SSQA or GFSI? Experts Felix Amiri and Yves Rey Weigh in on Food Safety Strategies

Transcribed from the Eye on Food Safety Podcast

Food safety is a critical concern for companies across the supply chain, and the industry has seen the rise of two distinct approaches to ensuring safe food – SSQA (Safety, Security, and Quality Assurance) and GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative). In a recent Eye on Food Safety podcast, industry experts Amiri Amiri and Rey Rey engaged in a thought-provoking discussion with podcast host, Jennifer Crandall, that explored the unique features, benefits, and challenges of these two frameworks.

Felix Amiri, technical director of Amiri Food Industry Support Services and lead developer at the SSQA Academy, is a passionate advocate for the SSQA approach. He describes it as a “concept that provides tools, strategies, principles, and philosophical understanding for managing food systems.”

In contrast, Yves Rey, a former corporate general manager with Danone and former chairperson of the GFSI board, champions the GFSI model, which he says is an “industry-driven platform” focused on collaboration, harmonization, and communication.

While the two approaches may seem at odds, they both share the common goal of ensuring safe and high-quality food for consumers.

The essence of SSQA

At the heart of the SSQA approach is a focus on “safe food outcomes” rather than just compliance with standards.

“SSQA forces that focus on safe food. So that’s what the principles, the provisions, the strategies, the tools,” Amiri said, further emphasizing that SSQA is not a certification scheme, but rather a collaborative framework that aims to build trust and engagement between suppliers and customers.

One of the key distinguishing features of SSQA is the concept of “participatory alliance.” Amiri described this as a direct engagement and collaboration between suppliers and customers, where they work together to ensure food safety rather than relying on third-party audits and certifications. He believes this approach helps to address the “issues of distrust that GFSI and certification schemes are attempting to solve.”

The SSQA framework also strongly emphasizes the role of the consumer, or “beneficiary,” in the process.

“The beneficiary license comes here, and the fact that the third party in the SSQA arrangement when we’re when the collaborators are participating through participatory Alliance, the third party who actually issues the license, is the beneficiary, the one who is actually experiencing the product,” Amiri said.

This focus on the consumer experience and feedback is also a key differentiator.

The strength of GFSI

On the other hand, the GFSI model has gained widespread recognition and adoption within the industry. Rey emphasized that GFSI is a “CEO-led organization” that brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including retailers, manufacturers, food service operators, and certification bodies, to drive continuous improvement in food safety management systems.

One of the primary strengths of GFSI, according to Rey, is its global reach.

“More than 15,000 international food and beverage manufacturing companies have become compliant with GFSI food safety standards,” he said, noting that this global recognition has made GFSI certification a “passport to the global market.”

Additionally, Rey highlighted the role of third-party audits and certification in the GFSI framework. He said these processes provide “verification and continuous improvement,” ensuring that companies have the necessary capabilities to maintain food safety standards.

Rey used the analogy of a driver’s license.

“If you have to drive a car, you need a driving license. If you don’t have it, you cannot do it. And this is not for protecting only yourself. It is for protecting the other people that that around you,” he said.

Balancing costs and benefits

Both SSQA and GFSI have their own unique advantages and challenges when it comes to implementation. Rey acknowledges the costs associated with GFSI certification, including certification fees, audit costs, and the need for internal resources and training. However, he believes these investments are worthwhile, as they provide a “passport to the global market” and help companies comply with food regulations and anticipate government inspections.

Amiri, on the other hand, questions the reliance on third-party audits and certifications, arguing that they can create a “blind trust” and do not necessarily guarantee safe food outcomes. He believes that the SSQA approach, with its focus on participatory alliance and consumer feedback, can be a more effective way to ensure food safety.

The ongoing debate

Both frameworks offer valuable insights and approaches to addressing food safety challenges, and the industry is still grappling with finding the right balance between the two.

The conversation highlighted the need for continued dialogue and collaboration between industry experts, regulators, and consumers to find the most effective solutions for ensuring food safety.

The discussion between Amiri and Rey offered a thought-provoking exploration of the SSQA and GFSI frameworks, shedding light on their unique features, benefits, and challenges. While the two approaches may seem at odds, they both share the common goal of ensuring safe and high-quality food for consumers.

This conversation, and all the previous episodes of Eye on Food Safety with GFSR, are available for listening on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and video recordings of the live event can be viewed on demand with a Premium Subscription from GFSR.