Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

FSSC 22000: Food Safety System Certification scheme


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,417 posts
  • 1039 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 05 March 2009 - 08:51 PM

Source: http://www.fssc22000.com

Gorinchem, 4 March 2009 - The Foundation for Food Safety Certification has launched the website www.fssc22000.com. On this website you will find information of FSSC 22000, the ISO 22000 and PAS 220 certification scheme for food safety systems of food manufacturers. On short term the scheme documents will be available on the website.

The scheme is submitted to the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) to be benchmarked and approved. It is possible that after publishing the scheme there will be some changes because of the GFSI benchmark and approval.

FSSC 22000 contains a complete certification scheme for Food Safety Systems based on the food safety management standard ISO 22000: 2005 ‘Requirements for any organization in the food chain’ and the publicly available specification for Prerequisite programs on food safety for food manufacturing, BSI-PAS 220: 2008. The scheme is using existing standards for certification (ISO 22000, PAS 220 and ISO 22003) and the certification will be accredited under the standard ISO guide 65 (process certification). Manufacturers already certified against ISO 22000 will only need an additional review against the PAS 220 to meet this certification scheme.

The scheme is intended for the certification of manufacturing and processing of food ingredients and food products. The requirements and regulations of FSSC 22000 are described in four separate Parts:

Part I contains the requirements of the food safety system and guidance on how to apply for
certification

Part II the requirements for providing certification, including the regulation for the CB’s and
for the harmonization committee

Part III the requirements for providing accreditation including the regulation for the AB’s

Part IV the regulations for the Board of Stakeholders

The Foundation for Food Safety Certification retains the ownership and the copyright and the license agreements for certification bodies. Certification bodies wanting to apply for delivering certification audits against the scheme can contact the Foundation for further information.


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3314 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 05 March 2009 - 09:27 PM

Dear Simon,

Very well spotted !

I think Ill wait for the FAS version (Freely ....)

Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 Biss

Biss

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 138 posts
  • 10 thanks
1
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:13 AM

Hi,

thanks for the very useful information


  • 0
Biss

#4 a_andhika

a_andhika

    Generally Recognized As Sane

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 338 posts
  • 5 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Island of JaVa
  • Interests:Manga, Comics, Anime, Epic & High-tech Movies, Video Games, and CSI stuffs

Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:29 AM

Dear Simon,

Thanks for the info. Although I think the "only need an additional review" is may become a quite big only....


Regards,


Arya


  • 0
IF
safety and quality means perfection
AND
nobody's perfect
THEN
why should I bother?

#5 Suzuki

Suzuki

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 76 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 07 March 2009 - 02:46 AM

I must congratulate CIAA especially Cor Groenveld and gang for giving an insight of what PRPs are and how these can support clause 7.2.3 of the ISO 22K standard. Nevertheless, PAS 220:2008 is merely an extended elaboration of clause 7.2.3 and I wonder if it is worth the value paying for the "publicly available specification" when these general PRPs are indeed already freely and publicly available in Codex under CAC-RCP 1-1969.

While it is good for those who are new to food safety, the list of PRPs indicated in PAS 220 is not exhaustive and cannot be prescriptive as if these are not universal to fit all types of food process environment due to the dynamic nature and circumstance.

As a next step CIAA initiated the development of a certification scheme for food safety systems of food manufacturers that incorporates the standards ISO 22000, BSI-PAS 220 and guidance on the application of ISO 22000, ISO/TS 22004


- However, the attempt to make it "more" internationally recognized is sadly some what watered down. It seems to me as an attempt by GFSI / CIAA to "recognize" ISO 22K without losing "face" and hence all the niceties. Furthermore, Certification is performed by "selected" CBs approved by FSSC. Is this an attempt to "re-certify" an existing ISO certification already accredited to IAF.

The aim of this scheme is to harmonize the certification requirements and methods for food safety systems in the food chain and to ensure the issue of trustworthy food safety certificates that are comparable as regards content and scope.


- Sadly, IMO all food safety certifications may be considered untrustworthy unless subject to evidences available (by various means) to justify that implementations as intended had been effectively carried and the intended food safety objectives adequately achieved.

Frankly, I do not buy this nonsense of "showcasing" PAS 220 as a "must-have" set of PRPs to achieve some degree of harmonization before ISO 22K is deem comparable with the "private standards" generally those recognized by GFSI. It just seems so snobbish!

Edited by Suzuki, 07 March 2009 - 09:05 AM.

  • 0

#6 joyfranks

joyfranks

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Global

Posted 09 March 2009 - 10:28 PM

Hi Everyone,

I know there is some concern out there about this FSSC scheme, but the aim is only to have a fully international standard scheme that meets GFSI requirements and therefore the retailers, it has been well recieved by most of the industry, as a member of the GFSI technical commitee and of the steering commitee developing the FSSC scheme I hope this will be a managment system alternative to the more inspection based standards, the PAS will become and ISO in the near future and I understand the concerns on the cost, but dont knock it until you have read it, ISO 22000 asked of you to considered the PRPS under 7.2 as part of an ISO 22000 audit you will be asked for evidence on HOW they have been considered, PAS 220 then gives descriptive details of what is required. Many companies have fell short of information when asked how have they considered for example the building and infrastruture only to find none of this has been included in hazard analysis and therefore not considered !. On the note of selected CB's, this is no difference from the approach BRC/IFS etc have when CB's have to apply to join and meet the rules of the scheme. Its your choice but this is the way forward to truly an international scheme for food manufacturing safety :)

If anyone whats more information, I am very happy to provide if you e mail me.

Thanks

Joy


  • 0
Joy Elizabeth Franks

#7 Suzuki

Suzuki

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 76 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:42 AM

Many companies have fell short of information when asked how have they considered for example the building and infrastruture only to find none of this has been included in hazard analysis and therefore not considered !.

I have indeed read the PAS 220-2008 and found it absolutely unnecessary when the guidelines given by the trusted CAC-RCP 1-1969 is already good enough to deal with various dynamic food process environment and circumstances. For your information, hazard analysis is performed to analyse risks / hazards on the process flow(s) to determine the HACCP and OPRP Plans while the PRPs (infrastructures and maintenances) under Clause 7.2 is determined based on their suitabilities relative to the process type / process environment using risk assessment approach (rather than a mechanical checklist). The guidelines given by the trusted CAC-RCP 1-1969 Rev. 4 2003 is already adequately comprehensive and applied world wide.

I hope this will be a managment system alternative to the more inspection based standards, the PAS will become and ISO in the near future

ISO 22K is already based on a management system approach while BRC/IFS remains a product certification system. So frankly, I do not see the need for PAS 220-2008 to tell us what else to do and I consider it purely a waste of unnecessary money and a wasteful attempt to re-invent the wheels when ISO 22K in itself is already good enough, if not more intensive than those systems recognized by GFSI (you cannot make a general statement about ISO 22K - its all in the individual system preparation, implementation and application).

In my numerous years of exposures to Food Safety Systems certificated under BRC / Codex-HACCP / ISO 22K - none is perfect unless continuously improved and managed intensively as intended with a view to achievable FSO / ALOP / TLR (I have seen Codex-HACCP Systems set up and operated (especially in NZ and Australia) better than BRC or ISO 22K FSMS)

IMO, PAS 220 is not offering the industry any thing new.
  • 0

#8 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,417 posts
  • 1039 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 22 March 2009 - 08:35 PM

IMO, PAS 220 is not offering the industry any thing new.

Maybe not Suzuki, but in my opinion I find anything that helps users practically to be of benefit.
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3314 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:33 AM

Dear Suzuki,

I agree with almost all the principles of yr comments however I think you overestimate the capability of companies just entering the certification “game”. Things like ISO 22000 probably represent an absolute maze; for example, just compare the ISO text to the Codex document you mention. I blame this 100% on ISO / the intelligibility of its issued standard, not the capability of the user. I am happy for all the consultancies who make a living (and provide substantial employment ) out of such knowledge limitations but, strictly, this function should be more of an optional add-on IMO, not a virtual necessity.

Sadly, I consider BRC is now becoming similarly incomprehensible (the original versions were not too bad ) as it strives for continual improvement (= maximum back coverage.) I’m not quite sure how one quantifies objections like this within the overall GFSI scheme, perhaps a terminology dictionary like the Praxiom website but improved (and free!) should be made available. Such “translation” accessories do freely exist for various ISO standards, eg 9000, 1400 (and to a lesser extent for ISO 22000 but not AFAIK in English) but, surprise, surprise, not to a comparable extent for the BRC, IFS families I think. SQF is a possible exception in that it’s menu appeared much more user-friendly to me (from memory).

As a result I so far have mixed feelings about the PAS project. If it can simplify / clarify material which IMO still remains obscure (4 yrs on) maybe it has some justification but, as illustrated in yr posted example, original textual defects which it particularly relates to should hv been long clarified already (at no [further] charge !). ISO 22004 only half-way meets such objectives IMO though it's a lot better than nothing.

I can’t help wondering when BRC will include a requirement for defining OPRPs also (ie when is a PRP not a PRP ?? :biggrin: ). And if PAS are then able to offer a comprehensible explanation of this as well, then I think they may yet have a winner.

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users