Infor’s Proactive Product Compliance Strategy
In a nutshell, process manufacturing companies need to transition from reactive and firefighting strategies that mainly minimize recall costs to proactive product safety strategies that protect the company and its products. With a significant increase in high-profile product safety failures, reactive strategies like lot track-and-trace cannot stop recalls, even though they can make the recall process far more efficient.
In 2008, the root causes of various recalls covered a wide range of issues that included material tampering, allergen labeling issues, inadequate end-user food handling or preparation instructions, potential cross contamination of ingredients, plant health and safety conditions, unsubstantiated (or even willfully inaccurate) marketing label claims, and shelf life issues. The increase in recalls and the above wide range of root causes have highlighted opportunities for more than just internal improvements and need to “prove the absence” of anything that can result in a product safety issues or in a recall.
Yet, many companies continue to operate with the assumption of that an “absence of proof” is sufficient. They continue to assume that all suppliers have adequate data, controls, and safety and compliance processes. They thus operate under an opportunistic quality and compliance strategy, whereby the goal of supplier quality audits is to find ways to pass (certify) the supplier.
To adequately insure supplier capabilities, companies must move from an opportunistic “absence of proof” stance to a risk-based “proof of absence” strategy. Since a holistic strategy cannot always be achieved immediately, companies need to focus on their greatest areas of risk, minimize their time to close product safety risk, and continually build on existing capabilities.
With all members of the food supply chain (i.e., from farms, material/ingredients suppliers to product manufacturing, distributors and retailers) continuing to consolidate, the impact of what had been traditionally a small and localized incident is now multiplied across many regions and customers. Not only are traditional product safety issues magnified by industry consolidation and broader distribution, but also increased product complexity, associated claims substantiation requirements, and the speed at which the Internet spreads information further amplify the opportunities for risk and shrink the time available in which to respond effectively.
To protect their products and long-term viability, companies need to build on any existing reactive product safety capabilities to implement a proactive product safety strategy and provide the much needed “proof of absence.” Proactive product safety will not only protect their products but will also reduce non-value-adding costs and improve profitability.
Reactive Product Safety Approaches
A core component of an effective reactive product safety approach is bi-directional lot control and track-and-trace capabilities. To meet ever-shrinking recall response mandates, the lot and sub-lot track-and-trace feature must be integrated into every material movement, product production, packaging, and distribution process.
Whenever manual or document-based lot track-and-trace is used, the time, risks, and cost to respond is increased. With every additional hour required to respond, the cost of a recall is increased and the risk to the company and its brand are increased. With an effective lot track-and-trace feature available, companies can leverage such capabilities to more actively ensure product safety and protect brand and company image.
In a nutshell, process manufacturing companies need to transition from reactive and firefighting strategies that mainly minimize recall costs to proactive product safety strategies that protect the company and its products. With a significant increase in high-profile product safety failures, reactive strategies like lot track-and-trace cannot stop recalls, even though they can make the recall process far more efficient.
In 2008, the root causes of various recalls covered a wide range of issues that included material tampering, allergen labeling issues, inadequate end-user food handling or preparation instructions, potential cross contamination of ingredients, plant health and safety conditions, unsubstantiated (or even willfully inaccurate) marketing label claims, and shelf life issues. The increase in recalls and the above wide range of root causes have highlighted opportunities for more than just internal improvements and need to “prove the absence” of anything that can result in a product safety issues or in a recall.
Yet, many companies continue to operate with the assumption of that an “absence of proof” is sufficient. They continue to assume that all suppliers have adequate data, controls, and safety and compliance processes. They thus operate under an opportunistic quality and compliance strategy, whereby the goal of supplier quality audits is to find ways to pass (certify) the supplier.
To adequately insure supplier capabilities, companies must move from an opportunistic “absence of proof” stance to a risk-based “proof of absence” strategy. Since a holistic strategy cannot always be achieved immediately, companies need to focus on their greatest areas of risk, minimize their time to close product safety risk, and continually build on existing capabilities.
With all members of the food supply chain (i.e., from farms, material/ingredients suppliers to product manufacturing, distributors and retailers) continuing to consolidate, the impact of what had been traditionally a small and localized incident is now multiplied across many regions and customers. Not only are traditional product safety issues magnified by industry consolidation and broader distribution, but also increased product complexity, associated claims substantiation requirements, and the speed at which the Internet spreads information further amplify the opportunities for risk and shrink the time available in which to respond effectively.
To protect their products and long-term viability, companies need to build on any existing reactive product safety capabilities to implement a proactive product safety strategy and provide the much needed “proof of absence.” Proactive product safety will not only protect their products but will also reduce non-value-adding costs and improve profitability.
Reactive Product Safety Approaches
A core component of an effective reactive product safety approach is bi-directional lot control and track-and-trace capabilities. To meet ever-shrinking recall response mandates, the lot and sub-lot track-and-trace feature must be integrated into every material movement, product production, packaging, and distribution process.
Whenever manual or document-based lot track-and-trace is used, the time, risks, and cost to respond is increased. With every additional hour required to respond, the cost of a recall is increased and the risk to the company and its brand are increased. With an effective lot track-and-trace feature available, companies can leverage such capabilities to more actively ensure product safety and protect brand and company image.
No response to “Food and Drug Safety: Prevention Better Than Cure (For Sure) – Part 2”
Post a Comment