GCSE-FHP Systems Management – Safety, Security and Quality Assurance (SSQA) Project

This project introduces the GCSE-FHP model for ensuring effective consumer safety, security and satisfaction. 

The SSQA system has several  Economic Benefits.

What differentiates the GCSE-FHP SSQA system from other approaches?

The GCSE-FHP Safety, Security and Quality Assurance (SSQA) system involves the mobilization and direct collaboration of the entire supply chain that is linked to the participating operation. It actively promotes a chain-wide responsibility and accountability with on-going measurement and tracking of success. There are built-in mechanisms for ensuring friendly scrutiny through the supply chain. Qualified SSQA Facilitators work collaboratively with participating operations. An operation may even have qualified SSQA Facilitators within its workforce.

Unique Aspects: 

There are some non-negotiable obligations in the adoption of the SSQA concept that  ensure the effectiveness and success of established programs. At the same time, participating operations  have enough room to be creative in the implementation of unique, cost effective and practical control measures. 

• Each participating operation is aided in the implementation of strategies for enlisting and maintaining cooperation and collaboration with joint responsibility and accountability through the entire chain.
• SSQA criteria for evaluating the effective implementation of control measures/programs are based more heavily on reality.
• An approach that evaluates sustained consistency is followed in assessing (auditing) the effectiveness and success of established programs. The SSQA model includes the use of qualified and well trained SSQA Facilitators (assessors) for the “internal” and “exchange” assessment programs.

Operations that are able to adopt the SSQA concept early in the development of their product safety and quality management systems find it most beneficial. However, operations that may not have adopted it right from the start are able to easily adapt their systems to SSQA. This is one of the key advantages of the SSQA concept. With the right guidance, SSQA concepts can be readily and productively integrated into existing management systems. While this flexibility is very useful, there is nothing like adopting the system right from the new facility building and/or operation initiation stages.

Who can participate in the SSQA Program?

Any operation anywhere in the world may enlist and participate. There is also no limit to the number of operations that may participate. The process begins with GCSE-FHP membership registration.

Ongoing GCSE-FHP Guidance

The GSCE-FHP Compendium of Guiding Principles is available to enlisted companies upon request with a small donation to the coalition. There is also the direct assistance that may be provided by the GCSE-FHP Team and Panellists if requested.

Full details about the project are available to all enlisted operations. Upon enlisting, the participating operation obtains a copy of the implementation guide and receives the updated version of the GCSE-FHP Compendium of Guiding Principles. Participants may also request the updated versions of the Compendium from time to time.

Interested persons or operations may contact the GCSE-FHP Team to inquire about this project and how to enlist.

You may REGISTER to receive SSQA Updates.

You may also read "Adopting the SSQA Concept": http://gcse-food-health-protection.blogspot.ca/2012/07/adopting-gcse-food-health-protection.html

Guidelines for Food/Product Operation Risk Assessment

This blog post has been moved to the author's eBook.

Posted By Felix Amiri

____________________________________

Felix Amiri is the current Food Sector Chair of GCSE-Food & Health Protection

Real Test Action Program (Real-TAP)

The GCSE-FHP has launched phase 1 of Real-TAP. This is a cost minimizing and benefit maximizing program. The program mainly provides help to small to medium companies. These companies typically have limited resources for the development, implementation and maintenance of sound product safety/consumer protection programs in their operations. Phase 1 involves systems setup. Small to medium companies that enlist in the program will be assisted by enlisted consultants to set up their product safety/consumer protection systems. A planned phase 2 is to test the effectiveness of the established systems. Future phases will build on the progress of these initial phases.

Real-TAP is based on the principles of the GCSE-Food & Health Protection SSQA Program:
http://gcse-food-health-protection.blogspot.ca/2011/12/gcse-fhp-systems-management-safety.html 

Although participation is open to all, the main focus is on small to medium companies. Operations that fall within this category and consultants who are willing to help these companies are invited to enlist. Please contact the GCSE-FHP Team for further details via this Contact Us link: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

Food Safety Management Scenarios

This blog post has been moved to the author's eBook.

Posted by Felix Amiri

___________________________________________________________

Felix Amiri is currently the chair of GCSE-Food & Health Protection, and a sworn SSQA advocate.

The GCSE-FHP Employment Benefit Pact Program (EBP-Program)

GCSE-FHP has launched its EBP-program and it may be of interest to you. It is a worldwide program with local participation opportunities. The aim is to address the usual conflicting employment situations of: “no experience no work” but “no work, no experience”. The program is based on the participants’ willingness to make little sacrifices with definite benefits.

GCSE-FHP recognizes that some prospective employees who are excellent workers find it difficult to find employment because they have little or no work experience. These are usually but not exclusively new college or university graduates. On the other hand, employers generally prefer individuals with experience and, by insisting on finding people with experience, may be missing out on engaging prospective hard workers who are very innovative and productive.

The GCSE-FHP EBP-program bridges the gap. The program helps entry level employees find employment from which to gain experience. At the same time, it helps employers find entry level employees who are willing to accept the opportunity to gain experience as part of their remuneration. This provides obvious benefits of participation for both the employers and prospective employees.

To participate in this program, interested organizations and prospective employees may register to be contacted by the GCSE-FHP Team about available opportunities. Interested parties may chose to have their contact information and other details posted by GCSE-FHP (e.g. job descriptions, resumes, etc). A small administrative fee may apply depending on the organization’s or individual’s GCSE-FHP membership status. If you are interested in participating in this program as a prospective employer or employee, you may contact the GCSE-FHP Team for further details via this Contact Us link: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

A Modest Proposal:

Posted by Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS as part of a Foodsafe group discussion on the topic:

"The US Cannot Afford Food Safety Says AMI"

According to Dr. LaBudde: 

If every one believes regulated food safety is beneficial, and

everyone also believes that processors will pass "users' fees" on to

the consumer, then the obvious simple plan is this: Impose a tax

directly on food, with the proceeds directed to regulation.

This proposal will make the arguments of both sides much more

intelligible. Would consumers accept a 0.5% sales tax on food, in

order to get regulatory efforts to make food safer (a different thing

from food actually being safer)? Or would they prefer no tax and the

status quo?

Users' fees are objected to by industry because they are a

sleight-of-hand way of imposing a tax without going through Congress

or paying the political price of raising taxes and bloating

government. This is a valid point for their lobbyists, but is

somewhat irrelevant to food safety.

The real issue here is this: Will beefing up Federal regulation

actually make food safer, and will the benefit exceed the cost?

With local restaurant inspection, there have been numerous studies

and endless argument, with no proof that a measurable impact on food

safety occurs. Undoubtedly the reason is that politics intrudes any

regulation and castrates it, leaving it ineffective.

FDA will just hire more HQ workers and write more paper regulations.

I doubt if they will change their character and switch to frequent audits.

FSIS has already tried the large manpower + continuous inspection

approach, and found it valuable for food safety, but insufficient for

microbial hazards. They then tried HACCP, which every has to use, but

they then cheat in the details, so it also has had some benefit, but

does not solve the enforcement problem. FSIS has in the last few

years tried in-depth technical audits on-site, and this has proven

very effective, at least for a few months after.

What are the costs? What are the clear benefits? How will the costs

and benefits be compared to show success?

I personally believe this issue is similar to the one of police and

crime: There is no simple, permanent answer. More money on police

reduces crime somewhat, but does not exterminate it. After a few

years, the effect goes away as the enforcement system corrupts.

Eventually the police become the problem, not the criminals.

It is also similar to the endless exhortations of the next, new

'Quality' bandwagon that has occurred every 5 years since WWII. Or

in-plant safety programs. Etc.

What we really need is to get rid of the criminals by rehabilitation

programs. I believe the best use of new expenditures is to finance

local clerics at upscale places of worship to give regular sermons on

the evil of hurting one's neighbors in order to feather one's own

nest. And required continuing education in morality for food company

executives, who are the source of the problem.

With any crime, it is a 0.1% minority who keep it going. The

'habitual' criminals. This is true in drugs (users), prostitution

(Johns) and gambling. It is also true in food production. Either

rehabilitate these executives or extirpate them. Educate middle

management that "I was only following orders!" is equivalent to "The

dog ate my homework!", and they are accomplices to the mayhem and

manslaughter their actions cause.

================================================================

Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.: http://lcfltd.com/

Appointed National Coordinators

The GCSE-Food and Health Protection Team is pleased to announce the appointment of Monica Carcedo as the National Coordinator for Spain and Dr. Kakha Nadiradze as the National Coordinator for the Southern Caucasian Countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). Their roles include giving oversight to the activities of GCSE-FHP and serving as the national contact for regional coordinators in their respective countries.

If you are from these countries, you may send inquiries addressed to these representatives via the GCSE-FHP web site “Contact Us” link: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

Curriculum Development Guide for the GCSE-Food & Health Protection Consumer Protection Training Program:

If you wish to be approved as a training provider, the guide for developing your curriculum is now available. It outlines the background understanding, the requirements for approval as a training provider, general aspects that the course must cover, the content of the submission package for approval, etc.

The guide is available to members of GCSE-FHP and your certificate # is your user name. You need to request a unique password that gives you access to the guide. You may send an email directly to the GCSE-FHP Team or use the online “Contact Us” link below to request your pass word. Please provide your membership certificate number in your request.

Contact Us : http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

GCSE-FHP Consumer Protection Training Program - The Benefits to the Various Groups:

Training providers – benefit from their participation

Trainees – benefit through acquired certification

Trained and Certified Personnel – benefit in their employability and through the ready access to information from GCSE-FHP for ongoing professional development

Practicing Industry Professionals - benefit from an expanded scope of professional engagement

Organizations – benefit from the assistance provided by GCSE-FHP in the development of their training programs

Employers – benefit from the readily available pool of trained and committed employees

Consumers – benefit from the acquired knowledge and the empowerment to be actively engaged in ensuring that products are safe

To learn more about the training program and how you can take advantage of its benefits to you, please contact the GCSE-FHP Team:  http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

Summary of Roles Performed by National & Regional Coordinators:

The national or regional coordinator role is open only to approved “Panellist” members of GCSE-FHP. Only one national coordinator can be appointed per country but several regional coordinators may be appointed. Each appointee performs the coordinator roles as a volunteer in the assigned jurisdiction.

National Coordinators:
• Oversee the activities of GCSE-FHP at the national level in the assigned country
• Understand and promote the GCSE-FHP campaign
• Promote the GCSE-FHP training on the principles and practice of consumer protection
• Advise GCSE-FHP on developments in the assigned country
• Lead GCSE-FHP initiatives
• Encourage and direct new members to register with GCSE-FHP
• Assist with the organization of campaign conferences in their jurisdiction
• Assist GCSE-FHP with the identification of regional divisions
• Serve as the national contact for regional coordinators as applicable
• Other contingent or evolving roles

Regional Coordinators:
• Understand and promote the GCSE-FHP campaign
• Promote the GCSE-FHP training on the principles and practice of consumer protection
• Oversee the activities of GCSE-FHP
• Advise GCSE-FHP on developments in the assigned region
• Lead GCSE-FHP initiatives
• Encourage and direct new members to register with GCSE-FHP
• Assist with the organization of campaign conferences in their jurisdiction
• Work with the national coordinator as applicable
• Other contingent or evolving roles

For additional information, please contact the GCSE-FHP Team: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

Certificate in Food & Health Protection (CFHP) Training Program

A major focus of GCSE-Food & Health Protection is to drive the right mindset in protecting the consumers of food and health products. Strategic collaboration is needed worldwide if reasonable success is to be achieved and maintained in the prevention of health problems caused by food and health products. To this end, the GSCE-Food & Health Protection has launched the CFHP training program that focuses on the principles and practice of consumer protection among other things.

GCSE-FHP recognizes the necessity to adequately train industry participants and stakeholders. This includes consumers. Adopting a mindset of collaboration in the assurance of consumer safety and satisfaction is crucial for all industry participants, regulators and evaluators, etc. Many industry professionals are already positioned to work, and are working with this preferred mindset but there are some inhibitors. The CFHP program is designed to counteract these inhibitors.

A consistent provision of properly designed training and coaching is necessary to break habits that lead to products failures and injury to consumers. Specialists in their respective fields are needed to perform the collaborative roles that are proposed by GCSE-FHP. Ongoing training is necessary in order to create and maintain an environment where there is no longer any need for operators to be policed. Operators and their employees need to learn the benefits and adopt the ideals of being self-motivated and determined to ensure both consumer safety and business survival. The CFHP program is designed to meet these training and coaching needs.

Several challenges interfere with the achievement of consistent excellence in the protection of consumers. These include:

• Lack of financial resources
• Lack of human resource
• Lack of awareness
• Employee indifference or laziness
• High employee turnover rates 
• Resistance to change 
• Excess focus on profit-making
• Criminal intent
• Politics or political protectionism
• Unfair economic opportunism
• Et cetera

Minimizing the disruptions caused by these factors requires more than training. However, it starts with a well designed and implemented training program such as the CFHP program. This program is designed for all industry stakeholders and participants, including consumers.

GCSE-FHP is continuing to enlist training providers, training centres, consultants, prospective students and companies worldwide for the CFHP program.

For additional information about this training program or the curriculum development guidelines, please contact the GCSE-Food & Health Protection Team via email - gcse@afisservices.com - or go to: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/gcseinquiry.html

Seeking National and Regional Coordinators for Listed Countries Worldwide

In the continuing effort to expand its activities worldwide, GCSE-Food & Health Protection is continuing to appoint national coordinators. Regional coordinators for different regions within the listed countries are also needed. These are currently volunteer roles with the possibility of becoming remunerated positions as GCSE-Food & Health Protection continues to expand in its global scope and programs.

To learn about what National & Regional Coordinators do, you may go to the Summary of Roles.

The countries with members may be viewed here: Country Representation 

For more information, please contact the GCSE-Food & Health Protection Team at: Contact Us 

Maintaining Excellence in Our Contributions to Food and Health Protection

You don't have to be a food industry professional to change the world of food safety around you.

The Central Message

Premature surrender is not the stuff of the truly committed:

You are invited to join the Coalition
Membership is free

You can post your accomplishments and gain worldwide exposure and recognition for your valuable contributions to the maintenance of excellence in food and health protection.

You are invited to join the Coalition and post your accomplishments: HERE 

“Superfluous”, “Non-crucial” Audit Elements

 “Superfluous” may be too harsh a term. Nevertheless, there are elements that are not crucial to food safety in many audit checklists. The fault may not lie with the schemes that use these checklists. The extra and non-crucial elements may be well-intended. In practice, however, the interpretations of such elements often veer away from the real intent of the food safety audits. Veering interpretations are not exclusively offered by the audited parties. Some auditors insist on interpretations that make no sense when what really matters regarding food safety – the safety of the food consumer – is considered.

All food safety audit considerations ought to be essential to food safety. The assessment or investigation of food safety requirements must examine how such requirements contribute to food safety and product quality. The evidence sought to confirm compliance with the considerations must likewise focus on the contribution of such evidence to food safety and product quality. After all, this is the focus of food safety and quality system audits. If it cannot be determined that the checklist elements have roles in ensuring food safety or quality of products, they should not be included in a food safety and quality system audits.

To further explain this point, let us take a look at one example. Almost all of the audit schemes on the market today require the verification of documented procedures and records. A common interpretation of this requirement is for documents and records to have the signatures of the verifiers. To some audited parties and auditors, the mere presence of signatures satisfies the requirement. So we ask: How does the mere presence of signatures on documents and records contribute to food safety or quality for that matter? How consistently true is it that the mere presence of signatures on documents and records actually verifies the effectiveness of the procedures?

The intent of verification is clearly something different. Where audit standards fail to properly explain the intent of this requirement, its inclusion as part of the assessment scheme leans in the direction of being “superfluous” or “non-crucial”.

Well intended verification has to do initially with the confirmation that the written procedures are in fact effective in ensuring operation controls such that predictable and identified risks are mitigated. Secondly, verification is expected to look at the correct and consistent application of the written procedures in the actual processing or related operations. Therefore the evidence sought to confirm compliance with this requirement ought not to be the presence of signatures on documents. This is often the only extent to which many audit reports go. A close look at the actual frequency of failures within the system is a better parameter to examine. The current auditing landscape does not lend itself to a sufficiently thorough examination of these kinds of parameters. Besides, many auditors are sooner happy than otherwise when verification signatures are provided on the “corrective action” reports. Irrespective of how many times the same type of deviation recurs, the auditors issue “pass” grades as long as each instance has “corrective action” documentation.

The known challenge is that audits are snapshots. Also, as a result of cost management concerns, audits are conducted over a relatively short duration. In connection with the time limitations, the typically overwhelming number of audit elements to review during a single audit also has a direct effect on the depth to which investigations can be conducted. These factors limit the extent to which it may be confirmed that procedures are in fact effective in ensuring operation controls, or that the procedures are correctly and consistently applied in the actual operations.

Other examples of superfluous audit elements include the requirement for facility’s to have and ensure “that documents in use are current”. The intent of this requirement is often insufficiently explained, inadequately applied and improperly assessed during audits. The requirement itself, as stated in the checklists of several audit schemes, has only a partial significance. Documents may be “current” but they may lack validity or effectiveness for the intended purpose.

There are many more examples of these kinds of elements in the audit checklists used by current schemes. Perhaps you know some. Please share your thoughts!

Posted By Felix Amiri

____________________________________

Felix Amiri is the current Food Sector Chair of GCSE-Food & Health Protection

Two Kinds of Focus in Product Safety Management

This blog post has been moved to the author's eBook.

Posted by Felix Amiri

______________________________________________________
Felix Amiri is the Food Sector Chair of GCSE-Product& Health Protection. 

Achieving Success in Food & Health Protection

This blog post has been moved to the author's eBook.