The Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection has been launched to encourage a worldwide mobilization to:
Copyright © Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection, 2011 and ALL subsequent years: Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s authors and/or owners is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection with appropriate and specific reference and/or link to the original content.
Thursday, 31 December 2015
The Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection has been launched to encourage a worldwide mobilization to:
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
You may also contact the
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Papua New Guinea
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
You are invited to read the thought-inspiring posts and JOIN THE CONVERSATION:
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
Unfortunately, some people take stands to which they have given little thought. Such stands may be taken because they are fashionable.
There are belligerent ways of taking a stand and there are civilized ways to do so. I (and I believe most people would) prefer the latter. Taking a stand also does not automatically involve antagonism. Yes, a stand can be taken against something, but it can also be with others.
Taking a stand is inevitable and it involves thoughtfulness. To take no stand is taking a stand “not to” do so (albeit it is of the fence-sitting variety which is typically not helpful to, and certainly not considerate of, others).
Fence-sitting kills decision-making efficiency. Even in situations where there are neutral options, taking a stand is inevitable. The stand taken (and should be declared) in such a situation is usually a stand that both options are acceptable.
In every instance of taking a stand, thought must be given to the stand taken with due consideration of moral obligations, social responsibility and even environmental accountability, etc. Not taking a stand is essentially selfish and irresponsible.
When you take a stand for what is right but it appears as if things will not go well as a result, they actually go well: You will be at peace; losses are re-gained under better circumstances perhaps; you may or may not know this but you will be secretly admired for taking a stand for what is right; you may not be openly vindicated but you will be. You see, what is right is always right even if vindication is delayed or not openly recognized but you will feel no shame. Conversely, the selfish fear that prevents a person from taking a stand always backfires. The consequences may also be delayed or not openly recognized but undesirable and painful all the same with endless shame.
Take a stand with GCSE-Food & Health Protection. We are looking for people with a heart and passion for common good worldwide. Join Us!
Monday, 28 December 2015
If "food safety" assurance is desired, "compliance" is important but it constitutes a distracting direction to focus my corporate vision. Also, if future-proofing means the preparedness to comply with all future regulations, I find at least two things that are immediately wrong with this suggestion:
2. If the future-proofing is also as focused on “compliance” as this invitation suggests, invested resources, efforts or strategies are bound to be swallowed up in the futility of aiming at, and missing the constantly moving target. The rules are continuously evolving. The actual fortification (the shock-proofing) of my food safety assurance system is bound to be short-changed by any pursuit of compliance to future regulatory rules.
whitepaper that lays out the macro trends in food safety compliance” and shows me how to “future-proof” my food safety organization with a narrow focus on “compliance”.The suggestion is not only self-contradicting, it could lead to wasted resources. What I need is perfecting and improving the proven and relevant practices that are known to work in the production and delivery of safe and quality products to consumers. Compliance with regulations is only an incidental part of the process and should not consume all of my focus or vision to the detriment of actual production systems tracking and fortification.
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Processed food becomes harmful only when processors infuse it with incompatible substances and adopt careless processing practices in its production. Some foods that are often considered safe could actually be more harmful if not processed (e.g. the manioc plant naturally has cyanide that is inactivated through proper processing - Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0207e/t0207e08.htm).
Misconception 19 - “An operating practice is automatically acceptable if it is documented as a Standard Operating Procedure." - False:
Nonsense can be documented and blindly followed as standard practice where relevant knowledge is lacking..
Ask lawyers from the Law Firm of Marler Clark.
Misconception 17 - “Anything that increases the profit margin for a company is good” - False:
Not so, says the astute manager! Profits gained through dishonest, illegal or oppressive means are never good and may vanish quicker than they are realized. Also, profits gained through playing tricks on consumers may turn the joke around on the trickster.
Misconception 16 - “The primary purpose of product safety and quality system audits is to help operations gain more business” - False:
Gaining more business is the secondary purpose of product safety and quality system audits. The primary purpose is to assess if the audited system is actually capable of ensuring product safety and quality consistently.
Misconception 14 - “A short-duration scrutinizing process that is infrequently used at a given location, and measured against pseudo-parameters of success (the superficial artefacts of its implementation), can be rigorous enough to be trustworthy” - False:
Misconception 13 - “The most important thing in product safety assurance is for an operation to maintain paperwork that demonstrates due diligence and will stand up in court.”- False:
Evidence shows, and external monitors and regulators even admit that they cannot guarantee that monitored parties will consistently comply when the external monitoring or regulating personnel have left the scene. The external parties even demand that operations must internally monitor and regulate their systems. A key understanding of a good control measure in the internationally accepted HACCP and similar concepts is that a control measure is best applied and most effective when it is consistently, correctly and completely applied at the point/place where it must be applied. Regulation/or control from any party that is external to an operation is by nature and by practice intermittent, inconsistent and incomplete. Industry must learn or be guided (or trained) to genuinely, and with integrity, self-monitor and self-regulate. This is necessary for there to be any hope of a consistent, complete and effective control of systems that must protect consumers. Self-regulation is not taboo where there is good knowledge and integrity. Self-regulation is essential and mandatory if consumers are to be protected as consistently and completely as possible.
This may seem smart at first but it is suicidal: What happens to the customers trust and confidence when they eventually learn that you did not show enough concern and initiative to provide helpful guidance even though you knew that their demands were detrimental to them? They will pack their bags and leave.
Misconception 10 -“Comprehensive and detailed product safety and quality system assessments by third parties are to be requested only after the systems are fully established.” - Alas! We have a case of misplaced wisdom of verifying, after the fact, that the right things have been done.
The correct approach is for operators and competent assessors (third party audits if you wish) to pro-actively and concurrently ensure that the right things are done at each step.
Misconception 9 -“Gaining a third party certification will give the purchaser confidence about the safety and quality of your product” - False:
This claim represents an unfortunate diversion from the correct basis for the purchaser's confidence. It is not the gaining of certification that should give the purchaser confidence; it is the demonstrated reality of a safe and quality product that should give the purchaser confidence. Incidentally, a third party certification is only a snapshot corroboration of the reality that can already be demonstrated in the product - hopefully and wisely.
Misconception 8 -“You have to pay more to get more.” - False:
Misconception 7 -“Only the defaulting businesses suffer the undesirable consequences of their unsafe and poor quality products.” - False:
Consumers suffer some of the consequences. Innocent employees within the businesses suffer the possibility of lost jobs. Businesses offering the same line of product suffer adverse publicity consequences. In some jurisdictions, the tax payers (all of us) foot the bill for some activities of the respective governments in dealing with resulting problems (health problems, economic loss problems, loss of employment problems, et cetera).
Misconception 6- “More stringent regulatory requirements imposed on producers and manufacturers will produce a safer food supply” - False:
There are several problems with this:
i). Producers and manufacturers constitute only one link (two links at the most) within the supply chain. Food distribution, food service (restaurants, canteens), consumers, etc., are some of the other links in the chain. ii) More stringent standards will certainly exacerbate the already tense atmosphere between regulators and operators who think regulators are out to put them out of business. This in turn leads to deliberate attempts by operators to circumvent the rules. Some operators are smart enough to do the barest minimum that will make them appear compliant. iii) With more stringent requirements must come the expanded enforcement in terms of the number of enforcers and enforcement opportunities. The general observation is that many enforcement agencies are adopting enforcement contraction instead of expansion strategies. Enforcing more stringent regulatory requirements is not the preferred approach to ensuring a safer food supply.
Misconception 5 - “We are better at detecting product safety issues. Therefore we are better off in spite of the increased incidences of reported product safety issues” - False:
Without a measurable and progressive reduction in product safety issues, advances in issue detection techniques have not produced the desired effect. The industry is not better off since product safety issues persist.
Compliance is insufficient if it is without the consistent protection and satisfaction of consumers. Standards of compliance are relevant only where the stated standards to be complied with provide sufficient confidence that the desired effects will be achieved through compliance. Therefore, conclusions about compliance should mean that the desired effects and goals of the standards are achieved. If any conclusion of compliance to the standard fails to produce the desired effect or goal, it inevitably means that the standard is either faulty or it is improperly applied. Since rules and regulations governing commercially available products are generally for the protection of the consumers/users, any rule or regulation that does not ensure the safety and satisfaction of the consumer ought to be discarded. Compliance to such rules or regulations is redundant and wasteful.
Misconception 3 -“The audit 'standard' is only rule that must be obeyed” - False:
Misconception 2 - “Food and Health product companies that are not run by the government are the PRIVATE sector” - False:
Misconception 1 - “Rank and file jobs are menial jobs and these rank lower than the roles of managers or leaders” - False:
Friday, 18 December 2015
US Food Study
Ogunranti: I disagree that a third party certification is a waste.
Ogunranti: Third party audits help to keep quality in focus,
Ogunranti: . . . audits help to increase knowledge because new ideas can be shared.
Ogunranti: Don't also forget, third party certifications can help your products!
Ogunranti: Some organisations won't do business with you unless they are sure you are safety compliant in food.
Ogunranti: Now to the main reason, if you do all it takes to put your product in order, have great team, avoid contamination and ensure proper control points, you still need a neutral party to ascertain your efforts are effective.
Ogunranti: You cannot implement your own plans and still be the one to ascertain it's effectiveness.
Ogunranti: . . . third party certifications help a lot
A strong argument in favor of food safety certification is presented in this article:
- What has the trend been since 2011, has it been steadily improving or fluctuating?
- Were the gains made even because of certification, considering that most businesses work to improve their operations anyway?
- Can it be conclusively claimed that similar results were impossible without certification?
- Could following guidelines such as the WHO CODEX food safety guidelines, a nation’s regulatory food safety guidelines or even a properly and consistently implemented pre-requisite and HACCP programs without certification produce similar results?
- Without certification, could similar results be achieved through following proven management principles such as: TQM (Total Quality Management); Six Sigma; 5 or 6-S (Sorting, Stabilizing or Straightening, Sweeping or Shining, Standardizing, Sustaining the Practice) system; the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis; FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) model; Lean Manufacturing approaches?
- Would there be a relapse to worse results if the certification process ceases but established food safety policies, programs and procedures are maintained?