[George Howlett]

Hi Antores

The US Food survey is very interesting. The result showing Time (or the lack of it) is very interesting. It may simply reflect that if you ask someone do you have enough time to do the job you are very likely going to get one response...

However if we are not to be too cynical we might conclude that food technologists and quality managers have over the years adsorbed an increasing burden without additional resources.

I was with a company last week who are interest in adopting Safefood 360 as their platform and the manager told be that in the coming weeks he has 2 retailer audits, 1 organic audit and 5 days off site to attend a major retailer's training session on that organisation's technical requirements. He also has a BRC audit coming up soon. He expressed his exasperation at being away from the job so much that he is being audited on.

It may be possible that time is a major issue especially if you consider the above example. It also highlights that the BRC (GFSI) has not become a standard which some retailers are prepared to accept without conducting their own audits. This is a shame and devalues somewhat one of the original benefits of its introduction.

This is something I feel strongly needs to be addressed by the GFSI and Retailers. I know the argument is made that the retailers conduct audits on processes and not so much the management system. However the BRC for example have gone to great lengths to ensure that auditors have experience in the processes of the company - some something is not adding up. Time is indeed a precious commodity in the food safety world...

George.

[GMO]

George Howlett, on 08 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

I know the argument is made that the retailers conduct audits on processes and not so much the management system. However the BRC for example have gone to great lengths to ensure that auditors have experience in the processes of the company - some something is not adding up. Time is indeed a precious commodity in the food safety world...

George.

Not an argument I agree with. All retailer audits have focussed plenty on both as far as I can tell, just from a 'shop floor' perspective as far as possible (which BRC are now doing too). I think the likes of Tesco and M&S will always want to set their own standards as if they have an issue with one supplier, they can issue an edict tomorrow that all suppliers must follow, not wait up to 3 years for the next version of BRC.

I think the value of BRC (and others) is in supplier auditing. It can help reduce your supplier auditing workload although I have to admit to a nagging doubt about the efficacy of some BRC auditors. Why is it I always get the nitpicking tough b******* and everyone else gets Mr or Mrs Fluffy who doesn't notice the obvious foreign body and pest risks???

Or maybe it's me who's the nitpicking tough b*******

[George Howlett]

I accept your point GMO. Those retailers do look at both areas. The BRC has significant value of course. My point is really more about the time resources of those in the industry as reflected in the survey outputs.

I remember vividly the early days of the BRC Standard for companies supplying branded retail food products. One of the benefits canvassed was the reduction in various audits by the retailers on the same supplier. This never happened and the end result was one extra audit in the year i.e. BRC. In my opinion this was a missed opportunity to reduce the time demands on their suppliers.

As for efficacy of BRC auditors... I share your doubts about some. In fairness to the BRC they have been busy on this front perhaps?

My link