Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Decision on full GFSI recognition of FSSC 22000


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

#1 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,987 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 10 February 2010 - 11:52 AM

Just in from FSSC

Due to the severe weather conditions in Washington DC, the GFSI Board of Directors meeting which was due to take place on Friday 5th February 2010 was unfortunately cancelled. All discussion points will be postponed until the next meeting, which will be scheduled in the coming weeks. This included the review and pending decision on the full recognition of FSSC 22000. We regret this delay, but await the final decision from the GFSI Board of Directors, at their earliest convenience.


Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#2 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,403 posts
  • 1028 thanks
226
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 11 February 2010 - 02:45 PM

It's pretty much a formality I guess.


  • 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!


#3 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,987 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 February 2010 - 04:21 AM

It's pretty much a formality I guess.


I guess it is:

Attached File  FSSC_22000_Successfully_Benchmarked.pdf   64.92KB   81 downloads
  • 0

#4 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 24 February 2010 - 10:26 AM

We recently completed the documentation for several organizations seeking ISO22000 accredited certification and have included the statement confirming that PRPs were established after taking into consideration the elements of PAS220 and ISO22002-1-2009 i.e. since their additional existence given the current PRP guidelines under FAO/WHO which have been around for donkey years. The documentations were in fact established based on our own assessments w/o even looking at PAS220 and or ISO22002.

IMO, we should be guided by our own evaluations rather than a PRP checklist(s) which is pretty much what private standards or (GFSI) stand up for. I am not against this approach because I understand the concerns and onus of due diligence requirements on retailers. PAS220 and or ISO22002 should be used as a reference if needed but should not be used as a tool to differentiate between ISO22000 and FSSC22000.

I have encouraged my clients that if they so wish to go for dual Certifications, they could do so with the fullest confidence but thought it would be silly bugger to do so.

Rgds
Charles Chew


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#5 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,987 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 February 2010 - 11:21 AM

IMO, we should be guided by our own evaluations rather than a PRP checklist(s) which is pretty much what private standards or (GFSI) stand up for. I am not against this approach because I understand the concerns and onus of due diligence requirements on retailers. PAS220 and or ISO22002 should be used as a reference if needed but should not be used as a tool to differentiate between ISO22000 and FSSC22000.

Rgds
Charles Chew


Maybe some people don't have the experience and knowledge and these are useful in defining standards. I personally wouldn't go for both ISO and FSSC certification. ISO 22000 does refer to some prerequisite standards but does not necessarily prescribe them allowing you to select your own evaluation:

ISO 22000 7.2.3 When selecting and/or establishing PRP(s), the organization shall consider and utilize appropriate information including Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) principles and codes of practices.


Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#6 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:47 PM

IMO, we should be guided by our own evaluations rather than a PRP checklist(s) which is pretty much what private standards or (GFSI) stand up for.


Dear Charles Chew,

I´m not sure I´m understanding your point. PAS 220 says you can skip any requisite, but it should be justified by a hazard assesment.


"Food manufacturing operations are diverse in nature
and not all of the requirements specified in this PAS apply to an individual establishment or process.

NOTE

Where exclusions are made or alternative measures implemented, these need to be justified by a hazard assessment. Any exclusions or alternative measures adopted should not affect the ability of the organization to comply with these requirements. Examples of such exclusions include the additional aspects relevant to manufacturing operations listed under i), ii), iii), iv) and v) below."

Regards,

FSSM

  • 0

#7 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 14 March 2010 - 04:39 AM

PAS 220 says you can skip any requisite, but it should be justified by a hazard assessment.

"Food manufacturing operations are diverse in nature and not all of the requirements specified in this PAS apply to an individual establishment or process.


Dear FSSM,
Sorry for the late response. My participation in this forum is severely hampered by the lack of available time.

I agree and it is only logical to opine that suggested specifications under PAS220 or ISO22002 cannot be fully applied as it depends on the nature of the processes / characteristics of the product including other process & product parameters as these are applied to an individual establishment.

As we perform hazard analysis base on data obtained from our preliminary studies (layout design, process flow, PD, etc...), the suitability and relevancy of PRPs were/are duly considered. In this instance, we would take into account the specifications outlined under PAS220 or ISO22002 but as always purely as a point of reference.

To satisfy food auditors that specifications listed under ISO22002 had been considered since the release on 15th Dec. 2009, we have been conducting PRP Review-Audits for our clients base on such considerations as listed in the ISO/TS to determine relevancy/currency of existing PRPs and attach with justifications for any "exclusions", if any. This was done on a matrix format.

In summary, we are on the same page.

Regards
Charles Chew
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#8 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 32 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 17 March 2010 - 12:00 AM

Dear Charles Chew,

Thanks for your feedback!

Saludos,

FSSM


  • 0

#9 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,987 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 27 April 2010 - 04:31 AM

To satisfy food auditors that specifications listed under ISO22002 had been considered since the release on 15th Dec. 2009, we have been conducting PRP Review-Audits for our clients base on such considerations as listed in the ISO/TS to determine relevancy/currency of existing PRPs and attach with justifications for any "exclusions", if any. This was done on a matrix format.

Regards
Charles Chew


This seems like a logical approach. Posted Image

As ISO 22002 contains fundamental prerequisite programmes I would be interested to see some of your examples of exclusions (If you are able to share them). I can see that allergen management and rework could be irrelevant in some cases.

Regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 27 April 2010 - 04:33 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users