Quality Assurance: Future Trends in
Animal Health Certification and Auditing
Lawrence E. Miller, Senior Staff Veterinarian
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
In the past few years, discussion regarding the future importance of on-farm, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)-based quality assurance (QA) programs in livestock and poultry production has been common. In a 1995 USDA report, QA was identified as a highly valuable service the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) could provide production agriculture over the next decade. In the report, producer and practitioner leaders indicated that on-farm quality assurance (QA) and certification of quality parameters, would become increasingly important. Furthermore, APHIS was recognized as an "on-farm" Federal agency with a field force of sufficient size and geographic location to provide QA services. APHIS leadership concurrently affirmed its unique position as a federal agency to provide QA services, and indicated a willingness to assist industry in this regard.
Though the future importance of on-farm QA is clear to
industry and government, how to proceed in initiating and administering such activities at
the farm level is somewhat unclear. Discussions on the topic are populated more by
questions than answers. How will on-farm QA programs work? Will it be industry or
government that owns and manages these programs? Why have uniform national QA programs
when export requirements vary so dramatically? For what issues do we need to develop
certification versus auditing programs? How pressing are the present quality assurance
needs of producers? How many producers are likely to seek QA assistance for a given issue?
Will each QA program require a new set of standards or will they share attributes? Will
producers make more money if they receive certification? The list goes on. For QA efforts
to move forward nationally, this ambiguity must be removed.
Quality Assurance Services
Certification Defined
Regarding APHIS services to producers, on-farm QA is comprised of two activities… certification and auditing. When using the term "certification", we are referring to a process whereby a herd is conferred a status based upon the implementation of a series of Good Production Practices or other standards. Good Production Practices are the cooperatively developed uniform standards that, if applied, produce a product of known quality. Herds obtaining certification will have used the same set of standards for implementing good production practices and be uniformly evaluated... no matter where in the nation (or state, if a state program) they are located. More specifically, certification will refer to the process of verifying that a series of science-based production standards, known to result in a specific outcome, have been implemented at the farm level.
Certification standards may rely on scientifically supported criteria for status determination including analytic tests, production process controls and other quality measurement tools. Certification activities may be undertaken as part of a state, national or marketing group activity. To initiate a certification program, the sponsoring group must provide the certifying body with a program description, standards and verifiable procedures by which participants can be judged for compliance. Producer participation may be voluntary or required, depending on the certification objective. In some cases, certification may involve a company or producer group wishing to exploit a specific market niche. When voluntary niche programs evolve to become a national production norm, they may be rolled over into an on-going national program.
Auditing Defined
The term "auditing" refers to a process that transmits information within a buyer-supplier relationship. The buyer defines production specification for its suppliers, the supplier declares to have met those specifications in their production system, and a third party audits the suppliers to ensure that specifications have been met. Auditing standards are set through a process of buyer and supplier negotiations and must have characteristics that can be independently verified. No uniform national standards need be established. The audit simply determines that what the buyer expected, and the supplier provided, are one in the same, and provides a mechanism for transmission of this information within the commercial marketplace. Here, the validity of the audit only has meaning within the context of the buyer-supplier relationship. Bear in mind that the buyer may be a packer, state, supermarket chain, country, etc., and individual producers, cooperatives, networks, companies, and the U.S. pork industry the suppliers. Just as the size, scope, and distribution of buyers can be broad and variable, so can the specifications for the audits. Furthermore, the tools used to standardize and audit systems form the foundation for constructing the certification programs described earlier.
Service Components
Auditing and certification are simply tools then for establishing and verifying processes at the production unit level that build quality into animal-derived food products. In addition, both require the application of techniques that are grounded in HACCP and ISO-9000 methodologies. It is in providing auditing and certification functions that APHIS is able to assist industry in achieving QA objectives. By providing auditing and certification functions, one is providing a QA service.
Status
There has been considerable discussion regarding the future importance of on-farm, HACCP-based quality assurance programs to national food safety efforts. Although expectations and rhetoric have been high, the appearance of, and market demand for, such programs has been small. With exception of a few poultry egg quality assurance initiatives and the national trichinae herd certification pilot efforts, APHIS Area Office reports of active involvement with multiple commodity groups in developing on-farm, quality assurance initiatives are relatively few.
The implementation of the Pathogen Reduction Act of 1996 by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has substantially changed the relationships between government and the packing industry and between the packers and their suppliers. Packers will increasingly look to producer-suppliers, and the QA programs they have implemented, as a means of strengthening the overall plant HACCP plan for reducing physical hazards, chemical residues, and parasitic and microbial contamination. Additionally, market competition with other protein sources will require a mechanism for demonstrating continuous product improvement in quality and safety attributes to both domestic and international consumers. Having a successful plant HACCP program will ultimately require that the quality of process inputs be known and verified, both within and external to the processing plant. Specific quality attributes cannot be assumed, but must be described and documented. The impact of this dramatic program change is slowly working its way from the packers to producer-suppliers. It is inevitable, that packers will increasingly look to producer-suppliers, and the QA programs they have implemented, as a means of strengthening the overall plant HACCP plan.
A final QA driver is that Europeans have devoted considerable energy to developing quality systems that have raised the "quality bar" for the collective international community. Although the U.S. need not imitate these systems directly, integration of such key features as market responsiveness, strong process control, and production audits into a credible quality reporting system will be key to U.S. producer competitiveness.
Opportunities
The need for, and expectation that, QA programs be developed is not likely to diminish. Whether industry owned and operated, or industry designed and government administered, QA initiatives will require an ongoing, systematic investment of time, energy, and resources by all parties if successful programs are to be realized. Unlike regulatory programs that are traditionally hatched by State and Federal authorities with industry support, QA initiatives will be market and/or service driven and grown over time. National QA initiatives may not be conceived or implemented spontaneously, but will require the convergence of many technical, market, and partnering events over an extended time to be successful. The recent requirements by several packers that all pork producers be Pork Quality AssuranceSM Level III by January, 1999, illustrates how an accepted voluntary program, has become a means for ensuring supplier quality. The increased emphasis plant HACCP is engendering on process controls will accelerate the adoption of similar methodologies in all segments of the food chain.
As for APHIS, the ability to assist production agriculture with QA will be evolutionary in nature, dependent upon several converging events. By developing national certification programs and providing audit services for buyer-suppliers, while concurrently developing a culture that includes HACCP and ISO as a skill set among its employees, the Agency will be able to deliver industry a QA service. Whether originating at the local, state or national level, experience tells us there are two constants to all successful QA initiatives. One is that they are industry driven, and two is that they are based on trust, partnership, and cooperation between a broad base of groups and organizations. Without doubt, if these criteria are satisfied, chances are maximized for successful QA efforts.
Mailing address for this author: USDA/APHIS/DMB, 4700 River Road Suite, Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737