Food Protection Trends - February 2009 - (Page 89)

frameworks where food safety legislation may not be equivalent and of variable standards. Independent third party audits of food safety management systems are thus essential in providing confidence to the purchaser. A range of food safety management system audit standards exist. Their goal is obviously the same thing – safe food. Although these standards may be recognised as equivalent or credible by the purchaser, it is plausible that the standards may not necessarily provide the same audit outcomes. This presentation examines three widely used food safety management system audit standards. The standards are compared with respect to content and audit requirements. Selected criteria from the standards have been practically audited during the same supplier audit and differences were identified. These will be discussed in more detail with respect to the impact of these differences on the effectiveness of the food safety management system. Other differences may exist regarding audit methodology, auditor competence requirements and audit conclusions. This presentation explores whether the differences are significant in selecting the audit standard. Could a supplier select an “easier” audit or would the selection of audit standard be based more on cost and/or market acceptability. Auditor Consistency and Comparability DAVID LLOyD, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, llandaff Campus, Western Ave., Cardiff, South Wales CF5 2yB, Uk The growth in global food markets coupled with recent food incidents such as the melamine contamination of milk and infant powder formulas have highlighted the need for reassurances in international food safety. Variability in national legislation between countries has led to an increase reliance on international third party certification of food safety management systems. Even when undertaking a heavily prescribed audit such as BRC/IFS the auditor variability is a key factor and this is likely to be even more critical when auditing standards such as ISO 22000 which allows greater auditor “freedom”. Research undertaken at UWIC has investigated variations in auditor performance and inter-auditor variability. The research focused on auditors who regularly audit against the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety and covers a period from march 2005 to october 2008. The research will be discussed within the content of two standard significant reviews and revisions of the standard and the effect of these changes on auditor performance. The results for 100 BrC audits were evaluated for issue 3 and 4 in an 8 month period from march to october 2005. Only auditors with 5 full BRC audits either side of the Issue change were included in the analysis of results. This represented and audit time of 132 (1,056 hours). The standard revision between Issue 3 and Issue 4 produced an increase in the number of defined clauses of 20%. The change in standard from Issue 4 to 5 in July 2008 created another 20% increase. The effect of these changes to the standard and increased training prior to its introduction impacted significantly on the levels of non-conformances raised. The results from the study conducted during the change from Issue 4 to 5, and comparison to Issue 3 to 4, will be discussed. results from the 2008 study will also focus on the percentage of non-conformances raised against new clauses which are likely to have received greater emphasis during auditor re-training. An analysis of the most widely raised non-conformances per auditor will be presented and a comparative study of these clauses between the two studies for each auditor discussed. Results of personal interviews with the auditors to establish any trends in personal audit development or changes to industry practice which may have effected these results will be discussed. The history of audits for specific companies was analysed and assessment of different auditors “performance” over a period of four-year period assessed though interviews with company technical representatives. Auditor variability in delivery against Issue 4 of the BRC standard was also covered in the research. The analysis encompassed audits from Europe, US, and Asia which showed significant differences in the levels of non-conformances raised during the period of analysis. Potential reasons for this variability in auditor findings will be discussed. SESSION 6: Risk Communication Novel Approaches to Risk Communication in an Electronic Age ANTHoNy FlooD, International Food Information Council, 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 430, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA This session will explore the role and impact of the media on consumer perceptions about food safety and risk communications and recognize the emerging trends in media communications. Consumer research indicates that most consumers get their food safety information from the media, but globally more than one billion people are online, with 185 million of those in the United States. research has shown that journalists, government officials, consumers and analysts defining key issues start online and that the internet influences food safety and nutrition opinion leaders more than any other medium. Food safety educators and students use the internet to search for information not readily available. Six percent of people online read blogs regularly, with 30% having read one on occasion and 10% posting to them. Although these are relatively small numbers, the number of social networking spaces and blogs continue to grow exponentially. According to Edison Research, the Internet has now taken over television as “the most cool and exciting medium” which means, to effectively communicate to target audiences, messaging strategies must be tailored to the online viewer. To date, many activist groups have capitalized on this new media format, often with misinformation which creates consumer confusion and potential negative opinions towards food safety related issues. This information is often spread “virally”, FEBRUARY 2009 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 89

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - February 2009

Food Protection Trends - February 2009 Contents Sustaining Members Perspectives from Your President Commentary from the Executive Director Assuring the Safety of Not-Ready-to-Eat (NRTE) Products: Industry Guidelines for Validation of Consumer Cooking Instructions Cooking Food Safely with Microwave Ovens: Challenges for the Food Industry Special Interest Series: Newly Developed Workshop Series on “Molecular Methods in Food Microbiology” 2009–2010 Secretary Election Abstracts – IAFP’s Fourth European Symposium on Food Safety Audiovisual Library Audiovisual Library Order Form New Members What’s Happening in Food Safety Industry Products IAFP 2009: Networking Opportunities IAFP 2009: General Information IAFP 2009: Registration Form Coming Events Advertising Index Journal of Food Protection Table of Contents Booklet Order Form Membership Application

Food Protection Trends - February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.