7 replies to this topic

[sanidadexterior]

The food industry must guarantee the safety of the products it produces and markets so that their consumption poses no risk.

Food safety is an internationally recognized policy principle by the Codex.

To ensure food safety at the international level, the Joint FAO/WHO Commission (CODEX) has developed a series of basic standards and principles (HACCP principles) that serve as the basis for national legislation on food safety.

Aside from the mandatory legislation of each country, companies can adopt different voluntary standards that allow them to achieve higher levels of quality and safety: ISO standards, GFSI standards.

             But are private certifications really useful? Who do they benefit?

Do they benefit consumers, health authorities, or food producers?

 

              For more information, please, see the attached file

Attached Files

•  apex-eng.pdf   2.25MB   8 downloads

[kconf]

Makes it easily salable in market, less scrutiny, consumer faith. While bottom line still being money. 

[kfromNE]

This topic has been covered by GMO in another thread in the last year. 

[sanidadexterior]

Makes it easily salable in market, less scrutiny, consumer faith. While bottom line still being money. 

 

 

Hi kconf , If you study the Apex Food case (in the attached file), you'll see that this isn't always the case.

If there's no communication between regulatory authorities and private auditors, the system doesn't work.

[SQFconsultant]

Sani wrote in part...

 

"If there's no communication between regulatory authorities and private auditors, the system doesn't work."

 

I completely disagree.

 

I remember a USDA inspector wanted to do a walk around with me to observe what we do as private Auditors - this was at the beginning of our inspection on a chicken processing plant, as he said we just want to open up a communication channel with you guys.

 

So, I told him to call my boss and kept walking.

 

[Tony-C]

Makes it easily salable in market, less scrutiny, consumer faith. While bottom line still being money. 

 

 

Hi kconf , If you study the Apex Food case (in the attached file), you'll see that this isn't always the case.

If there's no communication between regulatory authorities and private auditors, the system doesn't work.

 

Hi sanidadexterior,

 

 

Drawing a conclusion based on one case study from what would be regarded as a high risk country to source from is not scientific in any shape or form.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[GMO]

I have to admit I baulk a little at the document, especially that GFSI standards are based off ISO 22000, I'd say ISO actually goes on a bit of a tangent from Codex and changes the definition of prerequisites.  

 

Bureau Veritas as a certification body is not one I've had great experience with personally but I'm not based in that country.  My beef was the auditors were too generalist.  SGS I don't have experience with.  

 

The data prior to 2009 is not necessarily indicative of issues now.  I'm not US based so I'm not sure for the reason for the FDA response whether it's due to the supplier or the category or even just the country.  Sometimes we're "harder" on imports than domestically produced whatever country we're in.

 

I don't think the document is evidential enough for what your claim is but I think the claim is probably valid.  I agree that GFSI does not necessarily guarantee food safety.  In fact, it can say the systems are there but not that they're adhered to.  20 years ago, that's what the food industry needed.  I think we're beyond that now and need better tools to assess what the real food safety risks are.  You cannot audit something safe is my point.

[sanidadexterior]

Drawing a conclusion based on one case study from what would be regarded as a high risk country to source from is not scientific in any shape or form.

 

Hello Tony-C 

I don't know why Bangladesh should be considered a high-risk country.

There are other countries that do have a FDA country import alert, but this isn't the case with Bangladesh.

 Furthermore, the establishment shouldn't be considered high-risk if it has multiple quality certifications (BRCGS, BAP).

 I suppose obtaining and maintaining these certifications must cost money and effort, and they should serve to differentiate itself from the competition in an exporting country with a "high-risk" image.

As GMO says, Sometimes we're "harder" on imports than domestically produced whatever country we're in.

It is obvious that a single case does not allow for general conclusions to be drawn, but it is very striking that the same FBO that, according to the FDA, should be on the red list for important reasons (salmonella and nitrofurans) can maintain its private certifications without difficulty.

 

Edited by sanidadexterior, Today, 07:43 AM.