ifst food auditing conference

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 Swofferkswoffer@yahoo.co.uk