When we think about safety and environmental standards in the supply chain, I honestly believe that retail buyers say quietly to themselves; how the hell are we supposed to monitor this stuff.

The issue becomes more complex when you consider that data is required  from your own organization relative to the historical performance of existing suppliers, data from the supplier as to their own assessment of their historical performance and finally external data that neither may have at their finger tips.

When we talk about safety and the environment, the questions that retailer buyers should ask suppliers is pretty simple. What certifications do you carry relative to food safety, product safety and environmental safety? Now ask your procurement solutions provider if they can provide that information from their supplier database without having to write an RFI to do it.  Let’s see who comes up with the answers first.

It may be easier for retailers to rely on their e-procurement solution providers for this type of data if the provider has it included in their supplier database. Pre-populated e-procurement templates can act as a form of scorecard for existing suppliers and potential news sources of supply. This is actually a type of automated RFI process which can save retailers a lot of work when trying to find additional sources of supply or when trying to drive cost down with existing suppliers. These data may also help to protect retailers from harmful litigation when products end up not being as safe as promised.

So where is the or else? Here you go. Or else your customers get sick. Or else the environment gets sicker. Or else someone gets hurt. Then we can pay the lawyers more and that’s a really big or else.
We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

When we think about safety and environmental standards in the supply chain, I honestly believe that retail buyers say quietly to themselves; how the hell are we supposed to monitor this stuff.

The issue becomes more complex when you consider that data is required? from your own organization relative to the historical performance of existing suppliers, data from the supplier as to their own assessment of their historical performance and finally external data that neither may have at their finger tips.

When we talk about safety and the environment, the questions that retailer buyers should ask suppliers is pretty simple. What certifications do you carry relative to food safety, product safety and environmental safety? Now ask your procurement solutions provider if they can provide that information from their supplier database without having to write an RFI to do it.? Let?s see who comes up with the answers first.

It may be easier for retailers to rely on their e-procurement solution providers for this type of data if the provider has it included in their supplier database. Pre-populated e-procurement templates can act as a form of scorecard for existing suppliers and potential news sources of supply. This is actually a type of automated RFI process which can save retailers a lot of work when trying to find additional sources of supply or when trying to drive cost down with existing suppliers. These data may also help to protect retailers from harmful litigation when products end up not being as safe as promised.

So where is the or else? Here you go. Or else your customers get sick. Or else the environment gets sicker. Or else someone gets hurt. Then we can pay the lawyers more and that?s a really big or else.
We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

I was reading an article in the Health and Science section of the Arizona Republic on Sunday and the title intrigued me. Avoid BPA, safety chief advises.

As you all know this author has posted on BPA a number of times. What continues to frustrate me is that when the rest of the world has already made decisions about a chemical that is unsafe; the most advanced country in the world still can not come out and take an official position that does the same thing. The thing is that the leader of the organization that is studying BPA or Bisphenol A made the statement that people should avoid ingesting the chemical and that “There are plenty of reasonable alternatives”. Linda Birnbaum is Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and Toxicology Program.

As we all know, the FDA ignored studies that found BPA caused harm and is late in completing its new determination originally scheduled for November 30th. Japan has stopped using the product and Canada has declared it toxic and not allowed for use in baby bottles. Come on FDA, let’s get it done.

For sourcing professionals we should be asking all of our suppliers whether or not they are still using BPA in their metal food and beverage cans and containers, when they will eliminate it and not buy products that contain it from suppliers until they have an alternative.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

I was reading an article in the Health and Science section of the Arizona Republic on Sunday and the title intrigued me. Avoid BPA, safety chief advises.

As you all know this author has posted on BPA a number of times. What continues to frustrate me is that when the rest of the world has already made decisions about a chemical that is unsafe; the most advanced country in the world still can not come out and take an official position that does the same thing. The thing is that the leader of the organization that is studying BPA or Bisphenol A made the statement that people should avoid ingesting the chemical and that ?There are plenty of reasonable alternatives?. Linda Birnbaum is Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and Toxicology Program.

As we all know, the FDA ignored studies that found BPA caused harm and is late in completing its new determination originally scheduled for November 30th. Japan has stopped using the product and Canada has declared it toxic and not allowed for use in baby bottles. Come on FDA, let?s get it done.

For sourcing professionals we should be asking all of our suppliers whether or not they are still using BPA in their metal food and beverage cans and containers, when they will eliminate it and not buy products that contain it from suppliers until they have an alternative.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

When we left for school in the morning we took a brown bag or lunch box that my mother had prepared for us or a quarter for our school lunch. At twenty five cents the lunch was still a bargain because you got a protein, a starch, a vegetable, milk and a desert. The cost is probably a lot higher today and a lot more of the lunches are subsidized by the government. However I?m willing to bet that our lunches were much safer to eat.

From a pure sourcing perspective, the question is are our schools just buying what the government has to sell in terms of commodities or are they actually asking questions as to where the products came from, how they were grown and what standards the growers and processors are beings held accountable to.

I don?t eat a whole lot of fast food today. Even if I could get by the thick fried coating many of the chicken products are processed and just does not taste like chicken to this author. So I exercise my right to not eat it. With that said, it would seem ludicrous to eat something that was even below the standard of these products. In a USA TODAY article I read this morning titled School meals lag fast-food standards; by Peter Eisler, Blake Morrison and Anthony DeBarros? it stated that the USDA has provided thousands of tons of chickens to schools that might otherwise go to compost or pet food. You have to be kidding me, I would not give something to my dog (best friend) that was called spent hens and certainly do not want my grandchildren to eat it.

In yesterdays post ?Food Safety requires a community effort President Obama was quoted as saying ?There are certain things only a government can do. And one of those things is ensuring that the foods we eat are safe and do not cause us harm.? Well this author believes it is high time the government did so. It is also about time that school system procurement leaders ask a few more questions about the safety of the products they are buying for our children.

If my granddaughter asks me to go to lunch with her at school, I will obviously say yes, but I will be bringing our lunch in a brown bag because I?d hate to see her eat what is being bought for the schools.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments

There is so much to food safety that I thought this time of year would be a great time to update everyone on the risk associated with food borne illness. During these holidays, we are exposed to so much more food than any other time of the year making it even more difficult than ever to trace outbreaks beyond historical one forward one back tracking.

So here goes, foodborne illness which can also be called food poisoning is any illness that results from eating contaminated food regardless of how it was contaminated. Harmful bacteria are the most common cause of food poisoning, but other causes include viruses, parasites, toxins and contaminants. The bacteria and viruses most frequently associated with food poisoning cases in the United States are Salmonella, Botulism, Norovirus,Vibrio Infections, Listeria, Hepatitis A, B.cereus, E.coli and Campylobacter.

A couple of great places to keep track of alerts and other up to date information is FoodSafety.gov? and USFOODSAFETY.COM. You can also visit the SafeSourcing wiki and our website www.safesourcing.com where alerts are covered from over a dozen organizations including other types of product safety. All of the above can be followed on Twitter.

President Obama said it best ?There are certain things only a government can do. And one of those things is ensuring that the foods we eat are safe and do not cause us harm.?

With a community of help we can all make the government?s job easier.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.

Product safety efforts can sometimes be confounding when related security issues have an overriding priority. In this case we are talking about product spoilage because of a 2007 freight screening law for bombs prior to the freight being allowed on aircraft. If enough spoilage takes place to perishable products shipped to the U.S. from around the world, not only could we have a shortage of products such as fruits and vegetables, but prices could also rise significantly based on a shortage of the products. For the products that do make it to market in sellable shape there is also an increased risk of food borne illness due to a lack of sanitary inspection techniques for raw consumables such as produce at air cargo facilities.

The cost issue may be something we have to bare regardless of the security issues because the only way around it for supply chain members is to impose more strict security processes on their own that meet the proper guidelines and there is a cost associated with that too. Suppliers, producers and wholesalers have all know about this for more than two years so there has been adequate time to prepare.

However if you find a shortage next year of what you are looking for on your perishable shopping list or you see a sudden rise the cost of airline tickets. The answer just might be that your government is just trying to keep us safe.

We look forward to and appreciate your comments.