Is food safety auditing about safety or money? GFSI-light?

Posted: May 4th, 2011 - 9:02am by Doug Powell

Irwin Pronk of HACCP By Design (right, pretty much as shown) writes in this contributed piece:

If you are a food processor or retailer and have been insisting that your suppliers become GFSI compliant (Global Food Safety Initiative), beware. Recent information has shown that some certification bodies (auditing firms) are playing loose and fast and plants have been choosing certification bodies based on price alone, compromising the integrity of audits.

When searching for an auditing firm, plants have been asking for two or three quotes. In providing these quotes, some certification bodies are strictly following the Scheme Holders’ (e.g. SQF, BRC or FS22000) formulae for calculating the number of audit days but other, more principled auditing firms realize these too simple calculations do not leave them sufficient time to audit as they should. Thus they add additional time resulting in a higher price. In evaluating the differing quotes, plant management all too often choose the least expensive option knowing they will save money. More importantly, they realize the less time the auditor has, the fewer non-conformances they will find. The result: GFSI-light.

Some auditing firms are becoming known for their lower cost quotes, and the result is an inadequate audit, inadequate control systems and the risk of a facility, process and product not as effectively managed as the customer had expected.

Some food processors have wisely established a relationship with one certification body, selecting a specific group of auditors, and requiring their suppliers use the approved certification body. These firms are finding more consistent and rigorous audits. Be sure you are getting what you are asking for. Do not risk GFSI-light.

Irwin Pronk has worked with over 300 companies to implement food safety and quality assurance programs over the past 15 years. He lives in Fergus, which is near Guelph (that’s in Canada).

 

Your rating: None (2 votes)
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Young QA Guy says:

Money became the driver behind GFSI from shortly after it began. Accreditation bodies make money by certifying the GFSI certification bodies'(NSF, Food Safety Net, AIB, Siliker, etc) benchmark programs (SQF, BRC, FS22000). Certification bodies make money by auditing the suppliers. The supplier (people being cheap according to the article above) incurs all of the cost of this system. They have to buy the benchmark program's compliance material, pay to take the audit, then pay to have auditors in their facilities for 2 up to 7 days depending on the audit. Why wouldn't the suppliers (food producers) go with the firm which offers the best deal. The more important question for the certification bodies is why they each are quoting different prices for the completion of the same audits at the same facility? Why don't the Walmarts of the world pay to have their suppliers audit, so there is a true seperation of interest.

Posted on May 4th, 2011 - 12:23pm

Gordon Hayburn says:

If the writers have any evidence that the standards are not being effectively implemented and assessed, the way to deal with the issue is to inform the owners of the standards, who will then investigate. This is evidenced by the recent suspensions of Certification Bodies. People may chose on cost but the audit body must deliver against the standard and failure to do so will result in an investigation. It is also noticeable that much of the criticism of the CB's and standards is from people who have never done a certified audit. There are many people who seem to want to publicity hunt - maybe their consultancy business isnt as good as it was in these harder times, but I personally would prefer to read information from people who have been there and done that!

Posted on May 5th, 2011 - 9:12am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.