are private certifications really useful?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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,

:uhm:

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

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.

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.

I think as was alluded to earlier in the thread, I'm getting increasingly doubtful of the value of audits, especially multiple audits.  I work occasionally as an external auditor and I think I can sniff BS a mile off but one site I went into was SO good at stage management, they fooled me even though I'm in my third decade of this kind of work.

If you really want to lie and put effort into that lie, you will fool people.  The originating site for the horsemeat scandal was audited successfully by GFSI and Tesco for example.  Then the Peanut Corporation of America... 

The way that audit companies fund their audits is to underpay their auditors meaning that the people recruited into those roles in the last 10 years often have little experience.  One was proudly telling me of his 3 years in ready meals and that made him (as you'd say in the UK) "the big I am!"  Some audit bodies (like AIB) don't pay for time when you're travelling.  What this means is unethical practices creep into auditing or you either can't make enough money (if you're freelance) or you can't keep up with workload (if directly employed).  

I don't do work for those kind of companies for a reason but behaviours I've seen on the "other side" include:

• Having 30 min - 1 hour per day on site doing some organising of notes (i.e. writing up on the job) or typing it in as the audit goes along not concentrating on the facts in front of the auditor.
• Finishing early in the day as "we've covered enough" but in reality that's so they can go back to their hotel room and get a decent amount of write up done.
• I even had one auditor audit a site I was in for red tractor AND a one day retailer auditor on the same day.  I naively assumed she'd had that agreed then realised as she left, no... she will have been contracting separately and so charging separately!
• I even had the same red tractor auditor (just the one audit this time at a different site) never actually leave the office!

So do not assume that any audit is effective.  

But I do stand by the comment re internal controls vs import.  Especially in the US where it's at least hypothesised that levels of food borne illness are significantly impacted by infected handlers.  With little safety net in the US for taking time off for illness, it can mean people work when ill.  That combined with poor oversight and poor "muscle" for competent authorities in itself can mean the US is no better than any other country.  Likewise the UK where I live has very much "three tier" food safety.  Retailer branded foods have at least a level of strict control.  Branded are so much less controlled then hospitality is mostly appalling in their controls.

Audits have their place but they're only really good at assessing if you have the right systems, not that the systems are adhered to day in, day out.  They try of course by being unannounced, by looking at large volumes of records etc but it's just so easy to get round.  Even with experienced auditors you can direct people to a degree.  Then it starts to become the technical team job to pass audits not to make safe food as that's how they're judged.  The two are definitely not the same.

I often quote I had 80 days of audits and customer visits per year in one job.  With that takes about double on preparation and close out.  That's more than a full time job.   Imagine a world where that was, say, 5 days and that person was working on the behaviours instead?