IRCA INform

ISO 22000 versus the GFSI

Amid growing concern about food safety in the global supply chain, various international food safety standards have emerged. Which has been the most successful in creating a worldwide convergence? Felicity Francis investigates

Before the development of international food safety standards over the last few decades, a large number of local Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) standards existed. Huge problems existed, with different elements of the global supply chain all demanding different standards from their suppliers.

Geoff Spriegel, Director of Global Standards at British Retail Consortium (BRC) explains the rationale behind the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety: ‘the standard was developed with the intention of reducing the number and frequency of customer audits to which the food business was being subjected.’

In 2005, ISO 22000 was also published in response to the need for an international and independent food safety standard and to harmonize the HACCP approach. Intending to meet the needs of every section of the supply chain, the standard hoped to improve communication between different parts of the food industry and integrate food safety systems along with quality management principles. But has ISO 22000 achieved its mission?

Global Food Safety Initiative

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) was set up in 2000 at the request of around 30 CEOs of international retailers. With the intention of ensuring worldwide confidence in the delivery of safe food to consumers, the initiative was set up against the backdrop of various food safety crises, including BSE.

Catherine François is the Senior Food Manager, Food Safety at CIES – The Food Safety Forum. She says:

‘We set out by looking at various standards, such as retailer standards, individual standards and publicly and privately available standards. We realised that it would be very difficult to create one unique worldwide standard, as there are so many differences in culture and history. The result was a framework whereby we benchmark existing standards.’

The four benchmarked standards that currently conform to the GFSI are BRC, the International Food Standard (IFS), Dutch HACCP and the Safe Quality Food programme (SQF). However, there is a significant gap where ISO 22000 should be. Sections missing from ISO 22000, such as prerequisite programmes, accreditation requirements and clauses dealing with ownership mean that in its current state, ISO 22000 cannot be benchmarked by the initiative. Specifically, ISO 22000 doesn’t contain the non-exhaustive list of ‘good manufacturing practises’ present in the GFSI guidance document.

Many large international food suppliers, such as Carrefour, Metro, Tesco and Wal-Mart have made public their support for the GFSI . A year ago a decision was made that by these retailers to implement these four standards in their supply chains.

ISO 22000

The BRC Global Standard for Food Safety was the first retailer-driven food safety standard, developed in 1998, and formed the basis for the benchmarking process adopted by the GFSI. The standard has been very successful in the UK and its certification has recently been approved by many US retailers as well as countries as far away as Australia. IFS, Dutch HACCP and SQF follow much the same principles as BRC.

Although ISO 22000 has been adopted by many major branded food companies, such as Coca Cola, Nestle and Danone, the standard still lags behind.

Amanda McCarthy, Processing Scheme Manager at CMi Certification, said ‘ISO 22000 has not been taken up to the extent hoped, largely because retailer standards still dominate, such as IFS, BRC and SQF. But it still has massive potential and can deliver great benefits for companies committed to delivering safety to the consumer.’

But others feel that ISO 22000 needs to achieve GFSI approval in order to succeed. Geoff Spriegel says that ‘ISO 22000 needs to be supported by retailers to ensure its growth and that means becoming approved by GFSI.’

However, ISO 22000 does have advantages over the GFSI group. It is applicable to all stages of the food supply chain, whereas the standards benchmarked by the GFSI are all retailer-driven, focusing on post farm gate production.

As Amanda McCarthy outlines, ‘It has an integrated food chain approach, including packaging and equipment, food chemical suppliers and food service outlets, the sector which is responsible for the most reported food safety outbreaks.’

Catherine François is aware that areas of the GFSI need development. She says, ‘there’s still a lot of work to be done by the GFSI on the farm type standards. There are many more parties involved in the section compared to the processing side and reaching an agreement will obviously take more time.’

ISO 22000 recognises that food safety problems can originate at any point in the supply chain and places a large emphasis on systematic communication and information exchange between all parties in the chain. Food safety is considered the joint responsibility of all parties participating in the food chain.

One critique of ISO 22000 is that it is not hugely user-friendly. Supreeya Sansawat from SGS has come across this attitude. ‘Many food organizations regard ISO 22000 as a high level of food safety standard and they are afraid of running into difficulties in implementing it.’

Similarly, Theo Cieremans, Chairman of Dutch HACCP, says 'ISO 22000 is a good and valuable standard, but the requirements may be too high.’

The future of ISO 22000

A group of manufacturers is currently working to create an ISO 22000 piece, a prerequisite programme (PRP) document, which can be used in conjunction with ISO 22000. PRPs are the conditions that must be established in the food chain and the activities and practices that must be performed to establish and maintain a hygienic environment. As Catherine Francois says, 'ISO 22000 would then meet all the GFSI requirements and will probably be submitted at the end of this year.'

However, when considered as a separate standard to those of the GFSI, many people predict that ISO 22000 will offer more in the future. The GFSI has certainly been successful in raising the profile of food safety, but ISO 22000 is still a relatively new development. Theo Cieremans agrees. ‘ISO 22000 is still at the start of its journey, but it will bring good changes in the future.'

So can we really decide whether ISO 22000 or the GFSI is the best step forward? Geoff Spriegel has the last word: ‘The world food business is a massive market. As long as any standard contains all the key elements of an effective system, there is room for more then one standard. It has to be remembered that the actual standard is only part of the process. Integrity of certification is crucial.’

 

 

Have a burning food safety issue you want to raise? Tell us now in the Online Forums.