GFSI expands its reach
Elsevier Food International Vol.8, No.2, May 2005 Lucien Joppen
The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has evolved as a benchmarking tool for various food safety standards. After a ‘difficult childhood,’ the GFSI has also been extended with two standards for agricultural production. Not a bad start for an initiative celebrating its fifth anniversary next year.
In 2006, GFSI will celebrate its fifth anniversary. Initially launched by CIES as a global standard for private label manufacturers, GFSI has evolved as a benchmarking tool for various food safety standards.
One can say that GFSI has had a difficult childhood. As insiders know, the retailers behind the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the International Food Standard (IFS) (see the BRC-IFS story) were reluctant to accept each other’s standards, which in turn endangered the idea behind the GFSI initiative. It seems that this cloud has more or less passed. Furthermore, the GFSI family has been extended with two standards for agricultural production.
During the last CIES Food Safety conference, held in Rome early February 2005, GFSI-chairman Chris Anstey (Tesco) made the kick off. Saying he couldn’t quite forgive former chairman Alphons Schmidt (Ahold) for asking him to be his successor of this “shadowy organisation”, Anstey quickly went through the most important changes for GFSI in 2004.
EurepGAP
2004 has been the year of the GFSI guidance document version 4. The 90 pages of version 3 have been trimmed down to 35 pages. “Our objective was to make the documentation more simple and therefore more useful for all parties concerned”, Anstey said.
With the revision process of GFSI’s guidance document, BRC has revised its standard. IFS already published its fourth version in March 2004. Both standards are “accepted by GFSI for re-benchmarking”.
This means that they have to comply with ‘GFSI 4’. The same accounts for SQF (Safe Quality Food) 2000, the US retail food safety standard from the FMI (Food Marketing Initiative, the American equivalent of the BRC).
The following standards are ‘under consideration’: Dutch HACCP, the China Retailers Standard and the New Zealand Fresh Produce Programme. This means that in the first half of 2005, these standards will be reviewed by GFSI to find out if they can be benchmarked.
One standard has been withdrawn. The EFSIS (European
Food Safety Inspection Service)– in Anstey’s words “the pioneers of retail food safety standards” – are no longer with GFSI. The reason is that suppliers only can be certified against the EFSIS-standard by EFSIS itself. This makes it a so-called closed standard, which is not acceptable in GFSI 4.
Already benchmarked is SQF 1000, an agricultural standard that is endorsed by the FMI. This feat means that GFSI has extended its scope from processed foodstuffs only to agricultural products. Given the importance of fresh produce in the supermarket channel, one could expect such a move.
However, SQF 1000 is more or less an American standard with no benchmarking option. European retailers and suppliers alike would be more interested in getting EurepGAP benchmarked. Established by European retailers, EurepGAP is the most relevant agricultural standard for our continent.
EurepGAP is in itself a benchmarking standard, which incorporates several national and regional food safety standards per sector (fruit and vegetables, flowers and ornamentals).
Holistic approach
Secretary of EurepGAP Kristian Moeller: “We have planned joint discussions with GFSI to see how EurepGAP can be benchmarked to GFSI. As our members do not want duplication [of standards and audits, ed.], they are in favour of ‘getting together’ with GFSI. However, we have also members who do not see the benefit. They think that food safety alone is not sufficient and require a more holistic approach of EurepGAP, which includes environmental and social issues. For the time being, it’s important that the harmonisation among the current post-farm gate GFSI-standards will be promoted.”
Moeller, more or less, refers to the harmonisation process in practice between IFS and BRC. Although both standards are very similar to each other, there are still retailers from both ‘camps’ that are reluctant to accept each other’s standards. Exceptions to this rule are Tesco, Sainsbury (both BRC) and Metro (IFS).
It wasn’t a coincidence that Italian meat company Rovagnati reported about its experiences of a dual audit for BRC and IFS. As the quality manager explained, “the standards are not that different, but the decision to go for two standards were market driven.” In other words, if you export to German or French retailers, you need IFS. If you export to British retailers, you need BRC.
Nevertheless, both standards have grown towards each other. Actually, it’s fair to say only the BRC has made a significant move towards IFS. It has adopted a grading system based on the number and the severity of non-conformities, which give auditors the opportunity to give a more detailed rating of the suppliers’ compliance to the standards’ requirements. BRC also has included specific fundamental requirements – knock out criteria – which are essential for getting a BRC-certificate.
BRC has not made these moves towards IFS for altruistic reasons, insiders say. The standard owner does not want to lose its appeal to several European retailers, which seem to be more inclined to go with IFS than with BRC.
No foundation-higher level
Going back to the grading system, both BRC and IFS use the qualifications A-D. Only IFS has connected to this, a point system. In essence both standards do the same: they give retailers the opportunity to distinguish between high performers and companies, which barely made it. However, both systems are not comparable because they have a different foundation.
In its third version, the BRC made a distinction between foundation and higher level for its standard. The organisation has dropped this division, aimed to give retailers the choice between normal and excellent performers.
IFS, on the other hand, choose to keep this system, which it has been inspired by BRC’s third version. Although both standards seem to diverge on this issue, insiders do not see any problems for the harmonisation process between both standards.
All and all, the standard comparison document, which is designed to expose the differences between the BRC- and IFS 4 standard (respectively third and fourth versions), seems to have paid off.
Marjan Smit of ISA (International Supplier Auditing), writer of the document, initially was sceptical about the effects of this exercise. “Now I’m glad it has brought the standards closer together by exposing the differences. Currently, I am working on the new comparison document, which will certainly be less voluminous.”
The BRC-IFS story
An important driver behind GFSI was (and still is) to harmonise food safety standards on a global scale in order to increase transparency in the supply chain and to achieve cost efficiencies. Retail quality managers would be able to accept various standards from (potential) suppliers without having to audit them, provided of course that these suppliers carry a standard which has been successfully benchmarked under GFSI. Suppliers would not have to carry different standards and endure several audits for these standards annually.
Especially between the two ‘big’ standards, BRC and IFS, there were certain differences, which made mutual acceptance very difficult if not impossible. Most notably, the ‘IFS camp’, i.e. Metro, was not satisfied with the BRC scoring system, which would leave too much room for auditors.
GFSI standards overview
| Accepted: | SQF 1000 |
| Accepted for re-benchmarking: | SQF 2000 BRC 4th Edition IFS 4th Edition Dutch HACCP |
| Under consideration: | China Retailers Standard New Zealand Fresh Produce Programme |
| Withdrawn: | EFSIS |
For more information: www.ciesnet.com (click on Food safety button).
Wal-Mart pro-GFSI
With SQF 2000 and SQF 1000 on board, GFSI has set a decisive step to become a truly global initiative. Also speaking at the conference, Joan Menke-Schaenzer, Wal-Mart’s VP Food Safety & Security, fully endorsed GFSI. “It is critical to establish a simple set of rules which reduces cost for our suppliers and stimulates global trade.” It is the first time that Wal-Mart officially has voiced its support for GFSI.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
