the traceability documentation for every ingredient, final product, and service from receipt of raw materials to shipment of finished goods. There must also be documentation the company is following that written procedure, such as production forms or log books; in some cases, electronic databases are used to store these records. The auditor will need to see these documents that prove the system is operating according to the written procedures.

Either with an experienced auditor or going-it-alone, a company will need to select and train their own project team to organize, schedule, budget, and finally enact the chosen scheme. This team will ensure the written procedures meant to comply with the scheme to be audited against are in place and working properly. The project team should prepare for the first audit (Bele, 2011) by performing a gap assessment, which means to look at all current systems in comparison to the requirements of the chosen scheme (Petie, 2012). Hazard and risk assessments should be made and all food safety and quality measures written complete with corrective actions. It is also a good idea to find a CB that will do a preassessment and/or GAP analysis against the scheme that the company has chosen. This will actually function as a mock audit and let the project team know if there are any gaps in the documentation as well as prepare the management and employees for what to expect in a real audit, and to ensure that the nonconformances are understood. At the time of the GFSI audit, all members...