Search
Search
On the occasion of World Food Safety Day 2025, dive into the essential decision-making process behind GFSI’s Benchmarking Requirements.
Here, the Co-Chairs of the GFSI Benchmarking and Harmonisation Working Group, Leda Touliatou, Head of Quality and Food Safety at Nestlé Purina PetCare Europe and Andrew Clarke, Senior Director Quality Assurance at Loblaw Companies Limited, discuss the scientific rigor embedded within the Requirements.
What is your personal relationship with science?
ANDREW – First and foremost, I would consider myself to be a professional scientist.
My BSc in Food Technology provided a solid foundation in the scientific principles underlying food production, preservation, quality, auditing and an understanding of HACCP, food hazard management, and a host of other disciplines.
My MSc in Food Safety Management then built upon that knowledge, allowing me to focus on the application of scientific knowledge to a greater depth.
My daily work, which also includes non-food products, involves using and adapting scientific methodologies, interpreting data, and making evidence-based decisions to ensure product safety and quality.
This approach forms the foundation which the Loblaw Quality Food Safety and Regulatory Affairs team follow for all our decision-making processes. Risk based, data driven decision-making is at the core of how we work at Loblaw Companies Limited.
Science is the lens through which I view and approach
challenges and continuous improvement initiatives.
LEDA – With over 24 years of experience delivering quality assurance, food safety, and compliance strategies and relevant initiatives at Nestlé, I would describe myself as a professional scientist with a lifelong learning mindset. My academic foundation – holding a Master’s in Chemistry and an MSc in Food Biotechnology – has provided a solid base for my work, but my curiosity and passion for understanding how science continually evolves and impacts food safety drive me forward every day.
Science is not just a profession for me – it’s a compass
that guides both strategic thinking and daily decision-making.
How does the principle of ‘science in action’ fundamentally guide the Benchmarking and Harmonisation Working Group and the development of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements?
LEDA – The principle of “science in action” is central to the mission and ongoing work of the GFSI Benchmarking Working Group.
We don’t just apply science in theory – we operationalize it through robust, dynamic benchmarking standards that reflect the most current scientific knowledge, regulatory expectations, and industry innovations.
From defining the criteria for certification programs to updating requirements based on emerging risks like antimicrobial resistance and contaminants, our approach ensures definition and continuous alignment with global best practices.
Science informs every decision we make – whether it’s developing methodologies, assessing new technologies, or addressing global disruptions like climate change.
By embedding scientific rigor throughout the benchmarking process, we enhance transparency, foster equivalence among certification schemes, and strengthen global trust in products safety.
ANDREW – Science manifests itself within evidence-based decision-making. To determine GFSI’s trajectory, input from stakeholders is collected through numerous consultations and is crucial for driving the work forward.
We cannot rely on anecdotal information, personal opinions or business objectives. Actively seeking out the latest scientific research, regulatory guidelines, and industry best practices related to food safety is the essence of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements which drive food safety programmes globally.
To ensure GFSI’s vision for Safe Food for People Everywhere, it is essential that the latest food safety issues and relevant solutions are discussed and a risk-based approach is employed to prioritise and mitigate food safety risks.
Essentially the Working Group strives to ensure that the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements are based on the best available scientific knowledge.
‘Science in Action’ is fundamental to everything we do in the Benchmarking and Harmonisation working group, it forms the bedrock upon which the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements stand.
What emerging scientific challenges or global food safety issues might be considered for incorporation into future versions of the Benchmarking Requirements?
ANDREW – Factors such as increasing demands on supply chains, technological advancements, shifting consumer preferences, emerging food safety risks, novel hazards, and the COVID-19 pandemic have collectively influenced GFSI’s Benchmarking Requirements. Despite these challenges, the food safety community has demonstrated resilience and a collaborative spirit in safeguarding the global food supply chain.
The Global Food Safety Initiative has now been in existence for 25 years, during which time the global food industry has undergone significant transformation, impacting the trajectory of GFSI’s Benchmarking Requirements.
History has shown us that such challenges will continue to exist. Proactive adaptation is required within the industry and certainly within GFSI. Climate change, for instance, is increasing the incidence of extreme weather events, and potentially exacerbating pest activity, all impactful to the food supply chain.
Rapid technological progress, such as gene editing, cellular agriculture and nanotechnology, offers both opportunities and challenges for food safety. Novel foods produced via these technologies may require the development of new risk assessment methodologies and control measures.
Emerging environmental concerns related to microplastics and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) necessitate consideration due to their potential impact on both environmental and human health.
The list goes on and on!
To ensure the continued safety and integrity of the global food supply, proactive consideration of these emerging challenges into future iterations of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements is crucial.
Mitigating these risks and fostering a culture of continuous improvement in food safety practices requires sustained collaboration among scientists, regulators, industry stakeholders, consumers, and academia, leveraging scientific research to develop sustainable and achievable solutions.
LEDA – As we look to the future, several emerging challenges demand proactive attention.
Climate change is already altering agricultural practices and increasing the spread of foodborne pathogens. The complexity of global supply chains, particularly for high-value or scarce commodities, remains a persistent traceability challenge. Additionally, growing regulatory attention on antimicrobial usage and its link to microbial resistance, require continuous updates to food safety and quality systems to ensure compliance and protect consumers and pets health.
These evolving risks underscore the importance of science-led revisions to the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements, ensuring they remain responsive, relevant, and resilient in the face of unprecedented change.
What is the single most important message you would like CEOs and Board-level executives in the food industry to take away regarding the role of science in the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements and its impact on their business?
LEDA – The most critical message for CEOs and Board-level executives is this: the scientific foundation embedded in the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements is a strategic asset. Science is the backbone that enables us to proactively manage risks, ensure operational efficiency, and protect brand equity.
Certification audits should be seen as a strategic tool that drives continuous improvement and safeguards the future of the business.
In today’s volatile landscape, a single food safety incident – often preventable with scientific rigor – can erode consumer trust and cause irreparable damage.
By investing in science-based food safety systems and fostering a mature food safety culture end-to-end, executives can lead with confidence, knowing they are building a resilient, sustainable, and trusted organization.
ANDREW – The emergence of Food Safety Culture in recent years has been essential to progress ownership of food safety broadly across businesses. The reality is food safety culture is not a new initiative or programme to be managed: food safety behaviours have always been present within every food business – whether they are mature is another matter. The most significant change is the understanding the importance of shared values, beliefs and norms that influence the mindset and behaviours towards food safety, with this now being discussed more broadly within the industry.
CEOs and Board level executives are gaining a greater understanding of their role in owning and influencing food safety, which is a significant step in the right direction.
A key takeaway for leadership is how the scientific backbone of GFSI Benchmarking Requirements empowers businesses to proactively address existing and emerging food safety risks, cultivating a robust culture of continuous improvement.
Significant food safety outbreaks are often due to loss of control or failure of understanding of food safety hazards. The industry is very aware that a single, scientifically preventable outbreak can decimate brand trust and result in catastrophic issues including a loss of lives.
Fundamentally the process of certification audits is not merely a compliance exercise, but a strategic imperative that directly safeguards brand equity, ensures long-term market access, and drives operational efficiencies.
CEOs and Board-level executives must recognise that the scientific foundation of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements is not a mere cost of doing business, but a strategic asset that drives long- term value creation.
By embracing a science-based approach to food safety with appropriate resourcing, companies can protect their brand, secure market access, and enhance operational efficiency, ultimately ensuring the sustainability and success of their business through consistently supplying safe food.
