Harmonized GAPs StandardPast, Present and Future

Objective

• Gain an understanding of how the Harmonized Standard was developed

• Current status

• Deliberation of path forward

April 2009 Conference on Produce Safety Standards

• Findings:

– Produce GAP standards in various audits ~90% the same

– Inclusion of non-food safety standards (social, environmental issues) is a likely obstacle to harmonization

Process to Harmonization

Steering Committee - business leaders who had authority regarding their own companies’ supplier audit requirements

– committed to achieving the harmonization vision;

– with broad representation from the fresh produce supply chain, including suppliers, distributors, retail and foodservice businesses that have a say in produce suppliers’ pre-farm gate food safety requirements;

– represent a critical mass of volume of produce purchased.

Vision of Harmonization

Develop a harmonized food safety standard and checklist for GAP audits, and globally-acceptable auditing process, necessary to protect consumers from potential hazards that may contaminate produce at that stage of the supply chain, and that will build efficiencies into the supplier audit process.

One audit by any credible third party, acceptable to all buyers (sound familiar?)

Technical Working Group

➢ Over 150 stakeholders, representing:

• Customers, suppliers, government, audit companies, association staffs;

• Various commodities;

• A broad scope of operation sizes

• Producing regions including Mexico and Canada.

• Open invitation for participation; no stakeholders excluded

Standard Harmonized from

• CA LGMA

• Mushroom GAPs

• SENASICA

• Silliker

• USDA

• Tomato Food Safety Audit Protocol

• Community Alliance with Family Farmers

• California Strawberry Commission

• AFDO Model Code

• AIB

• CanadaGAP

• GLOBALG.A.P

• SQF 1000

Process of Harmonization

• First draft Harmonized Standard completed over 5 meetings

• Pilot the draft

– Apple, potato, leafy green, mushroom, citrus, blueberry, tomato

– Packinghouse, harvesting, growers, greenhouse

Outcome of Pilots

• Auditee operations, auditors and customers found room for improvement, but felt it was reasonable, complete, and auditable

• All comments were considered by TWG at “finalization” meeting

Field Operations and Harvesting Standard Completed July 2011

Identifying who “owns” the standards

• United Fresh serves as Secretariat

– Responsible for standards policies and maintenance, coordination of support committees, communication through webpage, point of contact for questions

• Industry represented by Technical Working Group (TWG) – membership to remain open

Calibration Committee

• Comprised of subset of TWG;

– Responsible for real-time dispute resolution on interpretation questions, development of official auditor training materials

Process to update, adjust the standards• Recommendations/requests submitted to

United Fresh

• Reviewed by Calibration Committee for recommendation to TWG

• Considered and acted on by TWG

• All changes to the standards published as proposal on website, with industry notification and additional comment period before becoming final

The Harmonized vs the Produce Safety Rule

• July 2016 TWG update to the Harmonized

– Redline published online for public comment

– Comments considered

– Final posted Jan 2017

– The Harmonized is now aligned with the Produce Safety Rule (with the exception of the water testing section which is TBD by FDA)

“Globally recognized”

• Ensure standards meet GFSI guidance document to the extent practical

• Partner with audit processes that can be benchmarked successfully by GFSI

– GLOBALG.A.P (last July)

– USDA AMS (seeking “technical equivalence”)

• Require special “riders” to conform to full certification standard

Current Status

• New training scenarios added based on 2016 updates

• Aug 2017 public training (first time in 2 years)

– Revealed need for re-evaluation of the training deck

o Reduce redundancy

o Consistency in interpretation

o Adapt based on adult learning principles

Current Status

• Initiative Goal: reduce redundant audits/ reduce audit fatigue

• Has this happened?

– GFSI-benchmarked status (GLOBALG.A.P. HPSS)

– USDA-AMS- FDA discussions on alignment with the Produce Safety Rule

– Aug-Sept 2017 buyer survey

Current Use

• 14 audit organizations offer the Harmonized

• USDA-AMS: 1200 certificates (and growing; GroupGAP is popular)

• GLOBALG.A.P. (via HPSS)

• Others:?

How can we measure success?

• # auditors trained

• # trainings offered

• # audits conducted

• Buyer acceptance

• But the real measure of success is a decrease in the number of redundant audits

Needs Moving Forward

• More and better auditor training

– More accessible courses

– Consistency in interpretation

– Engaging format

• More resources

– Revamp website with FAQs

– Consider interpretive guide (built on AMS model)

• Consideration of United Fresh role and resources

Additional Needs

• Buyer representation and more diversity on the Calibration Committee (and overall effort)

• Periodic re-evaluation of the standard (e.g. the tomato group identified some edits for the Harmonized)

• Your feedback!

– For consideration by United Fresh Board of Directors

Discussion Questions

• Is the Harmonized a good food safety audit?

– What’s missing?

– What limits its use?

Has the Harmonized relieved audit redundancy?

• If not, does it have the potential to? What would it take?

Does the Harmonized fill a unique market need?

• If so, what is it?

How much effort should United put toward the Harmonized?

Is the Harmonized better suited toward certain audience than others?• Smaller operations

• Certain commodities

• Etc.

What others think:

• Questions sent to 1079 buyers (retail, foodservice, fresh-cut, etc.)

• 115 total responses

– 62 complete

– 53 partial

Want to learn more?

• Email jmcentire@unitedfresh.org or leave your business card

Produce GAPs Harmonization Initiative

Questions?