Hi all
We have just had some discussions regarding Certification Standards at the
WAS-APC Conference in Hanoi
The difficulty today is that we have many drivers who wish to impose their
'standards' on the seafood industry - many of these are the large buyer
groups and now we are getting lots of 'add-ons' by NGO's
With the extra requirements coming from importing countries we have moved
far beyond food safety
The tasks for the export processors/producers is getting tougher and
tougher. The additional costs of meeting then proving you are meeting these
standards is not nocessarily achieving any extra margin - it is an expected
cost of business and thus the burden falls on the supplier side as against
the buyer side
Human nature, being what it is, looks at other ways to create a margin -
potentially this leads us to issues such as short wts, incorrect counts etc
etc
If a Certification Standard is worthy then why wouldnt it come with a
Benefit Cost Analysis so that it is clear and transparent that it is adding
value to the whole process and not just an impost on the producer?
I was aghast to hear that one NGO had imposed a new impost on a current
standard and only after it had been put in place was it being checked to see
if it was viable and they had asked the auditing company whether it was
'do-able' - a little like inviting the 'fox into the hen house'. No offence
to anyone here but this should be a totally independent process if it is a
genuine issue
Look forward to discussing this whole subject with people at the World
Seafood Congress in Dublin end September
Regards
Roy Palmer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chingling Tanco" <crt@mida-group.com>
To: "Vanessa Broadnax" <vanessa@baldorfood.com>;
<criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com>; <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
>I agree it's getting crazy - in Europe for example - the UK wants the BRC
> (British Retail Consortium) standard while France and Germany want the IFS
> International Food Standard system and they are almost the same but called
> different names. Suggestion for those plants going for BRC
> certification -
> ask for IFS certification to be done at the same time as this shouldn't
> cost
> you much more.
>
> Chingling Tanco
> Mida Trade
> Manila, Philippines
>
>
>> From: Vanessa Broadnax <vanessa@baldorfood.com>
>> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:12:01 -0400
>> To: <criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com>, <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
>> Conversation: Auditing Quality Systems
>> Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
>>
>> Sometimes more is good. We need to keep food safety in the forefront. We
>> can
>> not afford not to look at different points of view. Different views keeps
>> us
>> on our toes. We must manage our time and efforts wisely.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu <owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu>
>> To: seafood@ucdavis.edu <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
>> Sent: Thu Aug 09 19:57:07 2007
>> Subject: Auditing Quality Systems
>>
>> I seem to spend a lot of time being accredited to one quality system or
>> another and then meeting with Processors who complain that there are so
>> many
>> systems that they have to become documenters for each system with
>> differing
>> needs.
>>
>> Any comments on relative merits of the differing systems ?
>> (without especially trashing systems by name)
>>
>> My two cents, for what it is worth, is that ISO 22000 will probably
>> replace
>> everything else eventually. ( it has HACCP components so is on-topic)
>>
>> Other views anyone?
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 11 2007 - 17:03:07 PDT