Impact of the Global Food Safety Initiative on Food Safety Worldwide: Statistical Analysis of a Survey of International Food Processors

Abstract

In 2000, the Consumer Goods Forum established the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) to increase the safety of the world's food supply and to harmonize food safety regulations worldwide. In 2013, a university research team in conjunction with Diversey Consulting (Sealed Air), the Consumer Goods Forum, and officers of GFSI solicited input from more than 15,000 GFSI-certified food producers worldwide to determine whether GFSI certification had lived up to these expectations. A total of 828 usable questionnaires were analyzed, representing about 2,300 food manufacturing facilities and food suppliers in 21 countries, mainly across Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and North America. Nearly 90% of these certified suppliers perceived GFSI as being beneficial for addressing their food safety concerns, and respondents were eight times more likely to repeat the certification process knowing what it entailed. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of these food manufacturers would choose to go through the certification process again even if certification were not required by one of their current retail customers. Important drivers for becoming GFSI certified included continuing to do business with an existing customer, starting to do business with new customer, reducing the number of third-party food safety audits, and continuing improvement of their food safety program. Although 50% or fewer respondents stated that they saw actual increases in sales, customers, suppliers, or employees, significantly more companies agreed than disagreed that there was an increase in these key performance indicators in the year following GFSI certification. A majority of respondents (81%) agreed that there was a substantial investment in staff time since certification, and 50% agreed there was a significant capital investment. This survey is the largest and most representative of global food manufacturers conducted to date.

Public and private food safety regulatory approaches: exploring the role of global food safety initiative auditors in achieving public health objectives, focusing on the Canadian experience

“…Other food safety research has used the quantitative method of surveys to investigate whether or not inspectors write down violations (A. C. Johnson et al, 2014), continuous improvement programs in food safety (B. Scott, Wilcock, & Kanetkar, 2009), illness exposure (Nesbitt et al, 2009), the training needs of PHIs (Pham et al, 2010b), companies' opinions of implementing a certification programme (Crandall et al, 2012(Crandall et al, , 2017, validation of inspector findings (Boyd et al, 2016), how consumers use social media to understand food related risks (Kuttschreuter et al, 2014) and consumer food safety knowledge and behaviour in Canada (Nesbitt et al, 2014).…”

Public and private food safety regulatory approaches: exploring the role of global food safety initiative auditors in achieving public health objectives, focusing on the Canadian experience

“…It uses a variety of processes, including benchmarking, accreditation, and certification to develop and evaluate rule instruments, its Benchmarking Requirements and the CPO's certification programmes, that are implemented and evaluated by actors, individuals employed by the ABs, CBs, and food producers. Certification to a GFSI-recognized certification programme is often a contractual requirement to supply many Canadian and multi-national food retailers and manufacturers, including Walmart Inc., Loblaw Companies Limited, and Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (Crandall et al, 2017;Davey & Richards, 2013;Havinga, 2006;Konefal et al, 2005;Loblaw Companies Limited, 2011;Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2015;Bernd M.J. van der Meulen, 2011a;Walmart Inc., 2008).…”

“…Second, research into the efficacy of the GFSI in promoting public health should be explored, particularly in light of the CFIA's Private Certification Policy. Though the CFIA states that it is a "science-based" regulatory agency the literature into the effectiveness of the GFSI in promoting food safety are opinion-based, and there is little food science or epidemiology-based research available; further quantitative studies into whether or not a concurrent decrease in foodborne illnesses were seen with the introduction of the GFSI are warranted (CFIA, 2015a;Crandall et al, 2012Crandall et al, , 2017. Third, investigations into the CB and auditor as per Albersmeier ( 2009) and Short et al (2014) would be of value.…”

“…Fulponi (2006) interviewed food retailers who were members of the GFSI, finding that their reliance of third-party certification and support of the GFSI was based on the firm's reputation with their customers, with a secondary emphasis on legal liability. Two empirical evaluations of the GFSI itself have been conducted by Crandall et al (2012Crandall et al ( , 2017 and both studies found that the GFSI was thought to improve food safety at the food producer. 20 Albersmeier, Schulze, Jahn and Spiller (2009) assessed the validity of audit findings from a CB, finding significant differences between auditors.…”

“…Crandall et al (2017Crandall et al ( , 2012 have published two studies investigating the Global Food Safety Initiative. These studies have not been included because: first, these studies did not include questions or investigate the auditor in any way and second, these studies were commissioned by the CGF and Walmart, and therefore there is a conflict of interest in the conclusions.…”