Copyright © Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection, 2011 and ALL subsequent years: Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s authors and/or owners is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection with appropriate and specific reference and/or link to the original content.
Friday, 25 March 2016
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Tuesday, 15 March 2016
The role of regulatory and law enforcement agencies in the war against food fraud is recognized with the SSQA concept but it places the onus largely on the individual food companies. The use of emerging scientific and technological developments in fraud detection is also recognized. The main SSQA focus, however, is on systematically attacking the root cause of fraud.
Detecting and dealing with fraud perpetrators have their place but the premise of the SSQA approach is this: Fraud would not need to be detected if it was not committed.
While the SSQA fraud prevention approach reflects the understanding that the food fraud war cannot be won on paper, it emphasizes that the war can be won. As reflected in the commitment statement, the SSQA approach clearly rejects any sentiments of surrender. Where SSQA is implemented, there is no yielding to a presumed inevitability of food fraud in the same way that crime is presumed to be inevitable in many societies.
- Charlebois, S., Dr. (2016, March 15). The Food Authenticity Killers. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/food-authenticity-killers-dr-sylvain-charlebois
- Global Consumer Protection SSQA Development and Implementation: A Manual for the Food Industry [PDF]. (2014). Mount Forest: A.F.I.S.S. Website: http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/SSQAFullManual.html
Wednesday, 9 March 2016
GFSC 2016 Beyond the Fancy Talk: What exactly is GFSI contributing “Towards a world in which safe food is truly accessible to all”?
When the “GFSC delegates were called upon to ‘make the change’ towards achieving the global food safety vision”, what exactly was meant by this call? What change and how? Was a re-focus for GFSI considered? As I have challenged in the post Where Water is Gold, what is the Global Initiative doing about these situations that are counter to assuring the safety of water and the safety of food? Addressing such situations has never been the intention of the GFSI may be the argument. What exactly then is the GFSI intention and the intentions of conferences like the GFSC 2016. Is an incomplete provision of needed solutions the intention? Is the global community to be content with GFSI solutions whereby assessors go to places that can afford to pay for the assessments while other places that also provide food for the global community struggle along?
I propose a revised focus of the Global Food Safety Initiative. I propose a focus that turns from certification schemes to practical solutions. Let’s have a GFSI that provides the know-how to places with poor water supply for the development of sufficient potable water resources. Instead of the development of more assessment schemes, let GFSI get involved in the actual development of scientific and technological solutions to help food operations. In short, instead of making operations pay for certification audits and certificates, let them use that money to obtain tools and needed operating resources.Instead of the current hands-off mode of merely criticizing or praising the performance of operation based on generic audit templates, let GFSI actually roll up its sleeves and help operations in providing answers to challenges that are unique to each operation. Let the technical know-how within the GFSI be put to practical use (hands-on). The GFSC 2016 Round-Up, as much as I have seen, did not provide any statement pointing in this direction.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
The U.S. is a key contributor to the CODEX National Food Control Systems (NFCS) initiative, yet FDA appears to be ignoring it in the Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) under FSMA - http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm361902.htm. Little is said about NFCS in the proposed FSVP rule if it has even been mentioned or considered.
Private certification is already of little to no consequence in less privileged parts of the world. Yet food comes to the more affluent part from these less privileged regions. This calls for a different mobilization in addition to the Codex CCFICS and NFCS initiatives. It is the mobilization against inequality. It is the mobilization of collaboration where more affluent nations provide financial and technical assistance to the less privileged.
Posted by Felix Amiri