GUIDELINES TO SAFE FOOD: Running a Food Business

Food safety management is based on a simple logic: due diligence. It simply means that the food provider has done all that is possible to analyze the food safety risks and taken the appropriate corrective actions.

No certificate in the world can verify that all products are safe at all times. The onus always lies with the suppliers to provide the evidence that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize food safety risks. Certification is always based on the evidence provided on the day of the audit only. Very often, companies claim in their marketing material that they are certified HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points), which proves the highest product quality. However, this is a fundamental error which professionals and authorities should counter to ensure that the food industry does not give misleading claims and information.

Product Certification, HACCP and quality systems all have a defined position in the market and are all independent of each other. A ‘quality’ product does not mean a ‘safe’ product. Congruently, a ‘nice tasting’ sausage does not mean it is safe for human consumption.

Setting up a HACCP system is relatively easy but it is totally useless if it is not verified and objective evidence of reviews and corrective actions are not evident. Experience has also shown that many companies clearly prepare their site in readiness for the visiting auditor or site inspector.

Business managers should appreciate that a book keeper is not an auditor. Yet, many fall into the trap of thinking that a visit by an inspectorate agency means that the product is safe. This is an illusion and a dangerous comfort zone for most suppliers. Inspections and auditors are two separate professions that serve two different purposes. It is of not surprising that there have been instances of food handlers given licenses without first attending a basic hygiene course.

In such situations, Certification and accreditation bodies may provide businesses with a false sense of security. At the end of the day, it is the business directors or owners who are solely responsible for proving and instilling due diligence. Certification may satisfy the market requirement but it does not nullify the business owners from the legal responsibility of providing safe products.

What is of essence is that due diligence becomes a legal requirement and Certification a voluntary option. Each industry has guidelines to assist them with their best practices. Any suggestion that a certified company can hide behind the Certification is folly and in my opinion, dangerous. Can anyone say that they have never seen products on the shelf which have passed their use-by date, cheese stored next to meat in a supermarket, or carton boxes in a processing area? Yet, these products have been certified!

Even within the EU, I have visited EU-approved food plants on both official and unofficial visits and observed a lack of everyday best practices. These include: no evidence of stock rotation or temperature control; processing areas with glass windows that might be open or even broken; production personnel wearing jewellery or in their own clothes rather than in proper uniforms; and meat slicing taking place next to mince meat production. Records of non-compliant items are sometimes not followed up on and returns not evaluated.

Several food plants, whether certified or not, still do not have the full understanding of microbiological tests requirements. Company law, by inference, requires that all directors and owners should be responsible for demonstrating due diligence at all times. Certification is not a proof.

Despite such a bleak picture, it must be emphasized that total support must be given to all advisory and controlling bodies in the spirit of improving and enhancing professional conduct and quality. Continuous improvement is a non-stop process of which we are all a part.

In spite of all the efforts made by authorities, there is still a need for a basic understanding of the concept of food safety. International records show that food poisoning cases are on the increase.

Whilst it is very tempting to increase the level of inspection, we should focus on enhancing educational levels and government agencies should provide more support to the food industry. This yields more sustainable, long-term and positive results. As a case in point, serious car accidents are rarely caused by low-priced cars and parking fines are more often than not given out to owners of expensive cars.

Smoking habits are not curbed by inspection or penalties but by health education campaigns.

Educators need to go one step further and demonstrate to managers that setting up a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) is not solely about implementing a set of rules or guidelines at all times, but a way of utilizing those guidelines to enhance product positioning in the market and increase operational efficiency and effectiveness. It should not be seen as simply transposing laws or directives into one’s organisation. Conversely, after analysis, the manager should attempt to utilize those guidelines perceived to be a burden to operational costs as an opportunity to push the efficiency of the operation forward. The key to a good management system is therefore, continuous improvement.

www.worldfoodsafety.org