1 / 25

IFST Food Auditing Conference

This article explores the origins and development of third-party verification in food auditing, from the control of raw materials to the establishment of retailer brand standards. It also discusses the importance of due diligence in ensuring product safety and consumer confidence.

tlowrey
Download Presentation

IFST Food Auditing Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IFST Food Auditing Conference Why Are We Where We Are? The Origins and Development of Third Party Verification Kevin Swoffer KPS Resources

  2. 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 Press ISBN:0900379359

  3. 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

  4. Food Safety Act1990 Under 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”

  5. Requirements for the Retailer Own Brand b)satisfy themselves that the intended supplier is competent to produce 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; • 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 1991 NCC LACOTS The Institute of Environmental Health Officers NFU The Retail Consortium FDF

  6. 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

  7. Status of UK Retailers - Nov1996 • 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

  8. UK Food Safety Standards 1996

  9. 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”

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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 soon • Source Food Marketing Institute Conference New Orleans November 2001 K Swoffer

  13. Development of Schemes Product Specific / Customer Specific Requirements Schemes Standards Principles Requirements

  14. Standard vs Scheme

  15. Developing Scheme Systems 1998-2011

  16. Global Food Safety Institutive • GFSI launchedat the CIES AnnualCongress in 2000, following a directive from the food business CEOs. • Food Safetywasthen, and isstill, top of mindwithconsumers. Consumer trust needs to bestrengthened and maintained, whilemaking the supplychainsafer. • Managed by The Consumer Goods Forum

  17. « Safe Food for Consumers Everywhere » GFSI Mission Driving continuous improvement in food safety to strengthen consumer confidence worldwide GFSI Objectives

  18. GFSI Breakthrough – June 2007 The following companies came to a common acceptance of GFSI benchmarked standards, and now many other companies have followed suit

  19. Benchmarking – What does thismean? « Once certified, acceptedeverywhere »

  20. Some Companies Now Accepting GSFI Recognised Schemes

  21. GFSI Guidance Document Objectives • 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

  22. Requirements for Food Safety Management SchemeOwnership and Management Scheme scope Scheme Development and Maintenance Scheme Governance Scheme Management GFSI Relationship

  23. Accredited 3rd Party Certification (GFSI Model) GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative IAF* International Accreditation Forum ISO International Standards Organisation AB Accreditation Body SCHEME Standard + Mgmt System • Pros: • Benchmarking of schemes • Consistent delivery of Schemes • Multi-stakeholder approach • Acceptance by industry • Requirements for schemes & auditors CB Certification Body AUDITOR • Cons: • Oversight adds costs • High std for emerging markets Site

  24. GFSI Certificates Globally in 2010

  25. Thank you for attention Kevin Swoffer kswoffer@yahoo.co.uk

More Related