Global Trends in Food Safety
description
Transcript of Global Trends in Food Safety
Global Trends in Food Safety
November 2009Steve DelGiornoSenior Director, Daymon Worldwide
2
China Market Landscape Government:
Law, regulation and act issued by central government Weak governanceWeak governance
Local implementation and interpretation may vary from Central policy Open to bribery & fixing
Manufacturer: International company/ export manufacturers with good QA expertise But majority -> huge; immature supplier base
Local Immature process caused bad practice; Less QA/ QC investmentLocal Immature process caused bad practice; Less QA/ QC investment Products apply to multiple standard, like GB/ QB, FZ, NY etc… / DB/ Q standards
Retailers: Very frequent random tests and challenges by local authorities on product label and safety Conservative/ limited investment in QA functionConservative/ limited investment in QA function Only basic knowledge and implementation on PB QA/ any QA management; QA not viewed as critical
function; most retailers do not have complete QA department. Third party
May provide lower service standard due to market competitive costMay provide lower service standard due to market competitive cost Auditors integrity issue when doing site auditing Professional skill varied
High Consumer Expectations - public complaints on product safety issue, particular on food
That’s Why Quality Assurance Is Critical In China
3
QA Initiatives-U.S.
Daymon Sharing of plant audit reports Promote adoption of a single
audit standard by working closely with FMI and SQF
CIES Technical Committee member
Development of Quality Assurance Share groups
Approval of singular testing protocols on diapers and feminine protection items
Finding traceability solutions-TraceTracker
Industry Development of singular
recall system Adoption of the CIES
recognized standards (BRC, SQF, IFS, Global GAP)
Managing compliance and certification documents (Organic, Kosher, third party plant audit reports, etc.) via the internet
Sustainability and Social Accountability initiatives
Retail More reliance on sensory
testing and development of Product Innovation Centers
Software systems such as Hamilton Grant to develop and store product specifications
Increased focus on store sanitation and use of third party providers to perform store audits
Review of auditing protocols on internationally sourced products
4
The Audit Situation Today
Retailer A Audit fatigue
Retailer B Confusion
Retailer C Inefficiency
Auditing Firm A High Cost
Auditing Firm B Focus on
Audits-Not
Retailer D remediation
EffectAuditor
Sept.12
Sept.16
Sept. 25
Oct. 7
Oct. 2
Sept. 4
5
The Case For A Single Auditing Standard
Cost Effective—large suppliers have hired full time “hosts” for auditors, reduces repetitive audits
Current system is filled with redundancy and is sometimes contradictory
Uniform standard assures that all suppliers and retailers are operating from the same playbook and audits are better calibrated
Time efficient—speed to market is increased, plant visits can focus on improving quality/product development
Proven---European model for 10 years (starting with BRC)
Food Safety should not be a competitive issue-there is no reason not to share plant audit reports
Certified Once, Accepted Everywhere
6
Daymon’s Road to A Single Auditing Standard
We are a member of GFSI’s Technical Committee that approves standards-next meeting May 18 in Chicago
Daymon has hosted SQF (Safe Quality Food) Training Sessions for suppliers and retailers in 2006 & 2008
Participated in a Discussion Panel supporting a single audit standard at the 2007 QAA (Quality Assurance Association) meeting
Working with SQF to meet with non food suppliers to develop a non food audit protocol
Worked with retail share group members to gain their acceptance of SQF plant audit reports
Certified Once, Accepted Everywhere
7
Current Food Safety Concerns-U.S.
Supplier Food Safety Audits Melamine Traceability Bisphenol A Obesity
8
Peanut Corporation of America (PCA)
9
10
PCA Update
To date, more than 2,100 products in 17 categories have been recalled by more than 200 companies. Many items sold under Daymon’s retail customers label have been affected-categories include ice cream, crackers and bakery products 0ver 600 illnesses and 9 deaths attributed to contaminated peanut
products On January 27, FDA completed their investigation of the Georgia
facility and issued violations On February 9, FDA raided the PCA Georgia Facility On February 10, PCA shut down its Plainview, Texas plant On February 13, PCA filed for bankruptcy
Jeff Almer speakingat a Congressionalhearing
11
Findings
Stewart Parnell-Owner
Company e-mails showed that PCA owner Stewart Parnell ordered shipments tainted with bacteria because he was worried about lost sales.
Deibel Laboratories Inc. tested PCA’s products and notified the Georgia plant that salmonella was found in some of its peanut stock. Peanut Corp. sold the products anyway.
Parnell told the manager of the Blakely, Ga. to "turn them loose" after being told that some products had tested positive for salmonella.
12
13
Melamine
14
15
Melamine
U.S. Pet food recall in March, 2007—melamine found in wheat gluten Infant formula recall in September, 2008—Over 300,000 illnesses and 6 deaths
attributed to contaminated formula. There are claims that Sanlu knew of the problem in June, 2008
Trace amounts of melamine found in U.S. infant formula in November, 2008 U.S. FDA sets 1 ppm limit for melamine
FDA sets melamine standard for baby formula FDA finds traces of melamine in US infant formula
16
A woman, whose child died from drinking tainted milk, holds a sign reading "Give me back my child" outside Shijiazhuang People's Court January 22, 2009.
A newborn baby holds onto his mother's finger at a hospital in Beijing
Sanlu Executives on Trial
17
U.S. Reaction
Retailers sent letters to all private label suppliers:
Wanted to know if any products contain melamine
Wanted to know what testing procedures have been implemented Increased scrutiny on quality assurance protocols for all imported food
products FDA issues a country-wide Import Alert on milk and milk
ingredients/products from China in December, 2008---Products may enter the country if they are shown not to contain dairy OR not to contain melamine, based on tests using methods able to detect melamine at levels as low as 250 ppb
18
Traceability
19
2006---204 people ill with E. coli O157:H7, 3 deaths in 26 states due to contaminated
spinach
2008---1442 people in 43 states confirmed
ill with Salmonellosistraced to contaminated
jalapeño peppers and serrano peppers(as of August 26, 2008)
Traceability-Recent Causes For Concern
20
Food Companies need to do more than train their employees-they need to develop a food safety culture
21
Why Did It Take So Long To Trace?
No product code
No "sell by" date
No markings in most cases
The traceback can be further complicated by a lack of records or incomplete records, or in some cases, huge volumes of records that need to be reviewed for key information
22
23
Rethinking Traceability
Current practices document on a “one-up one-down” method (where did it come from, where did it go)
Limits each member of the supply chain to a review their own records relative to traceability.
Process can take hours or days (or weeks) to perform a full trace on product through the supply chain
Can result in:
• lost $ due to production
• lost $ due to product on hold
• loss of consumer confidence
• Incorrect decision making in a crisis management situation
We need a holistic approach to traceability
24
Ingredients TransportManufacturing
Transport Transport
TransportRetail Distribution
Stores BondedWarehouse
One Up One Down
25
IngredientsTransport
Transport Manufacturing Transport
Transport
BondedWarehouse
Retail Distribution
Stores
A holistic approach allows instant access to
traceability at all points in supply chain
26
Founded in 2000
Headquartered in Norway, regional offices worldwide
Allows for real time product traceability throughout the supply chain in real time
Information accessed from your desktop
Traceability is only as effective as the weakest link in the supply chain
27
Bisphenol A
28
BPA-Bisphenol A
Used in plastic production Used to make hard plastics such as baby bottles, toddler
sippy cups, water bottles, and the linings of many food and beverage cans
BPA can leach from the plastic Found to cause cancer, obesity, diabetes and other health
problems in laboratory animals
29
Reaction
October, 2008--Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware sent letters to companies that make baby bottles and baby formula containers, asking they no longer use the BPA in their manufacturing
October, 2008-a panel of scientists state that FDA's conclusion that BPA is safe is flawed
December, 2008-FDA announces that it will revise it’s BPA review and consider independent studies
February 2009-law makers in Washington state and on Long Island propose a ban on plastic containing BPA
March 2009-Sunoco, a producer of BPA, announces it will not sell BPA to manufacturers who will use it in products designed for use by children under 3
September 2009-California law makers fail to pass a bill that would have outlawed use of BPA in the state in drink and food containers aimed at children
30
Obesity
31
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
1985
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14%Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
32
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
1988
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14%Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
33
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
1991
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
34
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
1994
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
35
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
1997
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
36
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
2000
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
37
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
2003
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
38
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
2005
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
39
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
2007
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
Source: CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
40
Overweight U.S. Children and Adolescents (Aged 2-19 years)
Source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
4.0%
5.0%5.0%
7.2%
13.9%
6.5%
11.3%
18.8%
6.1%
5.0%
10.5%
17.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
1974 1980 1994 2004Survey Period
Per
cen
t
Non Hispanic White Non Hispanic Black Mexican American