Standardized Food Industry Questionnaire Project Leader: Patricia Verhoeven Cerebos Foods

1
(No Transcript)
2
Standardized Food Industry Questionnaire Project
Leader Patricia Verhoeven Cerebos Foods

• Core Team
• Gemma McKellar - George Weston Foods
• Helen Barber - Heinz
• Jo Jeffery - General Mills
• Julie Newlands - Unilever
• Kevin Byron - Greens Foods Ltd
• Extended Team
• Toni Howard / Arthur Beaman - Griffins Foods (NZ)
• Steve Newton - Metcash
• Teresa Dixon - Peters Browne

3
Standardized Food Industry Questionnaire

• Objective
• Develop a standardised food industry
  questionnaire
• Acceptable to food companies and their suppliers
• Elicits information consistent with regulatory
  and consumer information requirements

4
Methodology

• Stakeholders engaged
• Survey No.1 - 368 food business ANZ Feb / March
  05
• Collation and analysis of survey results April
  2005
• Review of existing industry questionnaires May /
  June 2005
• Framework detailed and agreed June 2005
• Uniform Supplier Questionnaire drafted July /
  August 2005 .

5
Methodology

• Commenced user guide Sept 05
• Presented to AFGC Allergen Forum Nov 05
• Stakeholders engaged Survey No. 2 Nov 05
• Collation Analysis Results Jan 06
• Amendments to questionnaire Feb 06
• Consultation mechanisms

6
Survey No.1 Highlights

• Aim - Seek stakeholder views on a standardized
  questionnaire, its contents and their current
  practice
• 38 response rate ANZ (n140)
• 79 have their own questionnaires which contain a
  section on allergens
• 60 provided a copy of their questionnaire
• 71 interested in adopting a uniform
  questionnaire

7
Survey No.1 Highlights

• 55 interested in reviewing or piloting
• 59 always required a supplier to fill in their
  questionnaire. Further 21 sometimes required
  supplier to fill in
• 39 were asking for ?50 questionnaires to be
  completed by their suppliers / year.
• 52 said on average took 2 or more weeks to get
  questionnaires returned from suppliers.
• 20 said on average they are following up more
  than 50 of time

8
Survey No.1 Highlights

• 90 said also receive requests from customers to
  complete questionnaires
• 26 receiving more than 50 questionnaires per
  year from customers.
• 83 wanted to complete electronically with 11
  wanting to complete by hand. 74 preferred to
  return by email
• Clear feedback on design elements check boxes,
  yes / no responses, limit pages, consistent
  phrasing questions

9
Survey No.1 Highlights
10
Survey No.1 Highlights

• Key Outcomes
• Support for the project concept
• Feedback on the content required
• Formatting feedback

11
Questionnaire Framework

• Product Contact Details
• Product Ingredient Information
• Allergen Compositional Information
• Nutrition Dietary Suitability Information
• Foods Requiring Pre Market Clearance
• Preparation, Storage, Packaging Coding
  Information
• Specifications
• Additional Information
• Outside Scope
• Quality Systems / Supplier Vendor Assurance
  Information

12
Survey No.2 - Highlights

• Aim Seek stakeholder comments on the draft
  Product Information Form (PIF)
• 11.5 response rate ANZ (n42)
• Factors influencing response rate
• Time of year
• 2 surveys sent simultaneously
• Website access difficulties

13
Survey No.2 - Highlights
14
Survey No.2 - Highlights
15
Survey No.2 - Highlights
16
Survey No.2 - Highlights
17
Survey No.2 - Highlights
18
Survey No.2 - Highlights
19
Survey No.2 - Highlights
20
Survey No.2 - Highlights
21
Survey No.2 - Highlights
22
Survey No.2 - Highlights
23
Survey No.2 - Highlights
24
Survey No 2. - Feedback

• Feedback where No Action Taken
• Additions out of scope
• Requests to remove mandatory requirements
• Requests to provide further commentary
• Requests for additional foods or nutrients
  already covered.
• Feedback resulting in Minor Changes
• Formatting issues/grammar punctuation
• Unbolding particular nutrients
• Changes to Headings
• Clarification of meanings
• Minor deletions additions

25
Survey No 2. - Feedback

• Sections to Rework
• Supplier Certification statement
• Allergen Compositional Sections 3.3 - 3.7
• Genetic Modification Section
• Deletions
• Number of fields within
• Section 2 Product Ingredient information
• Section 6 Preparation and Coding information
• Section 5 Foods Requiring Pre Market clearance
• Not Changed
• Request for protein levels when allergen
  derivatives are present

26
Challenges

• Specialised requirements of some sectors
• Industry wants versus size of document
• Allergen information going beyond a yes / no
  response
• Industry adoption

27
Benefits

• Fill in once versus varying formats from varying
  suppliers and customers
• More consistent information / less follow up
• Faster turn around times for information
• Better management of information updates
• Customise via Section 8
• Key elements for success
• Industry Co-operation flexibility

28
Next Steps

• Endorsement by AFGC (Feb 06)
• Launch load document onto Allergen Bureau
  website (Mar 06 target)
• Complete User Guide (May 06 target)

29
Questions

• ???????????