Julia Stewart:
Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart, and welcome back to PMA’s audio blog, “Ask Dr. Bob.” I’m here with PMA’s Chief Science & Technology Officer Dr. Bob Whitaker. This is the first post in a multi-part series on choosing a food safety auditor.

In previous posts, Bob, you’ve talked about the role of audits in the food safety equation. Can you give us some more detail on how to go about making the most effective auditor choice?
 
Bob:
Julia, before I get into the actual steps of choosing an auditor, I’d like to cover a bit of background to help us set the stage.

In the last decade, we’ve expended a great deal of energy talking about food safety audits in the produce industry.  Every grower, harvester, distributor, or processor I meet has an “auditor story” about how a government or third party auditor showed up at their facility or farm, and proceeded to ask inappropriate questions, or make recommendations inconsistent with commonly accepted food safety practices.  I certainly sympathize when I hear these; it wasn’t that long ago when I was working at a grower/shipper and had to experience the same frustration. 

But I look at food safety audits a little differently than many. I know there is always pressure to “pass” an audit so you can supply a specific customer, but an audit is really about having an extra set of eyes and ears to verify that you’re following your written food safety programs. It’s a chance for you to measure your entire program, and an opportunity to learn how to improve your performance going forward.

An important point is that undergoing an audit is not necessarily just about getting a great score. Can anyone really say that an operation scoring 95% is safer than one scoring 90%? It’s not the score that matters, but what you missed and then what you do to correct the deficiency. For instance, an operation that loses 10 points on an audit because a worker was observed not washing his hands after using a restroom is likely a riskier operation from a food safety perspective than one that loses 10 points because their food safety logs are dated improperly. Both deficiencies are clearly important, but their immediate impact on the safety of food can be vastly different. 

Julia: 
Bob, so you’re saying producers should view a food safety audit as one tool they can use to measure the effectiveness of their programs – but I have also heard you call food safety audits an “imperfect tool”. 

Bob: 
Absolutely.  Audits are basically a snapshot in time of your program because they look at what you’re doing the day and the very instant that the auditor is observing your operations and reviewing your documents.  And let’s face it, most operators know what questions the auditor is going to ask and what documents to have available. It’s like taking a test when you’ve already been given the answers.

I’ve seen operations that proudly display their “Superior” audit certificate yet could stand some improvement in their day-to-day operations. And, how many times do we read about a food manufacturer involved with a foodborne illness outbreak who had been audited a month earlier and received an excellent score. It’s the difference between dressing-up for an audit versus living your food safety program every day.  An audit should be conducted so it fully evaluates your food safety systems and your risk-based food safety program. The value is in either knowing you are performing up to your program, or that there are some areas where you need improvement — then you need to implement those improvements.

Julia:
Living your food safety program every day, I like that a lot.

Thanks Bob. You’ve definitely presented a different way of looking at food safety audits and linked this perspective as being consistent with taking responsibility for the safety of our products. We look forward to your continuing posts on this subject. Thank you listeners for joining us!

Julia Stewart:
Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart, and welcome back to PMA’s audio blog, “Ask Dr. Bob” with PMA’s Chief Science & Technology Officer Dr. Bob Whitaker. Bob, we’re excited today to introduce a special guest to our listeners as we welcome PMA’s new vice president of supply chain efficiencies, Edmund (“Ed”) Treacy.

Bob:
We’re pleased to have Ed join our team, he brings tremendous expertise in logistics and supply chain management – our members now have another very talented resource with great industry experience. And the new position that he is filling continues a deliberate course PMA set to strengthen our staff with top-level subject matter experts who understand our industry, and can design and deliver the real-world business solutions our members need.

Ed comes to us from New Breed Logistics in High Point, N.C., where he served as senior vice president of operations. Ed designed and implemented distribution centers for various manufacturers to service major U.S. retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreens and Best Buy. 

Here at PMA, he will serve as our staff expert in developing supply chain practices to lead the produce and floral industries forward in these areas.

Ed, welcome to Ask Dr. Bob for the first of what I expect to be many appearances.  First, let’s clear one thing up … Is it true we had to import you?

Ed:
That’s right, Bob. I originally hail from Canada and am now both a U.S. and Canadian citizen, and I’ve been living in the states for four and a half years. I’ve spent much of my career developing and improving distribution capabilities for four major Canadian retail chains, including Sobeys and Loblaws. In fact at Sobey’s, I worked alongside former PMA director Wayne McKnight as senior vice president of logistics and engineering. I got my bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering from the University of Toronto, and I also completed the Executive Development Program at York University in Toronto.

Bob:
You were also very involved as an industry volunteer in Canada’s traceability initiatives and worked closely with PMA ally Canadian Produce Marketing Association. You are a past chairman of the Canadian Pallet Council, you were a founding board member of the Canadian RFID Center, and you were vice chair of the Canadian Professional Logistics Institute. You know your business, and you’re known to our industry.

Julia:
Bob, what exactly will Ed be doing in this new position?

Bob:
His duties will incorporate much of the work previously managed by Gary Fleming, PMA’s former vice president, industry technology & standards. Part of Ed’s work will be to monitor and forecast trends related to supply chain efficiencies, and design and deliver related products, services and educational events for PMA members. He also will serve as staff lead and technical resource to the industry-wide Produce Traceability Initiative, and lead all of PMA’s data synchronization and alignment initiatives.

Ed:
I’m really glad to be working closely again with the produce supply chain. The food business gets in your blood, and I’ve missed it during the last few years I have been away from it. I’m also thrilled to be working with PMA. It’s such a well-respected organization, and really provides the base needed to help our industry address supply chain challenges and take advantage of all the opportunities that are available.

Julia:
Welcome, Ed, we’re glad to have you on the team, and we’re all looking forward to working with you to
help support and grow our members’ businesses. We know we’ll be hearing more from you in the future.

Bob and Ed, thanks for being here today. And thank you, listeners, for joining us!

Julia Stewart:
Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart, and welcome back to PMA’s audio blog, “Ask Dr. Bob” with PMA’s Chief Science and Technology Officer Dr. Bob Whitaker. Bob, PMA and United Fresh have just published results of an industry survey fielded in December, that benchmarked the status of PTI implementation and gathered input on issues, concerns, and needs for the PTI Steering Committee to consider. Can you tell us more about it?

Bob:
Julia, we received 263 responses from across the supply chain, with a majority of respondents hailing from the “sell” side – growers, packer/shippers and marketers. They told us that industry awareness of the PTI is very high (at over 80 percent), and three-quarters of them told us they have accessed the PTI Web site and all its tools and information. Seventy percent report they are planning to implement the PTI action plan, and more than half report they are on target to meet the milestones. We’ve posted a summary of the research on the PTI Web site on the “Resources & Tools” page.

We also asked respondents to tell us what concerns and issues they are facing. No surprise, their top concern was cost – for example the cost of obtaining a company prefix, as well as hardware, software and other logistics expenses – and of course return on investment. They also noted a perceived lack of clear commitment across the supply chain— in other words, they don’t think their competitors or even their buyers will do their part. They also told us they are concerned about the uncertainty being introduced by pending government regulation, and some questioned the need for PTI above and beyond what they already have in place.

As for what to take away from the survey, we clearly heard the industry’s need for “more” – more communication, more education, more transparency, and more chain-wide commitment.

Julia:
The PTI Steering Committee, under the leadership of Food Lion’s Cathy Green, met in February. Did they consider what the industry told us in this survey?

Bob:
Yes, the Steering Committee along with the administering associations heard the industry loud and clear.  The Steering Committee and the implementing associations are still committed to the goal of chainwide, electronic traceability – today’s status quo is not a long-term option.  That said, we are currently working on improvements on several fronts, including revamping the PTI governance. We’re looking at who’s involved to ensure we can effect real change and meet industry’s needs, as well as how often the governance group meets. In hindsight, we probably shouldn’t have deactivated the Steering Committee after releasing the action plan in August 2008 — there is clearly still a role for a strong, active governance group.

Additionally, we’re considering how to improve the group’s transparency with the industry, and how our technical working groups can better meet industry’s needs for more information and tools. To help on that end, PMA has just hired Ed Treacy as our new vice president of supply chain efficiencies – Ed brings tremendous industry experience in logistics to this effort.

Julia:
I know we’re planning to have Ed on Ask Dr. Bob soon, our listeners can learn more about him then.

Bob:
That’s right, he’ll join us for a post soon.

We’re also getting GS1 US more involved, their team brings a lot to the table, too. We will also be providing more communications and education, to ensure we’re providing the tools and information needed by industry to get this job done. For example, PMA, CPMA and United Fresh just met with industry association executives at United Fresh’s convention in Las Vegas, and that was a good dialogue.

The PTI solution really is the optimal solution out there today, because it overlays each company’s internal traceability systems rather than trashing them and requiring a complete start-over. I know there is ROI to be had from it, too. Historically, many produce companies have used different electronic tracking formats to reduce shrink and better manage their inventories – and certainly we see the same possible advantages with PTI applications. Ideally, implementing the PTI should also help narrow the scope of recalls to just the affected lots, and not a company’s entire inventory – that has tremendous cost savings.

Bottom line is, chainwide, electronic traceability must and will happen, and it is in our industry’s best interest to drive that train rather than be driven – or get run over. For those members who are waiting to find out what the federal government is going to do, keep this in mind about how legislation and regulation work: Congress and FDA will only tell us what to do – they won’t tell us specifically how to do it, that’s not how they work. So, in fact we already know that PTI implementation does not conflict with anything coming down the pike from Congress or FDA. 

Julia:
Thanks, Bob. So at this point, we want our members to know they are being heard, and improvements are coming including more opportunities to get involved – given how important this topic is, that’s news everyone can appreciate. In the meantime, PMA remains committed to helping the entire industry implement effective and workable chainwide, electronic traceability. As always, for more information check out all the resources on the PTI Web site at www.producetraceability.org.

If you’d like to communicate with Dr. Bob, you can email him at AskDrBob@pma.com; you can also post comments about this and other Ask Dr. Bob posts on the blog Web site, at askdrbob.pma.com. Please send us your ideas for future blog posts, we look forward to that. Thanks for joining us this time, until next time, goodbye!