Presented at 2013 Arkansas Association for Food Protection annual conference. Phil Crandall, Natalie Dyenson, Frank Yiannas and Corliss O’Bryan

1. GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE (GFSI)
IMPLEMENTATION –CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
Phil Crandall, Natalie Dyenson, Frank Yiannas and
Corliss O’Bryan

2. WHAT IS GFSI AND WHY SHOULD I KNOW
ABOUT IT’S GOALS?
 In 2000, CEOs global companies at The Consumer
Goods forum --how best to spend precious food
safety (FS) resources-
 Backdrop--high-profile food recalls, quarantines &
negative publicity on food industry
 ―audit fatigue‖—multiple & sometimes contradictory
retailer’s or 3rd party requirement, as many 6 / year
 Lack of agreements on FS certifications & acceptance
 Harmonization of nationally and internationally
 Spend FS resources-- that produced results

3. WHAT IS GFSI AND WHY SHOULD I KNOW
ABOUT IT’S GOALS?
 Initially ―benchmark‖ standards- model of
equivalency between existing food safety schemes
 Today, international FS experts, across entire food
supply chain meet Technical Working Groups,
stakeholder conferences share knowledge and
promote a harmonized approach to managing food
safety across the industry
 Non-competitive environment

4. SCHEMES THAT ARE ―BENCHMARKED‖ WITH
GFSI
 BRC Food Safety
Issue 6,
 IFS Food Version 6
 SQF Code 7th Edition
Level 2
 Global Red Meat
Standard
 FSSC ISO 22000 and
9000

5. NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED AGAINST GFSI
RECOGNIZED SCHEMES 2012

6. GFSI CERTIFICATION
Thousands of companies in North and
South America, Europe, the Middle
East, and in Asia have received a
GFSI-approved certification that is
accepted by their retail customers
anywhere in the world.

7. THESE INCLUDE SUCH RECOGNIZABLE NAMES AS:
Cargill H-E-B Shop Rite
Campbells Hormel Target
Coca Cola Kraft Foods Trader Joes
ConAgra Foods Kroger Tyson
Costco McDonalds Walgreen's
CVS PF Chang Wal-Mart
Daymon Worldwide
Farm Fresh
Giant Food
Safeway
Sam’s Club
Schwan Food
Company
Wegmans Food
Markets
Win-Dixie Stores

8. THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME TO ACCELERATE
GFSI ACCEPTANCE
 ―Mind set‖ food safety is not a competitive edge,
 ―sistership‖ cantaloupe outbreak September 14,
2011 - Jensen Farms, of Holly, Colorado
 ―Yes, we (your customer) wants you to complete a
GFSI audit, but we have company requirements
we’d like to see in addition …..‖
 Or ―let’s approach the GFSI Technical Committee
on this issue and see if we can ….
 Choice retailers have—dilute suppliers’ resources
with redundant and overlapping audits or focus
resources on productive goals

9. FUTURE MARKET AND REGULATORY FORCES
PUSHING FOR GFSI IN NEXT 5 YEARS
Regulatory Drivers
 Food Safety Modernization Act, FSMA, US centric
requirements—may have GFSI like certifications as the
rules are finalized
 Denmark regulatory audits are reduced for
suppliers with GFSI;
 China’s national government audit standards
benchmarked by GFSI; huge in some markets

10. GFSI DRIVER--TRACEABILITY OR THE LACK
THEREOF
 Final future driver, traceability failure ie horsemeat
in EU—estimate cost, brand damage?
 Quote from international liability insurance
executive, ―Estimates—tens of millions of euros as
brand owners pass costs for profits from items
having to be pulled from shelves, costs of
replacement and damage to image.‖ as a result of
food products adulterated with horsemeat
 http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Safety-
Regulation/Horse-meat-scandal-Where-it-began-
and-where-are-we-now

11. BACKGROUND OF OUR STUDY GFSI
IMPLEMENTATION
 GFSI began in 2000
 In February 2008, Walmart announced that
all of their private (store) brand & some
national brand suppliers certified based
approved GFSI >July 2009
 Surveyed Feb 2010; 309 national suppliers
to Walmart were contacted—had 56%
participation
 98% of the respondents were primary food
manufacturers

12. OUR STUDY OF 174 WM RETAIL SUPPLIERS
Demographic information for the companies that supplied
products
Annual sales ($) Number of companies (%) of companies
0–50 million 29 17 %
51–100 million 29 17 %
101–200 million 27 16 %
201–500 million 40 23 %
$500 million or more 49 28 %
Relative food safety risk of products
Low 83 48 %
Medium 65 37 %
High 26 15 %

13. FREQUENCY OF USE OF GFSI BENCHMARKED SCHEMES
AMONG FOOD PRODUCTION PLANTS
Scheme Number % of plants
SQF 2000 level 2 or higher 221 54 %
British Retail Consortium (BRC)
Global Standard, version 5 151 37 %
International Food Standard (IFS),
version 5 14 3 %
Primus GFS 11 3 %
SQF 1000 (level 2) 5 1 %
Food Safety System Certification
(FSSC) 22000a 4 1 %
Total 406 plants from 174

14. WHY SELECT A PARTICULAR GFSI
BENCHMARKED SCHEME? (SQF VS BRC)
 50% -- widely accepted by (retail)
customers
 20% -- required by a (single) customer
 12% -- recommendations from others
 10% -- good reputation in the industry
 7% -- most often used in our industry

15. SELECTION OF BENCHMARKED AUDITOR BY
INDUSTRY
Benchmarked Standard Number %
Companies
Drinks BRC Global Standard, version 5 8 19.0%
FSSC 22000 2 4.8%
SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 32 76.2%
Fruits and vegetables
BRC Global Standard, version 5 11 22.9%
Primus GFS 11 22.9%
SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 26 54.2%
Meats BRC Global Standard, version 5 46 61.3%
IFS, version 5 1 1.3%
SQF 2000 (level 2 or higher) 28 37.3%

16. 5-POINT LIKERT SCALE (1, STRONGLY
DISAGREE; 3 NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE & 5,
STRONGLY AGREE)
Statements: Risk Med HighSales$201-500, > $500
After GFSI our FS 3.95 3.77 4.13 3.73
management system
better documented
GFSI we’ve had more 3.38 3.54 3.63 3.33
employee training
GFSI further enhanced 3.43* 3.08 3.58 3.14
production of safe food
Company made 3.62 4.04 3.83 3.73
significant investments
GFSI seen as improving 3.85 3.88 4.03 3.73
safety of foods produced

17. NUMBER OF AUDITS BEFORE AND AFTER
BECOMING GFSI COMPLIANT RANGE 3-6
Number of 3rd party audits/year
Before After Diff.
Relative risk
Low (dry cereal) 4.57 3.69 0.89
Medium (can food) 4.42 3.97 0.45
High (RTE meat) 5.72 4.28 1.45
Overall (174 co.) 4.71 3.89 0.81

18. OTHER FINDINGS FROM WM SUPPLIER
SURVEY
Time to become GFSI compliant
ranged from 12.6 mo for smallest
companies; 8.3 mo large
Time for medium risk 10.4 mo

19. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF OUR STUDY OF
174 RETAIL SUPPLIERS
 Companies’ Opinions and Acceptance of Global
Food Safety, Initiative Benchmarks after
Implementation. Journal of Food Protection, Vol.
75, No. 9, 2012, Pages 1660–1672

20. CURRENT TRACEABILITY
 Currently ―one-up, one down‖ regulation.
Know who you purchased an ingredient
from and to whom you sold the finished
products
 Many, many thresholds to overcome—
examples fruits and vegetables and mainly
ground beef

21. GFSI AND GOOD AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES (GAP)
 Goal: minimize
conflicting & competing
industry specific FS
standards
 Minimize or eliminate
trade barriers, WTO
 Minimize redundant FS
requirements that have
driven-up of food to
consumers
 GFSI provides data for
real-time FS
management
 Manages costs from
FS culture
 Maintain consumer
confidence in food
industry
 Our study,
 Increased employee
education
 Reduced perceived FS
risks

22. BEEF TRACEABILITY—BEEN AROUND A REALLY
LONG TIME
 Egyptians
 Spaniards, Hernán Cortés
branded his cattle with three
Latin crosses
 Texas after civil war, cattle
driven to Northern rail heads
to be separated prior to
shipment to Northern
slaughter facilities
 Today--tattooing, ear
notching, ear tagging (metal
and plastic) and electronic
identification (injectable, ear
tags and electronic bolus), as
well as natural systems
(mainly retinal imaging and
molecular markers)

23. EXTRAS
 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in late
2003 spark ignited
 National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was
created in 2004 –VOLUNTARY
 95% poultry production premises registered
 80% pork premises
 18% beef premises registered
 05 Feb 2010 Sec Ag Vilsack abandoned NAIS—
state Animal Disease Traceability systems

24. AT LEAST TWO PERSPECTIVES ON GROUND
BEEF
Beef Producer Beef Processor

25. PRODUCER-ANIMAL DISEASE TRACKING
 Minnesota Board of
Health—official ear tags
 MN 2001regained status as
Tuberculosis Free State
 Eliminate ―whole-herd‖
depopulation? Eliminate
public reaction
 May go to Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID)
 Requires producers to:
 Keep records min 5
years
 Dam and sire, location
where born, sex
 Date of castration for
steers
 Brucellosis tag ($1
@sale)
 Arkansas’ producers
want to keep their
―Brucellosis (bangs)
Free‖ state status

26. PRODUCER THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME IN
BEEF TRACEABILITY
 Increased potential liability—tort reform
 Increased trespass by regulators on producers’
property (Big Brother)
 Added expense, time maintaining auditable records
 Minimal benefits, in 2009 cost ~ $6/head = 90%
costs borne by producers
 2007 premium live cattle market, $1.50-$2.00/
hundred weight, in KC calves maintained minimal
traceability

27. II. BENEFITS TO BEEF PROCESSOR
 Increased access to markets: labels
 Grass fed, Certified Organic, Humanely Raised
 USDA’s Ag Market Service, ―Process Verified‖
 Recalls, all 4 majors beef processors had recalls or
withdrawals—robust traceability system
 Again retail customer and regulatory requirements
 2010 mock recall savings 11 cents / pound (7%)

28. BEEF PRODUCER THRESHOLDS TO OVERCOME
 The beef industry much lower degree of vertical
integration than poultry or pork
 Many barriers to overcome to further develop vertically
integrated systems
 Regulations currently prohibit vertical integration
 Need genetic breakthrough in identifying genes produce eating
quality consumers desire and maintaining identity of the beef
from conception to the consumer
 Or needs to be a major breakthrough in processing or new
product development to increase the profit opportunities for
beef products at the retail and food service level
 Vertical integration a mechanism must be developed to shift or
share the capital requirements and risk

29. SIZE AND SCALE OF BEEF IN USA, 2011
 About $80 billion dollar
industry
 800,000 cow-calf
operations
 Farms > 100 head
produce 45% US beef
 34 million head
slaughtered
 27 million steers
 7 million cull beef &
dairy cows
 2 million head imported

30. NEED TO WRAP IT UP—FUTURE ?
 Maverick Ranch Beef (Denver, CO) Natural Beef
extensive traceability, using retinal scanning
 Identify calves at birth, weaning, entry to the feedlot
and at slaughter;
 Post slaughter they use trolley tracking and bar
code tagging of individual cuts to trace back to a
particular animal, but even then they do not
manage to maintain identity for beef trimmings
 Not cover ground beef

31. NEED TO WRAP IT UP—FUTURE ?
 DNA tracking could distinguish between mixtures of
equal amounts of meat from three different
individuals, but when a 1 pound package of ground
beef contained DNA from 10 animals—even DNA
tracking was not reliable!

32. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT:
A Review: Whole-chain traceability, is it possible to
trace your hamburger to a particular steer, a U. S.
perspective. Philip G. Crandall, Corliss A. O'Bryan,
Dinesh Babu, Nathan Jarvis, Mike L. Davis, Michael
Buser, Brian Adam, John Marcy, Steven C. Ricke
Meat Science 95 (2013) 137–144

33. CURRENT STATUS OF ACCEPTANCE OF GFSI,
USA AND WORLD WIDE
 Consider attending,
 February 2014 GFSI Conference theme: ―One
World, One Safe Food Supply‖

34. QUESTIONS ?