Managing and keeping supplier information fresh is a constant challenge for retailers. With the number of food born illness issues during the last couple of years, one area that is difficult to keep up with is food industry safety certifications and standards.

The SafeSourceIt? Supplier Database has grown to over 300,000 global suppliers. During the same timeframe the number of certifications we monitor for these suppliers has also grown. In the food space three standards that are regularly adhered to are ISO 22000, SQF and GFSI? So, what?s the difference?

In essence, SQF and GFSI are programs administered by two separate organizations CIES and FMI that are supportive of each other and use ISO 9000 and its derivative ISO 22000 as standards guideline towards driving food safety in the global supply chain.

According to Wikipedia, ISO 22000 is a standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization dealing with food safety and is a general derivative of ISO 9000 which sets standards for quality management. As such, ISO 22000 guides food safety management systems – requirements for any organization in the food chain. Since food safety hazards can occur at any stage in the food chain from production to consumption it is essential that adequate control be in place that by the ISO are referred to as Critical Control Points or potential points of failure in the supply chain that when managed properly can mitigate the risk associated with the hazard ever taking place.

The ISO 22000 international standard specifies the requirements for a food safety management system which SQF and GFSI are that involves interactive communication, systems management and prerequisite programs and the principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP).This is a systematic preventive approach to food safety which addresses physical, chemical and biological hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection which could be much more costly.

Think of the ISO as a standards creating body, and SQF and GFSI as programs that at a minimum focus on holding the entire food supply chain accountable to those and other standards.

We look forward and appreciate your comments.

Managing and keeping supplier information fresh is a constant challenge for retailers. With the number of food born illness issues during the last couple of years, one area that is difficult to keep up with is food industry safety.

The SafeSourceIt? Supplier Database has grown to over 300,000 global suppliers. During the same timeframe the number of certifications we monitor for these suppliers has also grown. In the food space three standards that are regularly adhered to are ISO 22000, SQF and GFSI? So, what?s the difference?

In essence, SQF and GFSI are programs administered by two separate organizations CIES and FMI that are supportive of each other and use ISO 9000 and its derivative ISO 22000 as standards guideline towards driving food safety in the global supply chain.

According to Wikipedia, ISO 22000 is a standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization dealing with food safety and is a general derivative of ISO 9000 which sets standards for quality management. As such, ISO 22000 guides food safety management systems – requirements for any organization in the food chain. Since food safety hazards can occur at any stage in the food chain from production to consumption it is essential that adequate control be in place that by the ISO are referred to as Critical Control Points or potential points of failure in the supply chain that when managed properly can mitigate the risk associated with the hazard ever taking place.

The ISO 22000 international standard specifies the requirements for a food safety management system which SQF and GFSI are that involves interactive communication, systems management and prerequisite programs and the principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP).This is a systematic preventive approach to food safety which addresses physical, chemical and biological hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection which could be much more costly.

Think of the ISO as a standards creating body, and SQF and GFSI as programs that at a minimum focus on holding the entire food supply chain accountable to those and other standards.

We look forward and appreciate your comments.

Here are some more thoughts on the lack of industry thought leadership relative to not replacing BPA by industry leaders.

As a refresher, this author used the following example of less than stellar industry leadership during yesterdays post. I was reading an article recently Titled “Firms aim to fight BPA ban” by Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post. A quote from the article that follows speaks volumes to the lack of leadership in solving this problem. “Frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA”. You have to be kidding me.

So, let’s dig a little deeper into this article and suggest how industry leaders should be looking at this as an opportunity and how they can help buyers from all companies source products that are safer and have a better impact on the environment instead of continuing to follow the same practices they have been since the 1950’s.

The firms we are talking about are manufacturers of canned beverages and foods. This includes well known industry giants. A sampling of the creative strategy they came up with was based on the believe that they needed to have a legislative approach (lobbying) and a grass roots outreach to mothers and students between the age of 21 and 35 from someone in the age group. They also considered using fear tactics or telling consumers you will have to pay a higher price for these products. I won’t go on. Simply stated this is poor leadership based on a traditional business model with very little thought as to anything other than business as usual. At the end of the day, the product is not safe and needs to be replaced or outlawed.

Last year, scientists from the US National Toxicology Programme said that effects on reproductive development from BPA in packaging cannot be ruled out and a study released last year by UK scientists linked the chemical to diabetes and heart disease.
This is in addition to the 100 other studies that have found the chemical to be an endocrine disrupter or damaging to behavioural and neural development.

Michael Brown, president of chemical consulting firm StrategyMark said, alternatives such as acrylic, polyester, and polypropylene are worthwhile exploring in a number of applications such as non-packaging water sports bottles, baby bottles, water dispensing bottles, appliance containers (e.g. food processors), etc.

Of course it makes sense, but even a consulting firm that supports this industry won’t come right out and say this is a required and mandatory action.

Let’s take a look at what took place in Japan relative to the same issue

Due to consumer concern about the toxic effects of BPA, Japanese manufacturers voluntarily reduced the use of BPA in packaging between 1998 and 2003.
They replaced EXR coating with PET film lamination on the inner surface of cans or used an EXR paint that had much less BPA migration into food instead.
And following these reduction and replacement moves, a team of assessors claim that virtually no BPA is found in canned foods and drinks in Japan now.

I hope everyone caught the fact that this was done voluntarily between 1998 and 2003 and we are still discussing this problem six years later. The fact is that some of the same companies we are speaking of also sell products in Japan.

So what might enlightened leaders do? Following is a very high level less than all inclusive examples.

1. Accept the fact that there is a problem.
2. Conduct research from other sources such as Japan that have eliminated BPA leakage.
3. Author a plan to replace existing products with new ones that are safer.
4. Willingly incur the added expense to retool processes and manufacturing products that are required to support the change.
5. Author a marketing campaign to tell consumers what you have done on their behalf relative to product safety.
6. Let consumers know what your competition is not doing.

A leader behind this plan might in fact increase market share and also sleep better at night.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

Here are some more thoughts on the lack of industry thought leadership relative to not replacing BPA by industry leaders.

As a refresher, this author used the following example of less than stellar industry leadership during yesterdays post. I was reading an article recently Titled ?Firms aim to fight BPA ban? by Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post. A quote from the article that follows speaks volumes to the lack of leadership in solving this problem. ?Frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA?. You have to be kidding me.

So, let?s dig a little deeper into this article and suggest how industry leaders should be looking at this as an opportunity and how they can help buyers from all companies source products that are safer and have a better impact on the environment instead of continuing to follow the same practices they have been since the 1950?s.

The firms we are talking about are manufacturers of canned beverages and foods. This includes well known industry giants. A sampling of the creative strategy they came up with was based on the believe that they needed to have a legislative approach (lobbying) and a grass roots outreach to mothers and students between the age of 21 and 35 from someone in the age group. They also considered using fear tactics or telling consumers you will have to pay a higher price for these products. I won?t go on. Simply stated this is poor leadership based on a traditional business model with very little thought as to anything other than business as usual. At the end of the day, the product is not safe and needs to be replaced or outlawed.

Last year, scientists from the US National Toxicology Programme said that effects on reproductive development from BPA in packaging cannot be ruled out and a study released last year by UK scientists linked the chemical to diabetes and heart disease.
This is in addition to the 100 other studies that have found the chemical to be an endocrine disrupter or damaging to behavioural and neural development.

Michael Brown, president of chemical consulting firm StrategyMark said, alternatives such as acrylic, polyester, and polypropylene are worthwhile exploring in a number of applications such as non-packaging water sports bottles, baby bottles, water dispensing bottles, appliance containers (e.g. food processors), etc.

Of course it makes sense, but even a consulting firm that supports this industry won?t come right out and say this is a required and mandatory action.

Let?s take a look at what took place in Japan relative to the same issue

Due to consumer concern about the toxic effects of BPA, Japanese manufacturers voluntarily reduced the use of BPA in packaging between 1998 and 2003.
They replaced EXR coating with PET film lamination on the inner surface of cans or used an EXR paint that had much less BPA migration into food instead.
And following these reduction and replacement moves, a team of assessors claim that virtually no BPA is found in canned foods and drinks in Japan now.

I hope everyone caught the fact that this was done voluntarily between 1998 and 2003 and we are still discussing this problem six years later. The fact is that some of the same companies we are speaking of also sell products in Japan.

So what might enlightened leaders do? Following is a very high level less than all inclusive examples.

1. Accept the fact that there is a problem.
2. Conduct research from other sources such as Japan that have eliminated BPA leakage.
3. Author a plan to replace existing products with new ones that are safer.
4. Willingly incur the added expense to retool processes and manufacturing products that are required to support the change.
5. Author a marketing campaign to tell consumers what you have done on their behalf relative to product safety.
6. Let consumers know what your competition is not doing.

A leader behind this plan might in fact increase market share and also sleep better at night.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

Middle of the road does not work. The same old same old does not work. The pace with which change occurs today requires companies to be able to turn on a dime. For that leadership is required. Not leadership that only looks at the bottom line. We require leadership that creates and innovates to both your benefit and that of the global community.

The leadership this author is speaking about is visionary actionable leadership. Not reactionary leadership. We need leadership that looks at the sate of their company and its products as well as the needs of the community at large and in offering their solution to the collective problems faced by these entities, does it better, faster, cheaper and for the general good. This is more about walking the walk before any one else does because it is the right thing to do. If these represent the guiding principles of a company, the money part will follow. This is not something that can be learned or taught in business school.

According to Wikipedia, leadership has been described as the ?process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task?.

A second definition which I like better and is more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith of Genentech who said “Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen.

As an example of less than stellar industry leadership, let?s look at a recent news article on a subject this author has posted about on a number of occasions ?BPA?. I was reading an article recently Titled ?Firms aim to fight BPA ban? by Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post. A quote from the article that follows speaks volumes to the lack of leadership in solving this problem. ?Frustrated industry executives huddled for hours Thursday trying to figure out how to tamp down public concerns over the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA?. You have to be kidding me.

In tomorrows post let?s dig a little deeper into this article and suggest how industry leaders should be looking at this as an opportunity and how they can help buyers from all companies source products that are safer and have a better impact on the environment instead of continuing to follow the same practices they have been since the 1950?s.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

Ron Southard

I choose to post simply because I can
My wife seems to think it?s because I?m a concerned and caring man

So why or when to post just what is my deal
It could simply be that I just had a bad meal
A meal from a food source that was not really safe
That sickened me some
And just could not be traced
It?s origin cloudy I really get ticked
That many more people could possibly get sick
So I post a few comments on product safety and more
In hopes that my comments are part of the cure
Whether near shoring or off shoring or from local suppliers too
I offer opinions hoping they?re helpful to you
It?s time ours sources of supply start to get the game right
And that will only happen if buyers make the process tight
With adherence to certifications and timely inspections
That are clearly executed against consistent directions
While we?re at it?s important to do and say what we mean
And while we tighten up our processes
Let?s try to keep them focused on green.
With a supply chain that?s safer
A greener to boot
My next posts can discuss how to do both while still saving you some loot.

As always, we look forward to and appreciate your comments. There is no need for them to be poetic in nature.

Ron Southard