Regulatory, customer, and industry standards require that Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) and programs must be current at all times. They also require that any changes be verified and validated. Third-party assessments provide a means of confirming compliance specific to key programs, particularly when many certification audits are being postponed or limited in scope due to COVID concerns.

Focused Activity, Desired Results

As a focused activity, third-party assessments support food safety compliance and certification and respond directly to a company’s needs:

• Third-party assessments provide more direct coverage to evaluate specific program effectiveness and allow for a more focused understanding of existing strengths and improvement areas.
• Enlisting a qualified outside firm further provides an unbiased assessment, offers an opportunity to work with local resources, and allows for a more flexible timeframe.
• The assessment typically results in a report developed by a qualified source focused on closing corrective actions.
• It minimizes the overall disruption in business compared to a full certification-level audit.

Major Program Assessments

While third-party assessments are not uncommon in the food industry, they are generally not interwoven with industry certification audits. That being said, an FSMS is comprised of major programs or sections that are prime subjects for third-party assessment, including the following.

A Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC) third-party assessment is based on a customized workplan, as well as the updated HARPC/Preventive Controls for Human or Animal Food rule. Aligning the assessment with internal audit programs supports verification by providing direct recommendations for corrections and improvements. This approach provides the following benefits:

• Assessment can be completed and delivered more directly with the Food Safety Team.
• Recommendations from findings can be more directly implemented and issues can be closed.
• Results can be verified and validated internally, providing a record of corrections to be implemented, meeting regulatory requirements, and demonstrating alignment with the internal audit program.
• The assessment provides a means to confirm timing of program updates and to determine the next scheduled assessment.

Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) compliance extends to FDA Section 117 requirements, which must be maintained under FSMA as part of the Food Safety Plan. A gap assessment of existing cGMPs confirms programs are complete and current, provides verification of updates, and validates programs are documented. Independent verification can be scheduled on a more flexible timeframe using qualified resources based on preference. Focused assessments of cGMPs provide a fresh look at programs, improvement recommendations, and direct corrective actions that are in line with the company’s internal audit processes.

Building and equipment assessments support site commissioning requirements for food and handling. Typically, building elements are not a major focus; however, assessing building and equipment is imperative, as it provides for opportunities to correct risks not always identified by the audit:

• Drills down to maintenance practices and provides a clear focus on preventive maintenance.
• Provides a perspective on physical plant processes that allows for planned improvements and hygienic design implementations.
• Ensures the integrity of physical food plant and site asset conditions.

Supplier program assessment provides a stronger level review of the organization’s suppliers. This assessment provides an opportunity to update supplier criteria and ratings and bring a pragmatic perspective for change based on qualified vs. underperforming suppliers. A clear benefit of the assessment is the ability to highlight established supplier performance in a more detailed way than is typically included in an audit to generate possible improvements.

Training should be an established food program and cGMP from the initial implementation of an FSMS. In the past, training was looked at as more casual than formal. As requirements have progressed, training has become more challenging. A focused assessment determines effectiveness and consistency of training by:

• Drilling down to job level
• Identifying alternatives to make training more effective
• Incorporating a broader level of industry observations
• Providing for planned training processes and program improvements
• Addressing culture and language barriers

Recently, KTL Principal Bill Bremer and Thomas Paraboschi, DNV GL’s Supply Chain and Digital Assurance Services Manager, joined International Food Safety & Quality Network (IFSQN) for a Food Safety Friday Webinar to discuss the benefits of increasing safety and quality through non-certification assessments. Join the replay of their conversation and learn more about this topic.