 |
    |
|
|
The recent series of food scares has heightened consumer awareness of food and its production from animals. There is also greater interest in animal welfare and the environmental implications of food production. Previously the majority of consumers rarely questioned the safety of food; for most it was inconceivable that food was not safe. As greater consumer interest became apparent, the opportunity arose for Farm Assurance schemes to provide assurance along the whole supply chain from the farm to retailer's shelf.
Assurance schemes have been established to provide safe food of high quality whilst maintaining good welfare standards and environmental protection. There are over 20 schemes operating in the production of food from livestock. This proliferation of schemes has occurred in the last three years and although each scheme has varying requirements they have one or more of the key consumer issues as their drivers. These drivers are:
There are or will shortly be generic schemes for most livestock products, specifically pork and bacon, beef, lamb, milk and eggs. Poultry meat production is concentrated in the hands of few producers who work closely with the processors and retailers to meet their quality standards.
A successful established assurance scheme is Freedom Foods a subsidiary of the RSPCA, who set stringent welfare standards for the production of all livestock products. In addition many of the major supermarkets or their food processor suppliers operate independent schemes.
Assured British Meat (ABM), established in 1997, has the objective of independently certifying the standards applied in assurance schemes and assuring integrated safety standards throughout the food chain. As such it will be working with the already established sector organisations to consolidate standards across British meat products. As the quality of the foods produced is only as good as the weakest link in the food chain, a fully integrated approach is likely to be the most effective.
The major schemes have three components:
It is probable at this stage that few consumers recognise the different merits of the various schemes. In this respect the proliferation of differently labelled premium assured products is counterproductive. Similarly, a proliferation of standards and inspection requirements would be difficult to implement at farm level.
Schemes have the following general requirements:
Standards are best if specific, measurable, and open to audit by inspection. General statements of acceptability of production methods are not appropriate. However, it is recognised that in some areas it is difficult to define measurable standards; where this occurs an associated characteristic may be measured instead. This can subsequently audited to provide assurance. For many of the standards there are currently no benchmarks, however as data from inspections becomes available, it is likely that the schemes will evolve to develop these.
Criteria must be specific. Audits must be reproducible, as consistency amongst a team of inspectors is necessary.
Most of the generic schemes require auditors to be certified by an independent third party. Certification bodies will require to be registered to the EN45011 Standard.
The demand for quality control throughout the food chain will increase and the definition of quality will widen. Farm assurance schemes will play a major role in the provision of safe and quality food.
Produced for BSAS by Dr Janice I Harland, HarlandHall, the assistance of Prof. Colin Whittemore, University of Edinburgh and Prof. Jeff Wood, University of Bristol is gratefully acknowledged.
For further copies of this paper, please contact the BSAS office
on 0131 445 4508.