Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014

Rijswijk (The Netherlands), October 2015

INDEX 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3

2

EARLY WARNING AND FEED SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .......................... 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

3

EWS NOTIFICATIONS IN 2013-2014 ............................................................................... 7 3.1 3.2 3.3

4

EARLY W ARNING AS A CONTROL MEASURE ........................................................................ 4 EARLY W ARNING & THE GMP+ FEED CERTIFICATION SCHEME ........................................ 4 OBJECTIVE OF EWS............................................................................................................ 5 THE ROLE OF THE GMP+ PARTICIPANT .............................................................................. 5 THE ROLE OF GMP+ INTERNATIONAL AS SCHEME HOLDER .............................................. 5 THE ROLE OF THE CERTIFICATION BODY ............................................................................ 6 LEARNING FROM EWS NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 6

STATISTICS .......................................................................................................................... 7 FEED SAFETY ISSUES REPORTED....................................................................................... 8 PRODUCTS INVOLVED IN EWS ............................................................................................ 9

FOCUS ON FEED SAFETY ISSUES IN FEED MATERIALS ....................................... 10 4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.1 Mycotoxins ................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Pesticides ..................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.3 Dioxins/PCBs............................................................................................................... 13 4.1.4 Furazolidon .................................................................................................................. 13 4.2 INVOLVED COUNTRIES ....................................................................................................... 14 4.3 SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION .......................................................................................... 15

5

EWS NOTIFICATIONS COMPARED TO RASFF NOTIFICATIONS ............................ 16

6

LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................................... 18 6.1 IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOWING THE AFLATOXIN B1 INCIDENT 2013 .................................... 18 6.1.1 EWS notification .......................................................................................................... 18 6.1.2 Communication ........................................................................................................... 19 6.1.3 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOWING THE FURAZOLIDON INCIDENT 2014 .................................... 19 6.2.1 Recognition and control of feed safety .................................................................... 19 6.2.2 Auditing and certification process............................................................................. 20 6.2.3 Supervision .................................................................................................................. 21

7

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 22

ANNEX 1 OVERVIEW OF EWS ALERT PUBLICATIONS 2013 .......................................... 23 ANNEX 2 OVERVIEW OF EWS ALERT PUBLICATIONS 2014 .......................................... 24

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

2/24 GMP+ International

1 INTRODUCTION Throughout the year, GMP+ International receives reports or signals about unsafe situations or feed materials posing a threat to feed safety. Reporting about these irregularities is important. It enables to act swiftly and, when necessary, helps to inform other involved parties about possible threats or risks. The Early Warning System (EWS) is therefore an important element of a feed safety management system like GMP+ FSA. Depending on the (potential) impact on feed safety, these signals are investigated and can lead to temporary or structural measures. Hence, EWS contributes to risk management improvement, the prevention of incidents and crises to occur or allows to tackle incidents and crises at an early stage. Evaluating incidents and lessons learned from EWS cases help to improve the risk approach in the GMP+ FSA module. Various EWS notifications in 2013 and 2014 led to new insights and have resulted to changes in the requirements for GMP+ FSA certification scheme. Involved parties were informed about adjustments or (temporary) measures at any time. For example tighter monitoring requirements for Aflatoxin B1 and stricter obligations to report irregularities to GMP+ International. An overview of EWS notifications provides insight in the dynamics in feed safety issues and risk management. The causes, the occurrence, the sources and appropriate measures. This report provides information about EWS notifications in the years 2013 and 2014, the lessons learned and how GMP+ International is continuously updating and improving its certification scheme through advancing insight as a result of these cases. We trust that this publication contributes to the awareness of our participants and other stakeholders as well. For the benefit of feed safety. The report starts with a general description about the contribution of EWS to feed safety management, the EWS procedures and the role of the different stakeholders. In chapter 3 we provide an overview of all notifications in 2013 and 2014. Chapter 4 zooms in on feed safety issues in feed materials, being the product type with the most irregularities. To benchmark our experiences and observations, chapter 5 gives a comparison of our EWS to the European RASFF system and shows the similarities and differences. Lessons learned are written in chapter 6. Chapter 7 finalizes with conclusions.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

3/24 GMP+ International

2 Early Warning and Feed Safety Management Systems 2.1

Early Warning as a control measure

A feed safety certification scheme has three main components: the normative references, the rules of certification, and the assurance & corrective action tools.  The normative references determine what is considered as a safe product for animal consumption.  The rules of certification are about the certification process for companies obtaining a certificate against the involved certification scheme, which the certification bodies have to apply and comply with.  The assurance & corrective action tools are the instruments and procedures, certified companies have to apply in the daily business operations. These tools are focused on preventive actions and measurements to avoid contamination. The starting point to control potential risks is the application of a prerequisite program to assure a basic level of control. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) approach is important to identify in advance the remaining risks in the process and operations and to determine appropriate control measures, as well as a monitoring plan. Sourced ingredients also can form a risk. For feed safety, control of the supply chain is relevant, which is followed in the GMP+ Feed Safety Assurance certification. The application of a feed safety management system makes it possible to consistently integrate control measures and a monitoring plan in the daily operations. Besides preventive measures, also corrective actions are necessary in case something goes wrong, leading to unsafe feed. In that case, it is about traceability, blocking unsafe batches of (raw materials) feed products and recall procedures. Early Warning is a corrective action to control damage but Early Warning also contributes to avoiding future risks.

2.2

Early Warning & the GMP+ Feed Certification scheme

Feed businesses must identify each point in their production process critical to feed safety. Once that is done, they must ensure that adequate control and enforcement mechanisms are put in place, and constantly update and review these safety procedures. Within the GMP+ Feed Safety Assurance (FSA) certification, the Early Warning System (EWS ) forms an important safety net, to limit the extent or reduce a (potential) issue at an early stage through adequate measures.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

4/24 GMP+ International

2.3

Objective of EWS

The objective of EWS is to notify irregularities regarding feed safety and to allow rapid response and communication on (new) hazards and risks throughout the animal feed production chain, with the aim to prevent or limit the harmful consequences for humans, animals and the environment. It is not only a matter of the primary involved company, but also of other companies (Figure 1). When a certified company determines a level of undesirable substance(s) exceeding the maximum permitted level, it is obliged to take the appropriate control and corrective measures and inform its (involved) customers. At the same time this company is obliged to notify GMP+ International as well as the involved certification body and the competent official authority if applicable. This obligation applies to all participants involved and is further explained in a decision tree (see GMP+ BA5 Minimum Requirements EWS). Although damage control is a shared responsibility, in the end it is the responsibility of each individual certified company to put this in practice taking into account the GMP+ FSA requirements. Figure 1 Roles of involved parties in EWS

2.4

The role of the GMP+ participant

The primary focus of the certified company is to trace back and forward the origin and destination of unsafe batches, to block unsafe lots of feed products, to inform involved suppliers, customers GMP+ International and the Certification Body (CB), to identify the source of contamination and investigate the cause of contamination and take corrective measures. 2.5

The role of GMP+ International as Scheme holder

GMP+ International assesses EWS notifications and, if it is necessary, alerts GMP+ FSA participants about the occurrence of a feed safety problem in the market.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

5/24 GMP+ International

If the situation is urgent and not (completely) under control, an EWS warning will be published on the GMP+ International website and participants will be alerted by email, specifying the product involved (generic name), the undesirable substance(s) and detected level(s) reported, as well as the country of origin. Details of the company involved are never published. Furthermore these warnings help participants to take appropriate measures in preventing or controlling hazards. When the situation is under control, an EWS warning can also be published to inform participants about potential risks or best practices. With this information, the companies, can take appropriate measures. 2.6

The role of the Certification Body

The primary focus of the Certification Body (CB) is to monitor the application of the appropriate actions and measures by the involved feed company. The Certification Bodies also receive EWS warnings. At this stage of the process the CB is not responsible to carry out any investigation. If after the first assessment more information is needed or an audit has to be carried out, GMP+ International will instruct the CB to carry out this audit. The aim is always to include a GMP+ auditor during these audits. Additionally GMP+ International can ask the CB to investigate or mediate with the GMP+ participant to obtain additional information about the EWS case. What is important to highlight is that – when relevant - past EWS cases will be used by CB’s during the regular audits to assess if their client (the GMP+ certified company) has properly reacted on these warnings. 2.7

Learning from EWS notifications

While EWS notifications are important for damage control, these can also contribute to avoid future risks. Firstly, it is relevant to learn about the cause and source of contaminations. That can be taken into account in risk assessments. Secondly, a complete overview enables to communicate about the effectiveness of feed safety assurance (risk communication) in daily practice. GMP+ International continuously evaluates EWS notifications. This knowledge, combined with other relevant information collected during these cases, result in improvements of the GMP+ FSA module (normative documents, Feed Support Products), the certification and compliance assessment process, risk communication and other operations. Advancing insights also affects the EWS itself. Formerly, if a case was under control by an individual company, there was no obligation to notify to GMP+ International and the certification body. Since August 1st 2014, GMP+ certified companies are obliged to notify these cases as well.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

6/24 GMP+ International

3 EWS Notifications in 2013-2014 Several feed safety issues and two serious feed safety incidents were reported in 2013 and 2014. The two serious incidents concentrated in the first quarter of 2013 (Aflatoxin B1 in maize from the Balkan region) and the Summer of 2014 (Furazolidon in soy mix, soy meal and milled grain from the Netherlands). 3.1

Statistics

Figure 2 Key facts EWS notifications 2011-2014

In 2013 and 2014, GMP+ International received respectively 62 and 74 EWS notifications. Several of these notifications (29 in 2013 and 44 in 2014) resulted in the publication of an early warning to alert other participants of the risk of a specific contaminated feed batch hence reducing the distribution of unsafe feed in the market and possibly preventing a feed safety emergency (see Annex 1 and 2 for an overview of published early warnings). A publication is done in case a situation is not under control1 or when there is a learning effect for the GMP+ participants. EWS notifications in 2013 and 2014 lead to 12 additional audits per year, to further investigate non-compliance with GMP+ FSA requirements or GMP+ BA5 requirements (EWS) or because the GMP+ participant refused to provide information. In 2013 all repeat audits involved Aflatoxin in Maize. The next year 10 audits were related to the Furazolidon incident, 1 audit involved Aflatoxin and 1 Dioxin. 1

Not under control means: - No full blocking of product/batch - Traceability is unclear, or - Cause of contamination is unknown. Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

7/24 GMP+ International

3.2

Feed Safety Issues Reported

Feed safety issues in 2013 and 2014 were dominated by: 1. mycotoxins 2. pesticides 3. dioxins/PCBs. Figure 3 Feed safety issues reported



The EWS notifications in 2013 and 2014 are dominated by mycotoxins. From the 62 EWS notification in 2013, 33 (53%) were related to mycotoxins. In 2014, 24 (32%) out of 74 EWS notifications were related to mycotoxins.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

8/24 GMP+ International

3.3

Products involved in EWS

Feed materials were mostly involved in EWS notifications; 82% of all 62 notifications in 2013 and 90% of all 74 notifications in 2014. Figure 4 Products involved in EWS

EWS by product type 56

61

4 Feed material

6

Compound feed

1

Additives 2013



4

1

0

Premixes

0

3

Former Foodstuffs

2014

More than half of the feed material notifications in 2013 were related to grains (26) and fish oil (4). In 2014, the majority of the feed material notifications reported about grains (28) and grain by-products (9)

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

9/24 GMP+ International

4 Focus on feed safety issues in feed materials 4.1

General

Between 2013 - 2014, the most important feed safety issues in feed materials were: 1. Mycotoxins (including the Aflatoxin B1 incident in 2013) 2. Pesticides 3. Dioxins/PCBs 4. Furazolidon incident (2014) Figure 5 Feed safety issues in feed materials

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

10/24 GMP+ International

4.1.1

Mycotoxins

A majority of the mycotoxin notifications in these years concerned the exceeding levels of Aflatoxin B1. Other EWS notifications involved DON & ZEA and Ergot. Figure 6 EWS notifications reported in feed materials related to mycotoxins

Afla B1:  Most notifications in 2013 were related to the incident with Aflatoxin B1 in maize (harvest 2012) from the Balkan region.  In 2014, the number of notifications decreased, however the majority (7 out of 10 notifications) was also related to maize and maize by-products from the Balkan2 region. Especially in the first half of 2014, maize from this region entered the market with GMP+ participants.  The remaining 3 notifications were related to broken maize and peanuts from Argentina and to maize from Brazil.  In 2013 and 2014, several EWS warnings were published and released by e-mail to alert other GMP+ certified companies about the possible high contamination with these mycotoxins (see Annex 2). Six EWS warnings were published and released because of the Aflatoxin B1 incident in 2013. Ergot:  The notifications in 2013 were related to triticale (harvest 2013) from Germany.  The notifications in 2014 were related to grains (wheat, triticale, rye) from Germany and France.  The notifications resulted in the publication and release of 10 EWS warnings, 2 in 2013 and 8 in 2014.

2

Hungary: maize (1) and maize gluten meal (1), Romania: maize (3), Serbia: maize (2).

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

11/24 GMP+ International

General  Weather conditions (rainfall during cultivation and harvest) in the Balkan region and specific parts in France and Germany were the main (natural) causes for fungal diseases in the crops and harvest. This explains the many mycotoxin notifications in maize and maize by-products and in grains and grain by-products in both years. 4.1.2

Pesticides

Figure 7 shows that 15 notifications were made on several pesticides, of which 80% (12) were made in 2014. Figure 7 EWS notifications reported in feed materials related to pesticides

    

Nearly all reported pesticides in 2013-2014 were detected in grains and grain by-products. The contaminated grains and grain by-products originated from Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia. The four chloropropham notifications in 2014 concerned wheat middlings (3) and wheat (1) from the Netherlands. The Tebuconazole notifications concerned spelt hulls (2) and spelt (1) from Germany. Four EWS notifications in 2014 gave reason to publish and release an EWS warning: o Chloropropham in wheat middlings from the Netherlands o Metalaxyl and thiamethoxam in organic sunflower seed expeller from Ukraine o Metalaxyl in soya fatty acids from Argentina o Profenofos and triazophos in rice bran from the Netherlands

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

12/24 GMP+ International

4.1.3

Dioxins/PCBs

On dioxins and non-dioxin-like PCBs, 13 notifications were made on diverse feed materials from diverse origins. From figure 8 can be seen that in this cause most notifications concerned dioxins. Figure 8 EWS notifications reported in feed materials related to dioxin/PCB







4.1.4

The two non-dioxin-like PCBs EWS notifications in 2013-2014 concerned fatty acids from plants in Spain (2013) and Hungary (2014). An EWS warning was published and released about the fatty acids from Spain. It remained unknown what caused the contamination and whether any more deliveries of this contaminated mixture had been made. Very diverse feed materials, such as soya extracted, fish oil, dicalcium phosphate, soya expeller, apple vinasse, sugar beet pulp pellets, palm fatty acid distillate, peas and maize, were reported informing about dioxins levels above the maximum permitted levels. The dioxins contaminations were detected in 7 different countries, including Ukraine (2), Spain (1), Poland (2), India (1), France (1), Germany (3) and Austria (1). Furazolidon

In the Summer of 2014 the incident with Furazolidon in soy mix, soy meal and milled grain occurred. The incident was serious and the consequences for the buyers significant. It once again demonstrated the importance of executing the utmost care in selling, purchasing and processing feed materials. When combining various activities (feed and bio mass) at a same site, extra care is needed. The evaluation of this incident resulted in some improvements, but was also a substantial input for the profound renewal of the integrity policy within GMP+ FSA which was running at that moment. For more details about the improvements, see chapter 5.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

13/24 GMP+ International

4.2

Involved countries

Figure 9 EWS notifications by origin of contamination

Top 3 countries of origin of contamination: • 2013: Germany (different feed materials), Serbia (maize), Romania & Serbia (maize) and Ukraine (mainly maize) • 2014: Germany (mainly grains), France (grains and grain by-products) and Netherlands (grain by-products)

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

14/24 GMP+ International

4.3

Sources of contamination

The source of the contamination of feed materials can be classified into five categories: • Natural exposure • Process aids/pesticides • Processing, chemical & microbiological • Co-mingling • Not determined Figure 10 EWS notifications by sources of contamination

   

In 2013-2014, most unsafe feed materials were contaminated due to natural exposure and during specific processing steps or it had a chemical or microbiological character. In 2014, the use of pesticides was also a main source of contamination. These concerned 15 notifications. Only few contaminations were caused by human failure (co-mingling). In some cases the source of contamination could not be determined by the involved GMP+ companies.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

15/24 GMP+ International

5 EWS notifications compared to RASFF notifications To benchmark whether our findings match other sources, we compared the EWS notifications and warnings to the notifications that were transmitted through the RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed) of the European Commission. The RASFF notifications were chosen, because an overlap is expected with the EWS notifications and warnings as a relatively high number of GMP+ participants is located in the European Union. According to the Annual Report of RASFF in 2013, from the 3,137 notifications, 272 concerned feed, which is about 8.7% of the total. This number is declining since 2011. In 2014, 309 notifications out of 3,097 notifications were linked to feed, representing 10% of the total. For the first time in several years an increase is noted compared to the previous year. Figure 11 RASFF notifications 2012-2014

Source: RASFF Annual report 2014

The RASFF figures match the EWS evaluation report of GMP+ International on the following points:  The RASFF feed notifications are dominated by feed materials. In 2013, 209 out of 272 RASFF feed notifications concerned feed materials. For 2014, this was 209 out of 309;  Also the main causes match. Mycotoxins dominated the EWS notifications as well as pathogenic micro-organism. This is also confirmed by the figures published by RASFF in 2013 and 2014. Many of the mycotoxin notifications concerned Aflatoxin B1. Another cause, although significantly less, for EWS and RASFF notifications was dioxins/PCBs (in the RASFF annual reports defined as industrial contaminants).  In 2014, the EWS and RASFF notifications concerning pesticides have increased in 2014 compared to the previous year.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

16/24 GMP+ International

Compared to the RASFF notifications however, the following differences are noted:  In 2013 and 2014, RASFF notifications were dominated by pathogenic micro-organisms. Nearly all notifications in this category concerned Salmonella. This peak in Salmonella RASFF notifications is, as expected, not seen in the EWS notifications. The obligation to notify is not applicable to GMP+ participants, because no rejection limits for individual Salmonella batches have been determined in GMP+ BA1 Specific feed safety limits. The RASFF notifications are based on national criteria or cases-by-case risk assessments.  A main cause for RASFF notification, which is not seen in the EWS notifications, relates to non-pathogenic micro-organisms, concerning mainly non-respect of the legal limits for Enterobacteriaceae in the feed legislation. To ensure the safety of the final feed, Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, GMP+ BA1 Specific feed safety limits, establish maximum permitted levels for Enterobacteriaceae, which shall be applied for the processing and placing on the market of products of animal origin used for feeding purposes.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

17/24 GMP+ International

6 Lessons learned Based on the EWS notifications received in 2013-2014, a number of issues, obstacles and observations arose, mainly during the running of the Aflatoxin B1 and Furazolidon incidents. These received close attention and resulted in several measures for improvement. Some measures were implemented on short notice, other improvements will follow at a later stage. 6.1

Improvements following the Aflatoxin B1 incident 2013

The most important perceived shortcoming to handle the Aflatoxin B1 incident was the lack of proper information exchange (see 6.1.1 and 6.1.2), and monitoring (see 6.1.3). 6.1.1

EWS notification

A weakness in the EWS procedure was detected, where there was no obligation to notify GMP+ International in cases where the company had everything under control. This kept threats and risks out of sight, frustrated a prompt and complete ex-

change of available and relevant information and prevented an early approach. Therefore it was decided to:  Adapt the stipulations regarding notification of unsafe feed (materials) including: a. information about contaminated non-GMP+ feed; b. contamination, detected during monitoring of the preliminary process (cultivation, harvest, collection, transport) under gate keeper conditions.  Establish a clear sanction (withdrawal of the certificate) for failing prompt exchange of relevant information (within 12 hours) to GMP+ International and the involved certification about delivery/distribution of unsafe lots of products. In this way GMP+ International and certification bodies can act immediately and companies provide all important information at an early stage.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

18/24 GMP+ International

6.1.2

Communication

In order to improve the communication, it was decided to:  Set up an emergency communication protocol with all feed scheme managers with bilateral mutual recognition agreements;  Establish an emergency communication procedure with the stakeholders for communication with GMP+ International’s partners in case of disturbances in the feed business. 6.1.3

Monitoring

To prevent future incidents and to identify contamination with mycotoxins in large lots of cereals, it was decided to:  Include a specific protocol for testing on Aflatoxin B1 in maize and maize products, originating from South Eastern Europe in the GMP+ FSA requirements. 6.2

Improvements following the Furazolidon incident 2014

The cause and source of the contamination with Furazolidon could not be found. Regardless of this fact, GMP+ International drew several lessons for improvement from this case and other cases. The most important changes are related to the control of feed safety by participants (see 6.2.1), the auditing and certification process (see 6.2.2) and the supervision process (see 6.2.3).

6.2.1

Recognition and control of feed safety

Livestock farmers should be able to distinguish and recognize feed produced under the GMP+ FSA certificate requirements, from other feed products easily. Therefore:  an awareness campaign was started to provide insight into what the GMP+ FSA certificate stands for and what livestock farmers should pay attention to when purchasing feed.  the (digital) exchange of information with quality systems for livestock farming was improved by including a code for scope(s) in the registration number of GMP+ certified companies, for which they are certified. This will contribute to effective inspection of the supply of feed at the livestock farm.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

19/24 GMP+ International





6.2.2

the requirements to use the GMP+ FSA logo on accompanying documents, consignments letters and invoices was tightened. Abuse related to nonGMP+ FSA worthy products, will be addressed vigorously, by making it a priority during the GMP+ audits and by imposing heavier penalties in case of abuse. a new requirement was introduced where a GMP+ FSA certified company can only deliver feed materials to a livestock farmer if they have been produced under GMP+ FSA certificate. Abuse will lead to immediate withdrawal of the GMP+ FSA certificate.

Auditing and certification process

In view of the GMP+ FSA audits, the following improvements were made:  A higher risk profile will be assigned to companies that combine feed activities with other non-feed activities (such as biomass) at the same site.  Legal arrangements have been made allowing a GMP+ auditor to inspect other business components (non-feed) in addition to the business components related to feed activities.  Minimum audit times have been increased for: o Companies with combined business activities at the same site; o Traders dealing with both GMP+ FSA as well as non-GMP+ FSA worthy feed.  Additional checks will ensure that only GMP+ FSA worthy feed materials are supplied to livestock farmers.  Cases involving risky situations will be reviewed with all certification bodies during the regular harmonization meetings.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

20/24 GMP+ International

6.2.3

Supervision

GMP+ International has worked on a profound renewal of the integrity policy. In this context, GMP+ International has reinforced its supervision of the certification process. Compliance Assessments associated with this, did not arise directly from the Furazolidon case, but should contribute to the prevention of similar incidents. Changes of the Supervision of certification include:  Improved methodology: in addition to parallel audits also o Chain oriented audits (subsequent companies in a chain) and o Retrospective analyses of performed audits will be systematically implemented  Capacity: the capacity for compliance audits will be increased in the next years by adding FTE’s to the auditor pool of GMP+ International  Tightening assessment framework performance of certification bodies.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

21/24 GMP+ International

7 Conclusions The Early Warning System is an important part of a feed safety management system like GMP+ FSA. Sharing information throughout the feed chain secures the management of current threats, risks and incidents and consequently contributes to safe feed. The facts and figures of EWS notifications in 2013 and 2014 show that the cause and source of contaminations and the origin of contaminated feed materials can vary year by year. Non manageable weather conditions during cultivation and harvest are a major factor, resulting in mycotoxins in especially maize and maize by-products. This is reflected in the number of reports, in particular Aflatoxin B1. In 2014 also pesticides in grain and grain by-products led to increased numbers of EWS notifications, mostly caused by different pesticides These contamination causes should get extra attention in monitoring plans on feed safety. In the past two years we have seen an increase in notifications compared to previous years. The extended notification obligation for GMP+ FSA certified companies will push these numbers even further in the future. Raised awareness of arising (new and known) threats and risks will contribute to a more frequent and rapid exchange of information as well. Individual EWS warnings, aggregated information in reports like this and other risk communications can and will contribute to solid risk management (monitoring and analyses). The knowledge gained by evaluating EWS notifications, combined with other relevant information leads to improvements of the GMP+ FSA module (normative documents, Feed Support Products), the certification and compliance assessment process, risk communication and other operations. In the end it will make individual companies and the feed sector as a whole more resilient to cope with everyday challenges to deliver safe feed for safe food.

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

22/24 GMP+ International

Annex 1 Overview of EWS alert publications 2013

Source: GMP+ Portal (behind the login)

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

23/24 GMP+ International

Annex 2 Overview of EWS alert publications 2014

Source: GMP+ Portal (behind the login)

Annual Report Early Warning System 2013-2014 October 2015

24/24 GMP+ International