A food safety audit does not ensure safe food
I’m not a fan of third-party food safety audits. Sure, there’s lots of good people out there, especially the ones who can coach and assist, but straight audits of food producing facilities – beginning on the farm and through to the fork – can be fraught with inadequacies.
And too often, it’s about the paycheck, not the food safety (and that comes from years of working with farmers and others and watching various auditors show up and not knowing too much).
Crain's Detroit Business has a story about the expanding empire of NSF International's testing and certification services, which expects sales to increase 29 percent, to $155 million this year.
NSF CEO Kevan Lawlor says that as companies develop more global supply chains, there's an increased risk of health and safety issues.
Which could also be an argument for developing an internal capacity to assess suppliers and internal operations.
Chapman has written that,
“Farmers and processors need to demonstrate to consumers they are aware of microbial risks and are taking serious steps to reduce that risk, day-in, day-out, even in the absence of an outbreak. Regulatory or even third party-audits are largely meaningless. Audits are snapshots, and auditors look for easily viewed visual mistakes and do little to look at what a farmer or staff member does. Just like restaurant inspections audits are not a good indicator of likelihood of an outbreak. Farmers need food safety resources 24/7 to help guide their production practices, and they need those best practices continually reinforced; an annual audit is hopelessly insufficient, especially since outbreaks keep happening from processors that are audited. Inspection scores for farms, like those for restaurants are subject to inspector inconsistencies and are not predictive of the likelihood of an outbreak (Cruz et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2004).”
.jpg)
Or as I’ve written and stressed for years,
“certified/verified/HACCPified/inspected/audited don't means that much unless there is a culture of food safety present farm-to-fork, 24/7.”
How many NSF-audited farms or facilities have subsequently been involved in outbreaks of foodborne illness? How many farms or facilities audited by other third-party operators have been involved in outbreaks of foodborne illness?
And too often, it’s about the paycheck, not the food safety (and that comes from years of working with farmers and others and watching various auditors show up and not knowing too much).Crain's Detroit Business has a story about the expanding empire of NSF International's testing and certification services, which expects sales to increase 29 percent, to $155 million this year.
NSF CEO Kevan Lawlor says that as companies develop more global supply chains, there's an increased risk of health and safety issues.
Which could also be an argument for developing an internal capacity to assess suppliers and internal operations.
Chapman has written that,
“Farmers and processors need to demonstrate to consumers they are aware of microbial risks and are taking serious steps to reduce that risk, day-in, day-out, even in the absence of an outbreak. Regulatory or even third party-audits are largely meaningless. Audits are snapshots, and auditors look for easily viewed visual mistakes and do little to look at what a farmer or staff member does. Just like restaurant inspections audits are not a good indicator of likelihood of an outbreak. Farmers need food safety resources 24/7 to help guide their production practices, and they need those best practices continually reinforced; an annual audit is hopelessly insufficient, especially since outbreaks keep happening from processors that are audited. Inspection scores for farms, like those for restaurants are subject to inspector inconsistencies and are not predictive of the likelihood of an outbreak (Cruz et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2004).”
Or as I’ve written and stressed for years, “certified/verified/HACCPified/inspected/audited don't means that much unless there is a culture of food safety present farm-to-fork, 24/7.”
How many NSF-audited farms or facilities have subsequently been involved in outbreaks of foodborne illness? How many farms or facilities audited by other third-party operators have been involved in outbreaks of foodborne illness?
Trackbacks (1)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/81359
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/81359
Daily Munch -
July 29, 2008 7:09 PM
...may be the best way to make sure the food you buy is safe. As Kansas State University Professor and International Food Safety Council Barfblogger, Doug Powell, points out, a food safety audit does not ensure safe food. While Powell's post is in resp...
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
I agree that third party audits assure rather then ensure food safety. Management commitment in terms of culture, providing adequate resources - equipment, people, training, capital etc and internally driven methods of assessing ongoing performance actually ensure food safety. Third party audits can assist to provide assurance that protocols and systems have been established,documented and within the sampling programme of the audit were deemed adequate, but this process relies totally on the ability, knowledge and competence of the auditors.
I agree with you and the Louise'comment.So in France, for example, with private third party audits such as IFS (Internation Food Standards) or BRC (British Retail Consortium), you do not have really the choice if you are a company supplying retailer branded food products. So, of course, you may use these type of third party audits in order to increase your food safety management and hygiene culture but sometimes, it not always the case.