[quotename='GMO'timestamp='1338443779' post='54287']
Yes but if you allow carte blanche, you alienate your customers. I agree with your points for internal auditing, but to saythat anything else is insignificant is,IMO naive.
To be honest, you've put forward your rather entrenched position (which is inconflict from training I have receivedfrom food safety professionals at Campden for example) and I see your point but it is a point which will not be sharedby the majority in the food industry.Food safety and quality does not work in isolation from operations, finance, the politics of it. Being a"this is wrong therefore it's a nonconformance" irrespective of the standard is a sure fire way of not improving standards IMO.Being a perceived 'picky' auditor doesn'thelp your message be heard.
[/quote]
I see that I predicted correctly when I said “This may be shocking for some to read.”I also see that I left out some key words that may further explain my so-called entrenched position.So let me re-sate that:
“Essentially, FOOD AND PRODUCT SAFETY AND QUALITY audits are to ensure consumers are safe and satisfied. Anything else is a side interest and somewhat insignificant.”
Let me also try to address some of your points specifically:
[quotename='GMO' timestamp='1338443779' post='54287']
Yes but if you allow carte blanche, you alienate your customers. [/quote]
Who are the customers that you have in mind? Are these the CONSUMERS?
[quotename='GMO' timestamp='1338443779' post='54287'] I agree with your points for internal auditing, but to say thatanything else is insignificant is, IMO naive.[/quote]
The purpose of product safety and quality audits is to protect the consumer. Unless you disagree with this, I still hold that anything else (meaning anything else that has nothing to do with consumer protection in the matter of product safety and quality auditing) is a side interest and somewhat insignificant.
[quote name='GMO' timestamp='1338443779' post='54287']
To be honest, you've put forward your rather entrenched position (which is inconflict from training I have receivedfrom food safety professionals at Campden for example) and I see your point but it is a point which will not be sharedby the majority in the foodindustry.[/quote]
If you see my point, why is it not shared by the majority of industry ? However, I know what you mean and I have posted to draw all of us (the industry) back re-assess why we are conducting product safety and quality audits in the first place. I think many things that do not align with the core intent of these audits have crept in and blinded us almost to the point of being enchanted by them. We (much of the industry) have become fanatical adherents to the religion of: “It is how we have always done things and many people are doing it, therefore it is right”.
[quotename='GMO' timestamp='1338443779' post='54287']Food safety and quality does not work in isolation from operations, finance, the politics of it. Being a "this is wrong therefore it's a non conformance"irrespective of the standard is a surefire way of not improving standards IMO.[/quote]
Regarding the point about food safety and quality not working in isolation of operations and finance, these two aspects(operations and finance) meet the criterion of being relevant in consumer protection. All operations that deliver products to consumers must be designed to ensure consumer safety and satisfaction. Operations that are not so designed will fail product safety and quality audits that have the right focus of consumer safety and satisfaction. Operations must also be properly financed in order to effectively ensure consumer safety and satisfaction.
As for politics and political games, these are completely dispensable and should in fact be completely abandoned in the arena of food/product safety and quality auditing.
[quotename='GMO' timestamp='1338443779' post='54287']Being a perceived 'picky' auditor doesn't help yourmessage be heard.
[/quote]
I agree. A “picky” product safety and quality auditor who is blindly picky about things that do not necessarily contribute to the safety and satisfaction of the consumer will incur my admonition in the same way that a lenient auditor who ignores things that could harm the consumer will incur my admonition. Did you know that many food safety audit standards these days are by nature picky as well? By the way, how did you know that I am an auditor? Are you also an auditor?
Here is another statement for you to challenge:
The consumer must be protected at all costs. This is not to be done only when it is profitable to the industry or only when it is politically prudent.
Edited by gcse-fhp, 31 May 2012 - 01:59 PM.