22 replies to this topic

[Charles Chew]

Currently, lots of auditors are scrambling to get themselves converted for probably a very rewarding time ahead as the new food safety standard become more visible as we more forward.

As ISO 22003 is not officially out, the issue here is whether conversion courses base on the interpretation of ISO 22000 without the guide of ISO 22003 is correct or acceptable. Personally, I can accept the appointment of a BRC or ISF Food Auditor (who has undergone the conversion course) but can we really rely on a "converted" QMS Auditor (who has no knowledge of ISO 15161) to perfom an audit on a FSMS.

IMO, the current auditor conversion programme has serious impact on team members who maintain an ISO 22000 FSMS in their organizations. Because ISO 22K is a new international standard, it is necessary to insist on the CV of the auditor you wish to engage. Short of expectations in terms of adequate Food Audit Log under HACCP, BRC or etc (except ISO 9000 unless integrated with ISO 15161) - you should look at other viable options.

True situation - A CB approached us once about providing certification service under the ISO 22000 UKAS Pilot Scheme but when asked the auditor's qualification, they did not have it. Negotiation naturally ended.

[cottierca]

Is there a copy of the draft 22003 available anywhere?

[Charles Chew]

I have a copy of the draft ISO 22003 but I cannot post a copyrighted document on the forum.

However, if you have a need for specific information, I may be able to post it on the forum in a different manner that would not contravene the IPR and get Saferpak into a whole lot of problems.

Cheers
Charles Chew

[APPAJI]

Dear all,
can any one let me know what has happened of ISO22003. What is this standered for?
Appaji

[Simon]

Hello Appaji,

ISO/CD TS 22003: Food safety management systems -- Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of food safety management systems.

It is under development with a publication target date of 01 September 2006.

Regards,
Simon

[Esther]

Currently, lots of auditors are scrambling to get themselves converted for probably a very rewarding time ahead as the new food safety standard become more visible as we more forward.

As ISO 22003 is not officially out, the issue here is whether conversion courses base on the interpretation of ISO 22000 without the guide of ISO 22003 is correct or acceptable. Personally, I can accept the appointment of a BRC or ISF Food Auditor (who has undergone the conversion course) but can we really rely on a "converted" QMS Auditor (who has no knowledge of ISO 15161) to perfom an audit on a FSMS.

IMO, the current auditor conversion programme has serious impact on team members who maintain an ISO 22000 FSMS in their organizations. Because ISO 22K is a new international standard, it is necessary to insist on the CV of the auditor you wish to engage. Short of expectations in terms of adequate Food Audit Log under HACCP, BRC or etc (except ISO 9000 unless integrated with ISO 15161) - you should look at other viable options.

True situation - A CB approached us once about providing certification service under the ISO 22000 UKAS Pilot Scheme but when asked the auditor's qualification, they did not have it. Negotiation naturally ended.

Hello Charleschew

I totally agree.

I would like to ask your opinion or what you would do.

Imagine you are a food consultant. You got one of the careers pointed on ISO 20003 draft. Also you got more than 2 years experience in food companies. You want to become a FSMS ( ISO 22000) auditor.

What would be the short and proper way to get that ?

- ISO 9001 auditor + ISO 15161 knowledge
- ISO 9001 auditor + BRC or IFS exam
- ISO 9001 auditor + convertion course
- a FSMS auditor will be launched after ISO 20003 ?
- any other suggestion

Thank you in advance

Any other opinions will be appreciated

Regards
Esther

[jamesgibb]

All,

I've just put a massive post in the following thread which should deal with all of the questions asked in this thread

http://www.saferpak....wtopic=4044&hl=

James

[Simon]

ISO/CD TS 22003: Food safety management systems -- Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of food safety management systems.

It is under development with a publication target date of 01 September 2006.

Does anyone know if it has been published yet? If so, how about a review?

Simon

[Esther]

Does anyone know if it has been published yet? If so, how about a review?

Simon

Dear Simon

I was talking to a CB last Friday 6 october and I was told that ISO 22003 has not been published yet.

This CB has already granted " provisional ISO 22000 certificates " to some food companies and listeneng to her, the CB seems to be very confident that there will be no so many modifications with regard to the published draft.

It is only my opinion

Regards
Esther

[Charles Chew]

" provisional ISO 22000 certificates "

Dear Esther,

If you look at James Gibb's earlier posting, you will find that under IAF (International Accreditation Forum" - a list of the registered CBs under UKAS for ISO 22K are displayed (you may check on the other ABs).

However, these are the ones who are competent to give you certification......the rest are not.

BTW, I am not from a CB but I am baffled and would like to invite that particualr CB that you spoke with and (if they are not on any of the lists) to explain to us at IFSQN forum what a "provisional ISO 22K certificate" means.

I am sure IFSQN members would find it interesting to have a debate on this subject and perhaps put an end to this matter once and for all.

BTW, any CBs can issue "provisional ISO 22K Certificates" INTERNALLY - its just that they are not officially recognised and thats the danger of being taken for a ride.

Regards
Charles

[Charles Chew]

Hi Esther

Since you have not reverted back to us on this matter, may I safely assume that you have offered your indicated CB the invitation to explain to us the meaning of "provisional ISO 22K certification" at this forum and consequently, their failure to forward their explanation on this matter do cast significant doubt on the real intention and objective of CBs offering such unconventional mode of certifications.

In conclusion (if I may), the matter of "Provisional ISO 22K Certification is therefore ill-intended.

[joyfranks]

Hi Esther

Since you have not reverted back to us on this matter, may I safely assume that you have offered your indicated CB the invitation to explain to us the meaning of "provisional ISO 22K certification" at this forum and consequently, their failure to forward their explanation on this matter do cast significant doubt on the real intention and objective of CBs offering such unconventional mode of certifications.

In conclusion (if I may), the matter of "Provisional ISO 22K Certification is therefore ill-intended.

DearAll,

As a member of the ISO 22003 commitee I have some news following a meeting to review the document last week. ISO 22003 will be published end of Feb beginning of March 2007. It was voted to accept the document by a majority of members, however there will be some changes to the draft document, namely the removal of all requirements that are covered in ISO 17021 as this will be used by accreditation bodies with the additional requirements of ISO 22003. The other key changes are regarding auditor competance and sampling of sites. As far as i am concerned CB's are either accredited or not. CB's with vast experience in management system certification will have met the requirements as stated in the draft of ISO 22003 and yes there may have to be some slight amendments once ISO 22003 is published but I dont see this as a problem for most of the experienced CB's. Provisional certification is not a term known to me. Certificates are either accredited or unaccredited, however i would avoid the unaccredited ones !!.

Regards

Joy

[wayne]

Dear Joy

It is very kind of you bringing us with the information on ISO22003 although we are looking at this issue at a different angle with a different approach.

As a layman in food safety, I don't think that CBs with vast experience in management system certification can met the requirements unless they have well equipped with experience food safety lead auditor(s) with strong food safety background. Converted auditors ( such as my engineering friend) with no food background will normally mess up the client's FSMS.

For ISO22K, it is not the size of a CB but the experience with relevant technical background of the auditor(s) counts.

Let's look at the recent UKAS pilot scheme on ISO22K (if you can recall), the delay in the announcement of CB accreditation was largely due to problems of some of the large CBs. I am sure Charles Chew & et. al. would like to make comments on this.

Regards/Wayne

[joyfranks]

Dear Joy

It is very kind of you bringing us with the information on ISO22003 although we are looking at this issue at a different angle with a different approach.

As a layman in food safety, I don't think that CBs with vast experience in management system certification can met the requirements unless they have well equipped with experience food safety lead auditor(s) with strong food safety background. Converted auditors ( such as my engineering friend) with no food background will normally mess up the client's FSMS.

For ISO22K, it is not the size of a CB but the experience with relevant technical background of the auditor(s) counts.

Let's look at the recent UKAS pilot scheme on ISO22K (if you can recall), the delay in the announcement of CB accreditation was largely due to problems of some of the large CBs. I am sure Charles Chew & et. al. would like to make comments on this.

Hi Wayne,

I dont disagree with you and what I meant by experienced CB's was refering to all standards. We would not send an auditor to do a health and safety or environmental audit unless they were fully competant and knowledge of all relevant legislation in any particular sector and its no different with ISO 22000. All our auditors are degree qualified in a food science subject plus HACCP trained plus comprehensive training in the ISO 22000 standard + exam + the requirement of sector codes that only enable them to audit in companies that they have full knowledge of the product and the processes. Your engineering friend I agree should only have scope to audit in their areas and as ISO 22000 covers non direct food chain also there may be some auditors who can only audits those sectors. A prime example of this is a chemical company wanting ISO 22000, the auditor needs to have the skills in chemical engineering processes as well and HACCP skills and knowledge of the impact of the product further down the food chain. No good sending in an auditor who has only assessed in meat factories.

Out of the 31 CB's on the UKAS pilot only 6 gained accreditation in the first batch and most of those were the CB's who have worked with food sector schemes for a long time, therefore would have had the skilled auditors. Converted auditors is not the answer and and IRCA FSMS auditor still may not make the grade to audit for a CB.

Cheers

Joy

[Charles Chew]

For ISO22K, it is not the size of a CB but the experience with relevant technical background of the auditor(s) counts.

Dear Wayne

You are absolutely right about this one. My sources indicate that most of the registered Big CBs have a VERY limited number of competent persons but make claims as if there have an abundant resource. Ofcourse, what else can it be. Currently, big CBs with a wide registered certification scope are generally under tremendous pressure from smaller CBs who specialise in Food Safety.

Companies are very sharp these days and not easily hook-wink like before. As a matter of fact, when the ISO 22003 is out before the year ends, I expect the bigger CBs to decentralise or break up their current business models of integrating Certification Services with their consultancy, training services etc.

Sit tight and just watch. Frankly, IAF is a lame duck!

CB's with vast experience in management system certification will have met the requirements as stated in the draft of ISO 22003

Dear Joy,

ISO 22000 is a very new International Standard designed for Food Safety. therefore with due respect, ALL CBs have insufficient experience in FSMS Certification.

BUT I agree that most BIG CBs have vast experience in Management System Certifications which has nothing to do with ISO 22000.

I also disagree with your comment that the Bigger CBs should have no problems meeting the requirements of ISO 22003.

As a matter of fact, the bigger CBs are the ones having problems with it and is the reason for the delay in the release thereof. It would be the big CBs who are having problems - NOT the small ones.

So I beg to differ with your opinion as the signal that you are giving may not represent the actual position of the current on-going predicament on draft ISO 22003 BUT as time is the essence, it is good for the whole industry to receive the official release of ISO 22003.

[joyfranks]

Hi Charles and Wayne,

Firstly ISO 22003 will not be out before the year end, it will be March 2007, so thats the first thing. Charles I must disagree with some of your comments. Most of the smaller food safety dedicated CB's have always performed inspection based audits and many do not operate under guide 62 or the new 17021 management system guide lines so they may have the very expereinced inspectors but not the management system assessors. I hear what you are saying, however i only know of 1 large CB that had problems so i am not sure where you information is coming from. I do not understand this debate as if you have an issue ask your CB for your auditors profile, quite easy really.If you dont like it dont use them :)

ISO 22003 requirements are no more or no less strigent than BRC, IFS, Dutch HACCP, GMP+ , SQS or any other standard out there so why so much debate on this one. Do you think the same of those standard requirements ????????

Cheers

Joy

[Simon]

Hi Charles and Wayne,

Firstly ISO 22003 will not be out before the year end, it will be March 2007, so thats the first thing. Charles I must disagree with some of your comments. Most of the smaller food safety dedicated CB's have always performed inspection based audits and many do not operate under guide 62 or the new 17021 management system guide lines so they may have the very expereinced inspectors but not the management system assessors. I hear what you are saying, however i only know of 1 large CB that had problems so i am not sure where you information is coming from. I do not understand this debate as if you have an issue ask your CB for your auditors profile, quite easy really.If you dont like it dont use them :)

ISO 22003 requirements are no more or no less strigent than BRC, IFS, Dutch HACCP, GMP+ , SQS or any other standard out there so why so much debate on this one. Do you think the same of those standard requirements ????????

Hello Charles, Wayne, Joy and all the other members of this fabulous place. I guess the vast majority of auditors are either from a purely food safety background or from and ISO management systems background. I'm sure even the great Bill Oddie would have difficulty focussing his binoculars on the 'all rounder' auditor as required by ISO 22000. A rare breed indeed. It's a steep learning curve whatever the background, but it's my guess it would be easier to convert from food safety auditor to food safety management system auditor as oppose to - from management systems auditor to food safety management systems auditor. Phew! Mind you knowing ISO standards and their want for hyperbolic terminology...

JM2PW

Regards,
Simon

[Charles Chew]

I do not understand this debate as if you have an issue ask your CB for your auditors profile, quite easy really.If you dont like it dont use them :)

Hi Joy,

I really do not have an issue with my FSMS Auditor or my CB as they are one of the 6 CBs that gained accreditation under the 1st batch of UKAS Pilot scheme and they are not what you would call a Big CB. Matter of fact, I would not go elsewhere as they have demonstrated true professionalism in all aspects.

Do not worry, we do know how to set up technical competency criteria for our evaluation selection of a Food Auditor who is registered with IRCA. And, contrary to your opinion, I am not debating with you on the issue of ISO 22000 but rather differing in opinion with your view on your forgone conclusion on the ability of the Bigger CBs in meeting the TS / ISO 22004 Guideline and more so that Management Systems and Food Safety Management Systems are totally two different systems demanding differing levels of Audit Technical abilities.

[wayne]

Hello Joy

I must stress that ISO22000 FSMs is different from other management systems. They are two different breeds with specific foci. Hence, it needs auditor(s) with the right technical background to perform the task.

Food inspectors and food auditors are two different catch of fish; it is wrong again.

ISO22003 and BRC, IFS etc are two different breeds; just like comparing an apple and an orange. It is wrong again.

Farmers like us are unique, a rare sp as Simon put it. With some respects, my engineering friend (a converted FSMS auditor) has agreed to look at the engine but NOT the potato crops out in the field nor chips in the factory. He is a great man with respects. Don't you agree Charles Chew & Simon?

Although big boys are powerful but when comes to FSMS, it is the individual auditor makes the call, NOT the CB. Please do not mess us up and send a wrong signal to our farming committee. We have already suffered enough with the GMO.


We have no problems with other breeds. We need transparency in this sector. Professional ethic is the call.

It is not a debate and we do not want to debate. However, objective evidence is needed if you want us to dance with you in harmony.

Charles Chew, I am totally in agreement with you. You have done a good job to protect our farming committee. Yes, my teacher has also told me of the lame duck. I am sitting tight and watch.

Regards/Wayne.

[joyfranks]

Dear, Wayne, Charles and all others viewing this

I really think you have got my intentions in this debate wrong, and if it is the way I have put it across I apologise, I am not replying to this from the point of a BIG CB, just as a person who along with yourselves have some experience of ISO 22000. I still have to disagree with the FSMS is different to other management systems as I believe it is not and by that I mean a management system is a management system and the individual technical area of the standard is the key. As a person in favour of intergrated management systems I believe that the core elements of any management system are the same and specific requirements are a part of any intergrated management system. You as users do not want to have 3 different manuals and 100's of procedures, at the end of the day the system is as good as the person who put it in place and the auditor should be competance and experienced in whatever the sector is.

I have met many auditors along the way, including myself (who does to proclaim to be an expert in everything) who I admire greatly either stand alone auditors or working for CB's and I just felt that this debate was on the negative side and was trying to look at the positive. There may be good and bad auditors as there are good and not so good CB's and lets not forget the accreditation bodies. At the end of the day, YOU the customers of the CB's decide and you after all have the vast experience in your field so I am not trying to undermine your comments in any way.

Kind Regards


Joy

[Charles Chew]

Dear Joy,

Given the divergence in opinions, I just like to emphasize that being a bigger CB has [NO] "added-advantage" over smaller CBs in every aspect of the industry. As a matter of fact, BIG is not necessarily a good thing and this should be the end of the subject. We chose a mid-sized CB because it could provide us specialized expertise in food safety audit. I believe our decision reflects the current market trend as Customers are now better informed.

To claim that a Management System is a Management System is not true at all but I agree that it is the individual technical area of the respective standard that makes all these individual Management System completely stand-alone in its own rights and purposes.

This is what makes ISO 14000 so admirable in every way ISO 22000 is meant to be including the other ISO series.

Codex-HACCP did not quite deliver the solution to a world of safer food but it was and still is reasonably effective albeit in competition with numerous private including a host of national standards (which sadly is creating more confusion than confidence amongst current practitioners)

I sincerely hope ISO 22000 will become the beginning of a truely global platform for safer food. The standard is new and fragile and requires the responsibility of every individual and corporate to support it - NOT abuse it because it is good business.

[wayne]

Dear Joy & Charles Chew

CBs are CBs disregarding to their sizes, they are all governed by a set of rules. No one can go above the law. Can a big boy be exception?

I am sure our saferpackers would feel 'uncomfortable' and may be ----, when the big boys say ' All management systems can be treated equally because we are special as we are big'.

Personally, I would like to see the CVs of their certified food safety auditors as an objective evidence prior to my commitment. Are any of the food business operators out in the marketplace taking this approach?

To end this thread, I have to stress here again that it is the auditor(s) (NOT a CB) who can make an impact on the system (i.e. whether the product being pushed out from the production line is safe or not). The outcome(s) of each assessment would have an impact on the lifeline of your consumer. This is what makes ISO22000 so special. This is also the centre of our argument.


Regards/Wayne

[Charles Chew]

Personally, I would like to see the CVs of their certified food safety auditors as an objective evidence prior to my commitment

Absolutely