GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE (GFSI) IMPLEMENTATION –CONCEPTS AND ISSUES

Phil Crandall, Natalie Dyenson, Frank Yiannas and Corliss O’Bryan

WHAT IS GFSI AND WHY SHOULD I KNOW ABOUT IT’S GOALS?

In 2000, CEOs global companies at The Consumer Goods forum --how best to spend precious food safety (FS) resources- Backdrop--high-profile food recalls, quarantines

& negative publicity on food industry “audit fatigue”—multiple & sometimes

contradictory retailer’s or 3rd party requirement, as many 6 / year

Lack of agreements on FS certifications & acceptance

Harmonization of nationally and internationally

Spend FS resources-- that produced results

WHAT IS GFSI AND WHY SHOULD I KNOW ABOUT IT’S GOALS?

Initially “benchmark” standards- model of equivalency between existing food safety schemes

Today, international FS experts, across entire food supply chain meet Technical Working Groups, stakeholder conferences share knowledge and promote a harmonized approach to managing food safety across the industry

Non-competitive environment

SCHEMES THAT ARE “BENCHMARKED” WITH GFSI

BRC Food Safety Issue 6,

IFS Food Version 6 SQF Code 7th

Edition Level 2 Global Red Meat

Standard FSSC ISO 22000

and 9000

NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED AGAINST GFSI RECOGNIZED SCHEMES 2012

GFSI CERTIFICATION

Thousands of companies in North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, and in Asia have received a GFSI-approved certification that is accepted by their retail customers anywhere in the world.

THESE INCLUDE SUCH RECOGNIZABLE NAMES AS:

Cargill H-E-B Shop RiteCampbells Hormel TargetCoca Cola Kraft Foods Trader JoesConAgra Foods Kroger TysonCostco McDonalds Walgreen'sCVS PF Chang Wal-MartDaymon WorldwideFarm FreshGiant Food

SafewaySam’s ClubSchwan FoodCompany

Wegmans Food MarketsWin-Dixie Stores

 

 

THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME TO ACCELERATE GFSI ACCEPTANCE

“Mind set” food safety is not a competitive edge,

“sistership” cantaloupe outbreak September 14, 2011 - Jensen Farms, of Holly, Colorado

“Yes, we (your customer) wants you to complete a GFSI audit, but we have company requirements we’d like to see in addition …..”

Or “let’s approach the GFSI Technical Committee on this issue and see if we can ….

Choice retailers have—dilute suppliers’ resources with redundant and overlapping audits or focus resources on productive goals

FUTURE MARKET AND REGULATORY FORCES PUSHING FOR GFSI IN NEXT 5 YEARS

Regulatory Drivers Food Safety Modernization Act, FSMA, US centric

requirements—may have GFSI like certifications as the rules are finalized

Denmark regulatory audits are reduced for suppliers with GFSI;

China’s national government audit standards benchmarked by GFSI; huge in some markets

GFSI DRIVER--TRACEABILITY OR THE LACK THEREOF

Final future driver, traceability failure ie horsemeat in EU—estimate cost, brand damage?

Quote from international liability insurance executive, “Estimates—tens of millions of euros as brand owners pass costs for profits from items having to be pulled from shelves, costs of replacement and damage to image.” as a result of food products adulterated with horsemeat

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Safety-Regulation/Horse-meat-scandal-Where-it-began-and-where-are-we-now

BACKGROUND OF OUR STUDY GFSI IMPLEMENTATION

GFSI began in 2000 In February 2008, Walmart announced

that all of their private (store) brand & some national brand suppliers certified based approved GFSI >July 2009

Surveyed Feb 2010; 309 national suppliers to Walmart were contacted—had 56% participation

98% of the respondents were primary food manufacturers

OUR STUDY OF 174 WM RETAIL SUPPLIERS

Demographic information for the companies that supplied products

Annual sales ($) Number of companies (%) of companies 0–50 million 29 17 %51–100 million 29 17 %101–200 million 27 16 %201–500 million 40 23 %$500 million or more 49 28 %Relative food safety risk of productsLow 83 48 %Medium 65 37 %High 26 15 %

FREQUENCY OF USE OF GFSI BENCHMARKED SCHEMES AMONG FOOD PRODUCTION PLANTS

Scheme Number % of plantsSQF 2000 level 2 or higher 221 54 %British Retail Consortium (BRC)

Global Standard, version 5 151 37 %International Food Standard (IFS),

version 5 14 3 %Primus GFS 11 3 %SQF 1000 (level 2) 5 1 %Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000a 4 1 %Total 406 plants from 174

WHY SELECT A PARTICULAR GFSI BENCHMARKED SCHEME? (SQF VS BRC)

50% -- widely accepted by (retail) customers

20% -- required by a (single) customer 12% -- recommendations from others 10% -- good reputation in the industry 7% -- most often used in our industry

SELECTION OF BENCHMARKED AUDITOR BY INDUSTRY

Benchmarked Standard Number % CompaniesDrinks BRC Global Standard, version 5 8 19.0% FSSC 22000 2 4.8% SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 32 76.2%Fruits and vegetables BRC Global Standard, version 5 11 22.9% Primus GFS 11 22.9% SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 26 54.2%Meats BRC Global Standard, version 5 46 61.3% IFS, version 5 1 1.3% SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 28 37.3%

5-POINT LIKERT SCALE (1, STRONGLYDISAGREE; 3 NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE & 5, STRONGLY AGREE)

Statements: Risk Med HighSales$201-500, > $500After GFSI our FS 3.95 3.77 4.13 3.73 management systembetter documentedGFSI we’ve had more 3.38 3.54 3.63 3.33 employee trainingGFSI further enhanced 3.43* 3.08 3.58 3.14production of safe foodCompany made 3.62 4.04 3.83 3.73significant investmentsGFSI seen as improving 3.85 3.88 4.03 3.73safety of foods produced

NUMBER OF AUDITS BEFORE AND AFTER BECOMING GFSI COMPLIANT RANGE 3-6

Number of 3rd party audits/year

Before After Diff. Relative riskLow (dry cereal) 4.57 3.69

0.89Medium (can food) 4.42 3.97

0.45High (RTE meat) 5.72 4.28 1.45Overall (174 co.) 4.71 3.89 0.81

OTHER FINDINGS FROM WM SUPPLIER SURVEY

Time to become GFSI compliant ranged from 12.6 mo for smallest companies; 8.3 mo large

Time for medium risk 10.4 mo

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF OUR STUDY OF 174 RETAIL SUPPLIERS

Companies’ Opinions and Acceptance of Global Food Safety, Initiative Benchmarks after Implementation. Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 75, No. 9, 2012, Pages 1660–1672

CURRENT TRACEABILITY Currently “one-up, one down”

regulation. Know who you purchased an ingredient from and to whom you sold the finished products

Many, many thresholds to overcome—examples fruits and vegetables and mainly ground beef

GFSI AND GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP) Goal: minimize

conflicting & competing industry specific FS standards

Minimize or eliminate trade barriers, WTO

Minimize redundant FS requirements that have driven-up of food to consumers

GFSI provides data for real-time FS management

Manages costs from FS culture

Maintain consumer confidence in food industry

Our study, Increased employee

education Reduced perceived FS

risks

BEEF TRACEABILITY—BEEN AROUND A REALLY LONG TIME

Egyptians Spaniards, Hernán Cortés

branded his cattle with three Latin crosses

Texas after civil war, cattle driven to Northern rail heads to be separated prior to shipment to Northern slaughter facilities

Today--tattooing, ear notching, ear tagging (metal and plastic) and electronic identification (injectable, ear tags and electronic bolus), as well as natural systems (mainly retinal imaging and molecular markers)

EXTRAS

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in late 2003 spark ignited

National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was created in 2004 –VOLUNTARY 95% poultry production premises registered 80% pork premises 18% beef premises registered

05 Feb 2010 Sec Ag Vilsack abandoned NAIS—state Animal Disease Traceability systems

AT LEAST TWO PERSPECTIVES ON GROUND BEEF

Beef Producer Beef Processor

PRODUCER-ANIMAL DISEASE TRACKING

Minnesota Board of Health—official ear tags

MN 2001regained status as Tuberculosis Free State

Eliminate “whole-herd” depopulation? Eliminate public reaction

May go to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

Requires producers to: Keep records min 5

years Dam and sire, location

where born, sex Date of castration for

steers Brucellosis tag ($1

@sale) Arkansas’ producers

want to keep their “Brucellosis (bangs) Free” state status

PRODUCER THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME IN BEEF TRACEABILITY

Increased potential liability—tort reform Increased trespass by regulators on

producers’ property (Big Brother) Added expense, time maintaining auditable

records Minimal benefits, in 2009 cost ~ $6/head =

90% costs borne by producers 2007 premium live cattle market, $1.50-

$2.00/ hundred weight, in KC calves maintained minimal traceability

II. BENEFITS TO BEEF PROCESSOR

Increased access to markets: labels Grass fed, Certified Organic, Humanely Raised USDA’s Ag Market Service, “Process Verified”

Recalls, all 4 majors beef processors had recalls or withdrawals—robust traceability system Again retail customer and regulatory

requirements 2010 mock recall savings 11 cents / pound (7%)

BEEF PRODUCER THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME

The beef industry much lower degree of vertical integration than poultry or pork Many barriers to overcome to further develop

vertically integrated systems Regulations currently prohibit vertical integration

Need genetic breakthrough in identifying genes produce eating quality consumers desire and maintaining identity of the beef from conception to the consumer

Or needs to be a major breakthrough in processing or new product development to increase the profit opportunities for beef products at the retail and food service level

Vertical integration a mechanism must be developed to shift or share the capital requirements and risk

SIZE AND SCALE OF BEEF IN USA, 2011

About $80 billion dollar industry

800,000 cow-calf operations Farms > 100 head

produce 45% US beef 34 million head

slaughtered 27 million steers 7 million cull beef &

dairy cows 2 million head

imported

NEED TO WRAP IT UP—FUTURE ?

Maverick Ranch Beef (Denver, CO) Natural Beef extensive traceability, using retinal scanning

Identify calves at birth, weaning, entry to the feedlot and at slaughter;

Post slaughter they use trolley tracking and bar code tagging of individual cuts to trace back to a particular animal, but even then they do not manage to maintain identity for beef trimmings

Not cover ground beef

NEED TO WRAP IT UP—FUTURE ?

DNA tracking could distinguish between mixtures of equal amounts of meat from three different individuals, but when a 1 pound package of ground beef contained DNA from 10 animals—even DNA tracking was not reliable!

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT:

A Review: Whole-chain traceability, is it possible to trace your hamburger to a particular steer, a U. S. perspective. Philip G. Crandall, Corliss A. O'Bryan, Dinesh Babu, Nathan Jarvis, Mike L. Davis, Michael Buser, Brian Adam, John Marcy, Steven C. Ricke

Meat Science 95 (2013) 137–144

CURRENT STATUS OF ACCEPTANCE OF GFSI, USA AND WORLD WIDE

Consider attending, February 2014 GFSI Conference theme: “One

World, One Safe Food Supply”

QUESTIONS ?