Guidelines for Entrepreneurs According to the Good Manufacturing Practice in Food Production : A Case Study of Samutsongkhram

Abstract

Objective: To develop guidelines for entrepreneurs based on the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for food in order to facilitate their compliance with the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health Number 420 (GMP420). Method: Fifty entrepreneurs in food production legally required to comply with the primary GMP conducted self-evaluations using the GMP420 self-evaluation form. From July 2023 to March 2024, authorities assessed production sites based on the GMP420 criteria. Subsequently, the identified “gaps” where production sites did not meet the standards were presented at a meeting among authorities as an input for developing guidelines for entrepreneurs. The researchers used the guideline to improve 25 production sites that did not meet the GMP 420 standards for 1 month. Thar authorities assessed the production sites again after implementation of the guideline.  Result: 73.47 percent of entrepreneurs assessed their own production premises with a score of 76.00–100.00 percent, while officers found that only 48.97 percent of production premises achieved the criteria of GMP420. There were two types of "gaps" where production facilities did not meet the standards. Type 1 was gap with most defects found in Section 28.2 (up to 38.78 percent). Type 2 was gap with most defects found in Section 18 (up to 59.18 percent). The study integrated information on two distinct types of "gaps" into a collaborative brainstorming session with authorities from Samutsongkhram Provincial Public Health Office to formulate guideline for entrepreneurs based on the GMP for food in order to improve the compliance to GMP420. Crucial strategy in the guideline involved documenting the production process and implementing controls to ensure compliance with the requirements. When the developed guideline was implemented by entrepreneurs for approximately one month, it was found that 21 out of 25 production premises passed the GMP420 inspection. The evaluation scores of authorities according to the GMP420 in each domain and the total scores increased significantly compared to those measured before guideline implementation (P < 0.001), except for that on domain 4 with no significant differences (P = 0.065). Domain 4 involved the production site's hygiene by inspecting its restrooms, chemicals, and the presence of animal and insect etc. Renovating these restrooms and hygiene improvement required a substantial investment of both time and financial resources. Consequently, certain entrepreneurs were not able to improve the production sites before the reinspection from authorities. Conclusion: The implementation of developed guideline was able to increase the number of production sites meeting the GMP420 standards. After the implementation of the guideline, some production sites remained unable to pass the GMP420 standards because of rather short time period in guideline implementation.