2. 1 HARMONISATION of Criteria for HACCP food safety SYSTEMS PETER GOOSEN DUTCH NATIONAL BOARD of EXPERTS-HACCP

3. 2 INTRODUCTION n Government inspection systems n Consumer interests n HACCP food safety system standards n One GLOBAL registration/certification system n Harmonisation initiatives needed

4. 3 SAFETY of FOOD Products n Highly regulated area n Risk assessment based approach n No transparent process n Consumers lost confidence n Uncontrolled market responses n International dimension of food market

5. 4 RESOLUTION n MARKET driven monitoring system n SHARED responsibility all parties n accepted by Governments as complementary system n VOLUNTARY 3rd party REGISTRATION SYSTEM n Consumer ‘SELF PROTECTION’

6. 5 3 levelled Structure n International Accreditation Forum n  LEVEL III (GOLBAL ACCEPTANCE) n Accreditation Body n  LEVEL II (AUTHORIZATION) n Registration Body n  LEVEL 1 (ASSESSMENT) n Feed/Food Supplier n ISO Guide 61 Peer review system n ISO Guide 62/66/65 n Registration System n Food safety Standard

7. 6 SUITABLE STANDARD for CERTIFICATION n Food safety SYSTEM with basic requirements n HACCP/HAZOP CONCEPT of major importance n ALINORM 93/13A, Annex II best available n No objective, measurable criteria in CODEX n VERBATIM standards: not of use n ISO 9000 linked standards –HACCP-9000 by Nat. Sanitation Foundation –SQF2000, Australia –ISO 15161 (to be published)

8. 7 Dutch HAZOP Registration System n Full Food chain, incl. feed and primary sector n Focus on Food SAFETY n No requirement to implement ISO 9000 n Accessible to SME’s/Developm.Countries n Danish standard DS 3021 n Criteria for compentence, assessment methodology, report, decision and surveillance

9. 8 Harmonized system n First-sight: no need for harmonisation n System undermined at all three levels n Level I: ISO 9000/GMP/Retailers n Level 2: Inspection versus Registration –inspection system lacks safeguards on impartiality, participation all parties, unbiased review –variation in level of confidence unknown n Level 3: IAF no initiatives taken

10. 9 ISO 9000 approach n ‘translated’ ISO 9000 standards and ISO 15161 no/little added value n ISO 9000 registration body lack specific expertise n ‘Watering down’ requirements/scrutinity n Danish/Dutch proposal to ISO TC 34 for ‘stand alone’ HAZOP food safety standard

11. 10 GMP requirements n Incorporation GMP/Hygiene Code and Pre Requisite Requirements n to be considered prior to application HAZOP n company own inspection system n change from system to process approach n no international structure for harmonisation/reduction variation

12. 11 Retailers initiatives n BRC Technical Specification CIES Global Food Safety Initiative n no consensus standard, retailers dominate n inspection reports condition for purchase n one day inspection on 250 points n HAZOP/food safety much lower level n reduces motivation to implement HAZOP n judgement of one inspector

13. 12 CONSUMERS/Producers n Should force third party registration system n Should participate in development of HAZOP standard and assessment criteria n Should force recognition system by Government n Should require proper accreditation

14. 13 CONTACT n For Registration System documents n FREE of costs n Peter Goosen n intass@wxs.nl n THANK YOU