When it comes to worst nightmares for the food industry, a major food scare must rank near the top so it is no surprise that the industry takes the issue seriously.
A simple look at the plethora of standards and quality assurance schemes around the globe is ample illustration. But while we’re all keen to avoid a fresh produce version of the Sudan 1, salmonella or BSE outbreaks, have we simply become a little carried away.
Ronald Bown, president of the Chilean Fresh Fruit Association, says the commercialisation of the industry means growers and exporters are having to fulfil more and more global requirements.
“At the latest Global Food Safety Initiative conference, a total of six standards were presented.”
According to Freshfel, the European fresh produce trade association, a significant concern in the industry is that, “the proliferation of many schemes can mean that risk actually increases due to incorrect interpretation of the law by auditors”.
The range of processes and hoops suppliers have to jump through, to meet the requirements of any such scheme, also come at a cost and an increasing number of schemes merely add to that burden - a touchy subject in an area where margins are continually being squeezed.
However, there is movement to resolve this issue and more and more people in the industry are beginning to talk about the possibility of harmonising these standards.
But is it achievable? And what are the benefits?
“Harmonisation for suppliers would mean quite simply they wouldn’t have duplication,” says Kevin Swoffer, head of technical services with the British Retail Consortium.
He has been involved with drawing up the BRC’s global standard, which takes effect post-farm gate, in the packhouse.
Its standard of course, is not alone. The Australian’s have developed SQF2000, the German and French markets have created the International Food Standard and there are other systems under development. However a key issue with all these standards is that they were created to fulfil a particular need, often specific to an individual market or country.
Swoffer says this is a key issue that harmonisation needs to address: “The BRC standard was developed for our membership for the purpose of due diligence. It’s written very much on the lines of best practice and control so that in the event of a legal challenge there’s a system in place to provide a defence in a court of law.”
The Red Tractor (RT) is a case in point, says a spokeswoman for the mark’s owners Assured Food Standards: “Retailers look at the Red Tractor as a shield or amour, against things like negative PR. It protects them on a number of issues, such as buying British and traceability.”
While RT is somewhat unique in the fact that it is intended to cover the whole of the chain, many standards refer to just one link, or part of the process.
Some of the standards, like RT, are nationally driven, identifying and referring to a particular country’s produce, others are more international, such as EurepGAP, while yet more are specific purely to a particular retailer, such as Tesco’s Nature’s Choice.
Looking at the plethora of sectors, standards and countries is enough to make the mind boggle let alone then moving on to consider harmonisation. Despite this, progress is being made.
“EurepGAP has a very clear focus on harmonisation of good agricultural practices,” says Nigel Garbutt, chairman and president of the standards body. “That’s what we were set up by the retailers to do in 1996, agree common standards.”
EurepGAP began with a core membership of three or four retailers, but that has now expanded to more than 32 around the world, which has made a big difference, says Garbutt. “If each of those had gone down a separate path which is what they were doing of course, it would be absolute chaos. The costs of auditing all those different systems would be a nightmare, we would be in a right mess.”
That work is continuing and Garbutt’s organisation is working hard around the world to achieve a common system when it comes to good agricultural practices. So far that work has seen a number of countries develop systems that are benchmarked against, and therefore harmonised, with those of EurepGAP
“We’re seeing China, Kenya, Mexico and Chile all amending their own national standards to fall in line with EurepGAP,” says Garbutt.
Bown says the ChileGAP programme was created to harmonise the requirements of the country’s two main markets - the US and Europe.
Perhaps a positive sign of these developments is that while these systems are working towards a common shared goal, they are continuing to maintain a national identity. Chris Reading, general manager of agriculture for UK and Ireland with inspection body EFSIS, says this is important as some countries will seek to use assurance schemes to maintain their reputations.
However, Swoffer says it is those same nationalistic issues that stand in the way of harmonisation. He points to the fact that the German/French IFS was developed because retailers in the UK and on the continent could not agree a way forward. “Yet if you look at the IFS, it’s very similar to the BRC standard. In fact some of the spelling mistakes are the same.”
As a result of these attitudes, the reality is that while some standards are accepted in some countries others are not. This is compounded by the fact that each market has different requirements, he says, pointing to the fact that few others countries outside of the UK have the same need for due diligence.
There are also proprietory issues to consider. Organisations that have spent time and money setting up their own systems are not keen to cast them aside and work with organisations that might once have been considered rivals.
Swoffer says the BRC has attempted to have conversations on the topic: “We’ve had discussions with the other standards bodies and believe in the longer term we’d want to see some harmonisation move forward. We’ve been to Germany on two occasions now but they’ve not reciprocated.”
To help facilitate a greater level of conversation, southern hemisphere producers, in the form of SHAFFE, are calling for the launch of a new initiative.
Bown says: “We are proposing the establishment of the Global Harmonisation Initiative Project, and to organise a working group, made up of growers suppliers and retailers, aimed at agreeing all the new requirements for the primary production sector, in a sustainable, non-discriminatory and socially responsible way.”
However, perhaps the most effective move so far towards harmonisation has been the work of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).
This scheme was set up to facilitate discussion among food retailers and aims to cut back on confusion in the sector through the proliferation of different marks. It seeks to benchmark each scheme against an agreed set of guidelines. The idea then is that standards approved by the GFSI should be accepted by retailers - no matter what the scheme - as equivalent to their own systems.
Hugo Byrne, food safety director with the GFSI, says harmonisation has been taking place in the last few years. “When we started five years back, we held a meeting where the retailers had 170 different standards on the table.
“That number has reduced significantly now so harmonisation has taken place to some degree.”
For harmonisation to be successfully achieved, those involved have to be realistic, says Garbutt: “You’ve got to be pretty clear about what you’re trying to harmonise. There’s a big wish list, and we’d love to have everything harmonised, but it’s about being quite particular about what is realistic and what the priorities are, what are the areas of common interest.”
Byrne agrees: “You have to decide, which standards are you going to harmonise, which are the ones we want to talk through?”
Byrne and his team went through that process and, with a smaller group of standards, held regular meetings to see if the schemes could be harmonised. “It doesn’t necessarily mean all the schemes have to be merged or be completely the same. They just need to be co-ordinated so that the retailers can recognise the results of those standards are all delivering the right things.”
He says certain schemes have different styles and different approaches, some which suit some companies, and some which suit others. “It’s not so bad that there are different standards out there, we just need to make sure that even though they take a different approach, the end result is harmonised in the sense that it’s acceptable for every retailer.”
At the end of the day, in an ideal world, food assurance should be a non-competitive issue, but in a sector where every business is looking for an edge over the competition, the reality is the exact opposite. Garbutt urges the industry to stay focused: “We can’t let commercial interests take precedent on this issue.”
Is it possible to have harmonisation in such a competitive market? “Is it possible to have harmony at one end of the chain without having harmony at the other?” asks one industry insider.
But, according to Stephen Cox, produce director with CMi, this is a key element: “It can be a competitive issue. Certification is used to help achieve a broad range of business objectives, many of them commercial in nature,” he says.
“For some companies, the ability to develop and deploy standards will be central to the achievement of those objectives.”
He says that by keeping harmonisation simple, companies can then compete on top of that: “Restricting harmonisation purely to areas of common interest and baseline criteria around food safety and legal compliance will ensure harmonisation is achieved on core issues, while leaving companies free to develop commercial advantage through company specific criteria.”
Despite the work EurepGAP is doing, Garbutt, does not think total harmonisation is actually possible: “You’ve got to say, is it realistic to expect 100 per cent harmonisation, and I think the answer is that it isn’t.
“Tesco’s Nature’s Choice is often mentioned by growers, and when I’ve taken it up with Tesco, they’ve pointed out that 95 per cent of its standard is based on EurepGAP.
“Will we ever be able to harmonise that five per cent? I don’t think so because the retailers will always want to differentiate.”
And ultimately, he thinks that’s a good thing: “You still want innovation within the sector, provided the non-harmonised element doesn’t conflict with the initial standards, it’s quite healthy to have differences as long as we try and minimise those differences.”
Perhaps rather than harmonisation, we need more co-operation, says a spokeswoman for Assured Food Standards: “There’s no point competing if there isn’t a benefit at the end. We have to identify when it’s of value to compete and when it’s of value to co-operate, and at the moment I don’t think we’re getting that right. We need to have this debate, but it has to be an informed debate and based on reality.”
Overall, the benefits of harmonisation would be considerable, but to achieve that, the global industry has to work together. The BRC’s Swoffer says it is a long way off: “The idea of harmonisation is a fantastic concept but to to be totally open and honest, there are a number of big hurdles to really overcome.
“I don’t really know if in my career, and I’ve got another 15 years to go, we’ll see a truly global standard because of all the problems. In concept, it’s what everyone wants, but to achieve it and get there is very difficult.”
No comments yet