Phone:
0086 28 87573647
+86 19150187139
The number of accredited food laboratories is steadily increasing.
Statistics show that fewer than 200 food laboratories were accredited in 2004, but by the end of 2014, this number had exceeded 900, an average annual increase of nearly 100. The growth in the number of accredited food laboratories since 2006 has been particularly rapid, primarily due to both international and domestic factors. Internationally, with my country's accession to the WTO and the increasing activity in international trade, more and more food production enterprises are focusing on the international market. This necessitates internationally recognized laboratories to issue product quality testing reports, assisting enterprises in responding to foreign technical trade measures and capturing international markets. Domestically, the frequent occurrence of food safety incidents in recent years has challenged government oversight and undermined consumer confidence, making the impartiality, testing capabilities, and qualifications of food testing laboratories a focus of public attention. Both government departments and the public hope that food laboratories can improve their management and technical capabilities, establish a fair and accurate public image, and safeguard consumers' rights, which has prompted a large number of food laboratories to apply for accreditation.
Diverse Laboratory Types
Uneven Geographical Distribution
Of the more than 900 accredited food laboratories, there are not only laboratories under various government departments, but also those affiliated with enterprises and third-party laboratories. These include approximately 230 from the inspection and quarantine system, over 130 from the disease control system, over 150 from the technical supervision system, over 200 from enterprise-affiliated laboratories, over 50 from the food and drug system, over 50 from industry testing stations, and over 70 from third-party laboratories. State-owned laboratories from the inspection and quarantine, disease control, technical supervision, food and drug systems, and industry testing stations account for about 70% of the total number of accredited food laboratories.
These laboratories have long operated within the system, with limited participation in market competition. While numerous and technically capable, they also suffer from inflexible mechanisms and weak market competitiveness. Third-party laboratories, on the other hand, have developed rapidly over the past decade, growing from nothing to a significant size. These laboratories are characterized by flexible mechanisms and a strong market competitiveness. Although fewer in number, their market share exceeds that of state-owned laboratories at the same level. On the other hand, third-party laboratories also face challenges such as a short development history, insufficient technological accumulation and talent reserves, high staff turnover, and low laboratory management levels. Meanwhile, the number of in-house first-party laboratories applying for accreditation has increased significantly in recent years. This is mainly because more and more companies are prioritizing product quality and testing, hoping that accreditation will improve the technical capabilities and management level of their internal laboratories, ensuring product quality and providing credible certification for trade.
Regarding geographical distribution, statistics show that approximately 80% of accredited food laboratories are located in large and medium-sized cities, and economically developed areas in the east and south. State-owned testing institutions are mainly concentrated in large and medium-sized cities and coastal ports, while third-party and first-party laboratories are mainly concentrated in the coastal areas of Shandong, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Pearl River Delta, where food companies are concentrated. The distribution in the central and western regions is significantly lower. The distribution of food laboratories shows a clear positive correlation with the level of local economic development and trade activity, illustrating the close relationship between food testing as a technical service industry and production and trade.
Laboratory Accreditation Applications
Broad Range of Technical Capabilities and Diverse Specialties
Generally, the technical capabilities of food laboratories are divided into two main areas: chemical and biological. The chemical field mainly includes routine physicochemical analysis, nutritional components, heavy metals, drug residues, toxins, and food packaging materials. The biological field mainly includes microorganisms and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Currently, routine physicochemical and microbiological projects account for the largest proportion of accreditation applications for food laboratories. This is because these are the most basic food inspection items, and the cost of testing instruments and reagents is relatively low, making them achievable by most food laboratories. While projects involving nutritional components, heavy metals, pesticide and veterinary drug residues, food packaging materials, and toxins require more expensive equipment and have higher initial investment, they have received increasing attention due to high social awareness and market demand in recent years. Although fewer laboratories apply for GMO projects, the number of food laboratories applying for expanded GMO coverage has been gradually increasing in recent years as GMO foods have frequently become a focus of public opinion.
Accredited Food Laboratories
Accelerated Capacity Changes
Accelerated capacity changes in food laboratories mainly refer to the institutional reforms faced by food laboratories, the accelerated revision and development of food testing standards, the rapid development of business and testing technologies in food laboratories, and increased personnel turnover.
Firstly, food laboratories face institutional reforms. According to the "Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Forwarding the Implementation Opinions of the Central Organization Department and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine on Integrating Inspection, Testing and Certification Institutions," the State Council has clearly stated that the key task of reform is to promote the integration of testing institutions within or across industries, support the separation of testing institutions from administrative departments and their transformation into enterprises, and encourage mergers and acquisitions to strengthen and expand testing institutions. It is foreseeable that in the coming years, state-owned food laboratories will face further in-depth reforms, potentially involving large-scale mergers and acquisitions, resulting in significant changes in operating mechanisms, functional positioning, and staffing, which will inevitably affect the technical capabilities of the laboratories.
Secondly, the formulation and revision of food testing standards are accelerating, with numerous changes in standards. Before the promulgation of the Food Safety Law in 2009, my country's food industry was under the long-term jurisdiction of multiple departments, resulting in a wide variety of food testing standards. Besides national standards, there were various industry standards from health, inspection and quarantine, agriculture, light industry, and commerce, as well as some local standards. These standards were under the jurisdiction of different departments, making coordination difficult. Following the promulgation of the Food Safety Law, the health department led a large-scale review and revision of existing national food standards, issuing a series of new national food safety standards as the most fundamental and authoritative standards for the food industry. The National Health and Family Planning Commission has also been committed to the integration of national food safety standards, proposing the "12th Five-Year Plan" for national food safety standards and a work plan for the integration of national food safety standards. In short, compared to other industries, the food industry's standards are currently in a period of adjustment and change.
Secondly, the business and testing technology of food laboratories are developing rapidly. In recent years, with the improvement of people's living standards, the public has become increasingly concerned about food safety issues related to their health. Frequent food safety incidents reported by the media have severely damaged consumer confidence. To curb the recurrence of food safety incidents, government departments have increased the intensity of supervision and spot checks, even mandating batch-by-batch testing in the most serious cases; in the market, food production or trading companies often require suppliers to provide quality inspection reports to reduce their own risks. All of these factors have led to a rapid increase in the workload of food testing laboratories. The increasing social demand and business volume have prompted food laboratories to compete in developing new testing technologies to expand their social reputation and influence. This has also promoted the rapid development of food testing technology, and the demand for accreditation of some non-standard methods (such as food additives, pesticide and veterinary residues, and heavy metals) is rising year by year.
Currently, the government encourages state-owned, foreign-funded, and private testing institutions to participate in market competition as equal market players. The number of government-funded testing institutions will decrease, and market-oriented operation of testing institutions is an inevitable trend. From an accreditation perspective, traditionally, laboratories with relatively stable business areas and technical personnel, and stable funding sources are often considered "good" laboratories, meaning laboratories with lower accreditation risk. However, with the market-oriented reform of testing institutions, such laboratories will become increasingly rare. As the reform of the testing industry deepens, the systemic risk of laboratory accreditation will inevitably increase, which is a problem that laboratory accreditation workers must face. So, how can we both cooperate with the policies of deepening reform in the testing industry and ensure the effectiveness of accreditation work? The author proposes three suggestions:
First, adopt an open and pragmatic attitude to carry out food laboratory accreditation work.
Currently, my country is undergoing a period of transformation. Specifically in the food testing industry, the increasing number of laboratories and the rapid changes in the capabilities of accredited laboratories have led to increasingly complex accreditation processes, posing a challenge to the effectiveness of laboratory accreditation. The deepening reforms in the testing industry have brought many new challenges to laboratory accreditation, such as the emergence of large central laboratories with multiple locations and numerous branch centers, as well as ultra-small laboratories with only a few people and a few projects, and some laboratories operating multiple systems simultaneously. This situation necessitates further improvement in accreditation procedures.
Secondly, it is crucial to understand the needs of laboratories and provide refined services to different types of laboratories under the new circumstances.
Different types of food laboratories have different needs for laboratory accreditation services due to their different positioning. For example, third-party laboratories, due to the rapid development of the testing market in recent years, often experience changes in personnel, equipment, and testing capabilities, leading to frequent applications for expansion of scope and standard changes, thus requiring timely accreditation services. To promote the healthy development of third-party laboratories, CNAS has streamlined its laboratory accreditation review and management process in recent years, striving to shorten processing times and improve the timeliness of accreditation services while maintaining high standards and strict requirements. Of course, on the other hand, some third-party laboratories have engaged in dishonest practices in their accreditation applications in order to expand their business. For example, they may apply for expanded accreditation scopes without the relevant equipment or testing experience, increasing the risk of accreditation failure. CNAS should also establish punitive measures for such dishonest behavior to prevent its spread.
Because the testing items are relatively fixed and the daily testing volume is relatively large, first-party laboratories are more focused on how to integrate their laboratory quality management system with their internal product quality control operations. At the same time, due to limited opportunities for technical exchange, first-party laboratories hope that the review panel can provide guidance on technical methods, policies and regulations, and quality control methods. In response to this situation, CNAS is actively researching and developing "Technical Guidelines for First-Party Laboratory Accreditation" to help first-party laboratories improve their quality management level.
Thirdly, it helps laboratories overcome the "bottleneck period" in the operation of their quality management systems.
According to surveys, some accredited laboratories have already undergone 2-3 cycles of review. While striving to maintain the effective operation of their existing quality management systems, they have encountered a bottleneck in their understanding of quality management systems. That is, after years of operation, their understanding of the continuous improvement and enhancement of quality management systems is still in its initial stage, and quality goals have stagnated. For example, some first-party laboratories are located in remote areas, making it difficult for their staff to receive training and professional development opportunities; some third-party laboratories are experiencing rapid business expansion, making it challenging to even complete their daily workload, and their quality management systems become perfunctory. In response to these situations, CNAS, while organizing training courses for assessors, should also consider organizing training courses for accredited laboratories, tailored to their different types. This would help laboratory technical management improve their accreditation knowledge and quality management skills, establish a platform for mutual exchange and learning among laboratories, help them overcome bottlenecks in their quality management systems as quickly as possible, and allow laboratories to truly experience the changes and benefits brought about by accreditation.
