scholarly journals GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative）

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Wataru Tateishi
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Global Food

IFS und GFSI zoffen um Zertifikate

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (35) ◽  
pp. 22-22
Author(s):  
Hanno Bender
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Global Food

Im Markt für die Auditierung und Zertifizierung von Lebensmittelsicherheit will die Global Food Safety Initiative neue Services aufbauen. Die Standardorganisation IFS Management fürchtet das Entstehen eines Monopols und schaltet das Kartellamt ein. Doch die Wettbewerbshüter winken ab.

Companies' Opinions and Acceptance of Global Food Safety Initiative Benchmarks after Implementation

2012 ◽  
Vol 75 (9) ◽  
pp. 1660-1672 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHIL CRANDALL ◽  
ELLEN J. VAN LOO ◽  
CORLISS A. O'BRYAN ◽  
ANDY MAUROMOUSTAKOS ◽  
FRANK YIANNAS ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Food Prices ◽  
Common Reason ◽  
Quality Food ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Global Food

International attention has been focused on minimizing costs that may unnecessarily raise food prices. One important aspect to consider is the redundant and overlapping costs of food safety audits. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has devised benchmarked schemes based on existing international food safety standards for use as a unifying standard accepted by many retailers. The present study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the decision made by Walmart Stores (Bentonville, AR) to require their suppliers to become GFSI compliant. An online survey of 174 retail suppliers was conducted to assess food suppliers' opinions of this requirement and the benefits suppliers realized when they transitioned from their previous food safety systems. The most common reason for becoming GFSI compliant was to meet customers' requirements; thus, supplier implementation of the GFSI standards was not entirely voluntary. Other reasons given for compliance were enhancing food safety and remaining competitive. About 54% of food processing plants using GFSI benchmarked schemes followed the guidelines of Safe Quality Food 2000 and 37% followed those of the British Retail Consortium. At the supplier level, 58% followed Safe Quality Food 2000 and 31% followed the British Retail Consortium. Respondents reported that the certification process took about 10 months. The most common reason for selecting a certain GFSI benchmarked scheme was because it was widely accepted by customers (retailers). Four other common reasons were (i) the standard has a good reputation in the industry, (ii) the standard was recommended by others, (iii) the standard is most often used in the industry, and (iv) the standard was required by one of their customers. Most suppliers agreed that increased safety of their products was required to comply with GFSI benchmarked schemes. They also agreed that the GFSI required a more carefully documented food safety management system, which often required improved company food safety practices and increased employee training. Adoption of a GFSI benchmarked scheme resulted in fewer audits, i.e., one less per year. An educational opportunity exists to acquaint retailers and suppliers worldwide with the benefits of having an internationally recognized certification program such as that recognized by the GFSI.

Global Food Safety Initiative

Food Safety ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip G. Crandall ◽  
Corliss A. O’Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Global Food

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 80 (10) ◽  
pp. 1613-1622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip G. Crandall ◽  
Andy Mauromoustakos ◽  
Corliss A. O'Bryan ◽  
Kevin C. Thompson ◽  
Frank Yiannas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Consumer Goods ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Certification Process ◽  
Substantial Investment ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Global Food

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.

Understanding Complex Governance Relationships in Food Safety Regulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 670 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetty Havinga ◽  
Paul Verbruggen
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Hybrid Regimes ◽  
Hybrid Governance ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Complex Relationships ◽  
Global Food Safety Initiative ◽  
Safety Initiative ◽  
Food Safety Regulation

In this article, we discuss the value of the RIT model for analyzing complex governance relationships in the regulation of food safety. By exploring food safety regimes involving the European Union and the Global Food Safety Initiative, we highlight the diverse and complex relationships between the actors in public, private, and hybrid regimes of food safety regulation. We extend the basic RIT model to better fit the reality of (hybrid) governance relationships in the modern regulation of food safety, arguing that the model enables disaggregation of these regimes into analytical subunits or “regulatory chains,” in which each actor contributes to and affects the regulatory process. Finally, we critically assess what the RIT model adds to alternative theoretical approaches in identifying, mapping, and explaining the different roles that actors play vis-à-vis others in regulatory regimes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document