Food Safety Magazine - June/July 2013

PRODUCE
Figure 2: Auditing organizations: These audit organizations, and
others, are using or plan to use the Harmonized Standards for GAPs
audits. Audit organizations listed are for identification purposes
only. The United Fresh Produce Association and the Produce GAPs
Harmonization Initiative do not endorse or warrant the services of
any particular entity.
Who Is Auditing? All major audit organizations identified
by the TWG as performing GAPs audits in the U.S. were approached
early in the harmonization initiative to become
involved and provide their audit checklists. Almost all agreed
and have been strong supporters of the Harmonized Standards.
According to Ken Petersen, head of U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA)’s Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit
and Vegetable Program audit section, “USDA played an active
role in helping the industry develop sound harmonized GAPs
and GHPs [Good Hygiene Practices] produce standards. We
were also among the first to perform audits using the Harmonized
Standards, which helps ensure that American produce
food safety criteria are met. Many retailers specifically request
harmonized GAPs audits, so we work with fruit, vegetable
and specialty crop suppliers of all sizes to verify their on-farm
practices meet or exceed the standards, and we’ve seen many
growers successfully migrate to the harmonized audit.” A
more targeted audit organization is Equicert, which primarily
serves small “horsepowered” farms. “After 2 years’ experience,
I’m still amazed by the strength and flexibility of the Harmonized
Standards,” said Michael Hari, president of Equicert.
“Where other standards may be a poor fit for a certain size
farm or a certain geographic area of the country, we are continuing
to find the Harmonized Standards flexible enough for
a wide range of applications and strong enough to address the
avoidable risks that all produce farming has in common. Equicert’s
experience with the Harmonized Standards has included
broad buyer acceptance. We recommend buyers and growers
upgrade to the Harmonized Standards in preference to the old
standards.” (Figure 2).
GFSI and the Harmonized Standards. GFSI was created in
2000 as a harmonization initiative. Like the produce industry
in the U.S., European retailers were being criticized by their
processed food suppliers for creating an audit burden: multiple,
redundant and often conflicting audit requirements. In
order to accept audits from organizations they didn’t know,
the retailers created GFSI to establish a set of guidelines for
audits and audit organizations, and to serve as an independent
“benchmarking” authority. The retailers’ view: If an audit
organization is managed to these guidelines, we can accept
their food safety certifications with confidence. The strength
of GFSI is its guidelines for how audit organizations manage
their audit process, particularly in how auditors (“certification
bodies”) are overseen. GFSI also established guidelines for
food safety standards for processed foods, developed by several
multinational processed food companies using generally
the same approach as used to develop the Harmonized Standards.
GFSI, and participating audit organizations, continued
to grow over the next decade and eventually took hold in the
U.S. About the same time, GFSI decided to establish guidelines
for food safety standards for “Farming of Plants.” Aware
of this, the TWG evaluated the Harmonized Standards against
the GFSI guidelines and concluded that, although the words
were different, the two were consistent in their expectations,
perhaps requiring a few “GFSI riders” to the Harmonized
Standards.
Ironically, this is where the two harmonization initiatives
came into conflict. U.S. retailers, trying to reduce the audit
burden on their suppliers, endorsed GFSI, some requiring all
of their suppliers to become certified to a GFSI-benchmarked
standard. This created a dilemma for a number of produce
companies that had already been audited to the Harmonized
Standards, only to be told those standards weren’t going to
be accepted because they had not been certified by a GFSIbenchmarked
organization to a GFSI-benchmarked standard.
Meanwhile, GFSI benchmarking evaluates both the audit
standard and the audit process, so the Harmonized Standards,
being just an audit standard, cannot be benchmarked without
an associated audit process.
The solution was to pair the Harmonized Standards with
an already-benchmarked audit process. Three of the audit
organizations that had been benchmarked to the GFSI Guidance
Document 5 were asked about adopting the Harmonized
Standards, and two responded.
GlobalG.A.P. already had a process in place that seemed
to align with the GFSI guidelines: Recognizing regional and
language differences around the world, the GlobalG.A.P. process
allows for National Interpretation Guidelines (NIGs) to
translate their established standards into the language and special
conditions of the country. A GlobalG.A.P. U.S. National
TWG was formed, also coordinated by United Fresh, to develop
the U.S. Fruit and Vegetable NIG. It didn’t take long to see
that the GlobalG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance standards,
which cover much more than food safety, far exceeded the
scope of the Harmonized Standards. However, recognizing
that the U.S. produce-buying market is more focused on food
safety and less on standards for worker welfare and environmental
stewardship than elsewhere in the world, GlobalG.A.P.
created a shorter “Produce Safety Standard,” including all,
but only, the GlobalG.A.P. food safety requirements. The
GlobalG.A.P. U.S. National TWG compared the Harmonized
Standards against this standard and demonstrated they
are very close in their requirements, requiring only a few
“GlobalG.A.P. riders” to be equivalent and consistent with the
GFSI guidance. In early 2012, GlobalG.A.P. accepted the U.S.
62 F o o d S a f e t y M a g a z i n e