Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Which GFSI FSMS Standard is leading the pack in your country?


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

Poll: Which GFSI FSMS Standard is leading the pack in your country? (65 member(s) have cast votes)

Which FSMS Standard is leading the pack in your country?

  1. BRC Global Standard Version 5 (17 votes [26.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.15%

  2. Dutch HACCP (Option B) (1 votes [1.54%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.54%

  3. FSSC 22000 (2 votes [3.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.08%

  4. International Food Standard Version 5 (2 votes [3.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.08%

  5. SQF 2000 Level 2 (24 votes [36.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.92%

  6. Synergy 22000 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. More than one of the above (3 votes [4.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.62%

  8. A non GFSI Standard e.g. ISO 22000 (12 votes [18.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.46%

  9. None of the above / another standard (4 votes [6.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 17 July 2010 - 02:39 PM

Please select the GFSI recognised scheme for manufacturers that is doing best in your country. It would be useful if you could comment also on your choice and your country of residence.

Thanks,
Simon


  • 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 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 17 July 2010 - 02:50 PM

Without any doubt in the UK it has to be the BRC Food Standard. On their website the BRC claim 14,000 companies operating in over 90 countries are Certified to their standards. They were the first and are the biggest pretty much the only FSMS standard for food manufacturers in the UK. I cannot see that changing. It helps to be early. The first edition of the BRC Food Stanadard was published in 1998.


  • 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 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 19 July 2010 - 04:12 PM

Dear Simon,

Just a thought -

I appreciate you were trying to ensure logical (GFSI) responses but might hv been interesting to add ISO 22000 as a specific "other"

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#4 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 469 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:25 AM

I clicked on BRC as anyone who is making for a UK retailer seems to need it as well as being a requirement for "red tractor" certification. Some older branded industries in the UK don't use it yet but they're mostly seeing the light and transferring across. I don't think BRC is perfect but I do think there are some older branded factories (confectioners, I'm talking to you) who would struggle to pass if they took it whereas the own branded factories are leading the way. Whether that's the BRC influence or the retailers influence, I suspect the latter. Having built a factory for branded foods and had to fight for every food safety decision, having that retailer pressure makes all of the difference.


  • 0

#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 20 July 2010 - 06:54 PM

We need a few more votes to make this survey statistically reliable. :rolleyes:

Please vote.


  • 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!


#6 tsmith7858

tsmith7858

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 261 posts
  • 51 thanks
9
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 21 July 2010 - 02:03 PM

We need a few more votes to make this survey statistically reliable. Posted Image

Please vote.



SQF appears to have the edge in the US but most customer are willing to accept any of the GFSI accepted. We held BRC for a specific customer and process and when we recently upgrade our exisitng ISO 22000 to FSSC 22000 that customer accepted FSSC and is letting us drop the BRC (global company and we work with both the US and UK divisions and originally needed BRC for UK product).

Another large retail chain in the US has stated they want suppliers accepted to a GFSI approved standard but did not specify which one.

I guess some people are starting to realize that GFSI benchmarked them and called them "equivalent" for a reason.
  • 0

#7 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 July 2010 - 07:07 AM

SQF appears to have the edge in the US but most customer are willing to accept any of the GFSI accepted. We held BRC for a specific customer and process and when we recently upgrade our exisitng ISO 22000 to FSSC 22000 that customer accepted FSSC and is letting us drop the BRC (global company and we work with both the US and UK divisions and originally needed BRC for UK product).

Another large retail chain in the US has stated they want suppliers accepted to a GFSI approved standard but did not specify which one.

I guess some people are starting to realize that GFSI benchmarked them and called them "equivalent" for a reason.

Hi TS, yes from my experience and from the interest in the manuals SQF is the standard of choice in the USA. It's good to hear though that GFSI standards are being accepted like for like. I think GFSI was too late for the UK. Thanks for the update.
  • 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!


#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:23 AM

Dear tsmith,

Slightly Off-topic but seemed worth a query -

SQF appears to have the edge in the US


Is there any obvious reason why ?

I wondered if it was because the English used seems more "understandable".? :biggrin:

Having just examined some of SQF 2000's content related to a running post here, it seemed incredibly full of waffle in some places. Surprised the Americans go for this style.

I suspect the real reason may be more mundane such as cost of implementation / auditing / audit frequencies / "local clout" :whistle:

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#9 tsmith7858

tsmith7858

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 261 posts
  • 51 thanks
9
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:54 AM

Dear tsmith,

Slightly Off-topic but seemed worth a query -



Is there any obvious reason why ?

I wondered if it was because the English used seems more "understandable".? Posted Image

Having just examined some of SQF 2000's content related to a running post here, it seemed incredibly full of waffle in some places. Surprised the Americans go for this style.

I suspect the real reason may be more mundane such as cost of implementation / auditing / audit frequencies / "local clout" Posted Image

Rgds / Charles.C



I don't know that there is an obvious reason why but it was picked up by Walmart and some of the other large retails at first so there was a push from them. Walmart has more recently said "any GFSI" will do but most were already on the way towards SQF.

BRC was viewed as the "UK Standard" so unless you have business in the UK it was not pushed. I think if ISO 22000 would have come out benchmarked, it would have been at the top of the list. FSSC 22000 is still to new for most.
  • 0

#10 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 27 July 2010 - 09:18 PM

I don't know that there is an obvious reason why but it was picked up by Walmart and some of the other large retails at first so there was a push from them. Walmart has more recently said "any GFSI" will do but most were already on the way towards SQF.

BRC was viewed as the "UK Standard" so unless you have business in the UK it was not pushed. I think if ISO 22000 would have come out benchmarked, it would have been at the top of the list. FSSC 22000 is still to new for most.

A standard with a title beginning with the word "British" was always going to struggle to make it on the world stage. Even though they added the word "Global" at a later date. :smile:
  • 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!


#11 QLD

QLD

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 59 posts
  • 10 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 30 December 2010 - 11:14 PM

SQF seems to edge it at the moment but BRC is becoming more popular.


Edited by QLD, 30 December 2010 - 11:14 PM.

  • 0

#12 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 January 2011 - 09:32 PM

SQF is going from strength to strength in USA/Candaa, I can see that with private communications I have with members and customers and here on the forums. I still believe FSSC 22000 will take off this year.


  • 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!


#13 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 800 posts
  • 645 thanks
80
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 04 March 2011 - 09:39 PM

We are going to pursue BRC simply because it was "recommended" by one of our third party auditors.
Wholesale bakeries and those catering to the QSR segment here in the US really have not had much impetus to decide on a standard. The main reason for that is our customers, by and large, have not required a standard. As long as you scored a "Superior" on your AIB audits, you were good to go.
With the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, it's apparent that a traditional HACCP based approach will no longer be enough. Even though BRC is HACCP based, it has a bit more "teeth" if you will, than the SQF standards.
It would be nice if there were a one size fits all standard but of course that is never going to happen.

Marshall


  • 0

#14 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,958 posts
  • 791 thanks
167
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 March 2011 - 04:09 PM

Interesting to see ISO 22000 as a front runner and the GFSI approved FSSC 22000 with no votes.

I would think that will change over the next few years ...... watch this space.


  • 0

#15 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,391 posts
  • 1018 thanks
225
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 March 2011 - 08:06 AM

Not exactly conclusive with such a small number of votes, but FSSC 22000's lack of votes is surprising to me also...and I totally agree with you it will become more widely used over the next few years. IMO.


  • 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!


#16 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 23 June 2011 - 01:37 PM

I estimate that, even in the Netherlands, BRC and IFS are bigger then Dutch HACCP option B.

A lot of smaller companies still maintain Dutch HACCP option A, which is not approved by GFSI because there is no comprehensive checklist.

I suppose BRC is still a little bigger then IFS. A lot of companies, which are exporting to both our neighbors Uk and Germany, are maintaining BRC and IFS certificate. Big business for CBs offering combined audits.


  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#17 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 22 December 2011 - 07:35 AM

In the Netherlands it is expected that the new BRC issue 6, will make organisations to switch to FSCC 22000 or IFS. Depending on the requirements in issue 6 of IFS. Issue 6 of IFS is planned to be released in January 2012. The copies of IFS issue 6, will be free of charge downoadable.


  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#18 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 December 2011 - 05:48 AM

We are recommending initial certification or upgrade to FSSC22000 but we do use some elements under BRC that are clearly functional, value-adding and relevant.


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#19 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 25 December 2011 - 05:03 AM

In the Netherlands it is expected that the new BRC issue 6, will make organisations to switch to FSCC 22000 or IFS. Depending on the requirements in issue 6 of IFS. Issue 6 of IFS is planned to be released in January 2012. The copies of IFS issue 6, will be free of charge downoadable.


Hi Madam A. D-tor,

Interesting observations.

Is this freedom to choose in yr area primarily related to most local companies having relatively little actual business to UK or pure financial desperation/anger ?

So far, business constraint seems to hv (negatively) forced the choice for many suppliers on this forum, ie UK customers simply refuse to change from BRC, despite GFSI ( overall, the receivers get no cost saving either way because they still perform their own audits anyway !).

One wonders from above comments if BRC are approaching a business "tipping" point within their desire for continuous (self?)"improvement."

Surely "GFSI" must also have a consensus opinion regarding annual-biannual changes within the individual group standards also; after all, it's their status at risk too i think ?

Is the IFS offer of free access simply an admission of lack of penetration outside home base(s) / apparent increasing global market-share of SQF (solely my own forum impression) ?

Again, my impression from viewing this forum seems to be that ISO 22000 / FSSC is utilised/ranked just like the voting in this thread. :smile: (but it is a very small, possibly biased, sample of course).

Rgds / Charles.C
  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#20 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 563 posts
  • 175 thanks
20
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:08 AM

Hi Charles,

Retailers in the Netherlands and Belgium are very pragmatic. They require a GFSI approved certificated. So this can be BRC, IFS, Dutch HACCP or FSSC 22000.
Dutch HACCP version 5 (force January 2012) will no longer be a GFSI approved scheme. This is the decision of the owners of this scheme. Back to basic for Dutch HACCP.
Producers in Netherlands/ Belgium supplying to retailers in UK are indeed forced by these retailersto have a BRC certificate. Producers supplying to German retailers are required to have IFS certificate. Producers supplying to both UK and Germany have both certificates (= very nice for CBs = more money!)

Is this freedom to choose in yr area primarily related to most local companies having relatively little actual business to UK or pure financial desperation/anger ?

So, yes, producers which only supply to Dutch or Belgium retailers have the choice for their own.
Also producers in the B2B markt can choose any GFSI approved scheme.

Is the IFS offer of free access simply an admission of lack of penetration outside home base(s) / apparent increasing global market-share of SQF (solely my own forum impression) ?


I do not know the reason. But fees rise and also the costs for the obligated annual training of auditors are higher.

From IFS Food version 6 onwards, IFS will also make the “normative” document, i.e. the actual standard text, available to all users as a free download in various languages on its new website. Also, the fee for uploading the IFS audit reports will be raised from 150 to 200 Euros - the first increase since the start of IFS in 2002


  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Thanked by 1 Member:

#21 Philip Gillen

Philip Gillen

    Philip @ Safefood 360

  • Corporate Sponsor
  • 105 posts
  • 34 thanks
15
Good

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:30 PM

Without any doubt in the UK it has to be the BRC Food Standard. On their website the BRC claim 14,000 companies operating in over 90 countries are Certified to their standards. They were the first and are the biggest pretty much the only FSMS standard for food manufacturers in the UK. I cannot see that changing. It helps to be early. The first edition of the BRC Food Stanadard was published in 1998.


FYI the top ten countries which make up 70% of the 15,294 BRC Food certified sites are;

16% UNITED KINGDOM (2494)
11% ITALY (1675)
7% UNITED STATES (1143)
7% SPAIN (1120)
7% NETHERLANDS (1110)
6% CHINA (931)
5% FRANCE (738)
4% BELGIUM (665)
3% POLAND (451)
3% GERMANY (434)

It seems the BRC may becoming the dominant standard in Italy, Spain and Holland as well. And based on our experience on the ground it is gaining considerable momentum in the US. To put it in perspective the number of BRC certified US sites has increased by 37% over the past 12 months.
  • 0

#22 Mark Munro

Mark Munro

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 5 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Scotland
    Scotland

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:49 PM

I am in the Uk and voted for the BRC. It is probably the second biggest audit we get each year, the biggest being M&S. We are a primary processor of salmon and have audits coming out our ears. A little list:

M&S
BRC
FCI &Label Rouge (comprising about 4 or 5 arranged audits a year plus an unanounce one)
Freedom Foods (animal welfare)
ISO something or other
Some audit to do with Organic foods
SSQF (a salmon qualitty scheme)
Global Gap is in there some place as well
And probably a few others that have slipped my mind.

And I am work towards getting our micro lab up to CLAS accreditation with the extra M&S requirements in it to!!!!!!!!!!


  • 0

#23 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,462 posts
  • 3246 thanks
347
Excellent

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

Posted 25 January 2012 - 05:15 AM

Dear Mark Munro,

Rather :off_topic:

Thks for the very illustrative input.

You forget to mention the skeletal work force and even smaller budget. :whistle:

I thought Global Gap was for vegetables. :unsure:

I am curious as to the extra micro. requirements for M&S, re-use Petri dishes ?

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#24 skredsfan

skredsfan

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 69 posts
  • 7 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio
  • Interests:Grilling, Sports, & Continual Education!

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:39 PM

Without any doubt in the UK it has to be the BRC Food Standard. On their website the BRC claim 14,000 companies operating in over 90 countries are Certified to their standards. They were the first and are the biggest pretty much the only FSMS standard for food manufacturers in the UK. I cannot see that changing. It helps to be early. The first edition of the BRC Food Stanadard was published in 1998.


It seems that SQF is the popular choice in the US right now. Initially we decided to move forward with SQF Certification, but have since changed directions. We decided to move forward with the FSSC 22000 Certification because it's ISO based. We're already ISO 9001 Certified, so we thought it would be a smoother transition to stay on the same course.
  • 0

#25 mesophile

mesophile

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 134 posts
  • 127 thanks
8
Neutral

  • Wales
    Wales
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Twitter @DSi77

    Chartered Scientist (CSci)
    Member of IFST (MIFST)
    Avid guitar player, dog walker and fitness trainer.
    I love reading, and learning about new fields in food science and technology.

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

Hi All,


UK = BRC (obviously, the founders of the standard)

Germany, France, Italy = IFS Food (as the retailers in these countries designed the standard as an alternative to BRC)

Holland/Netherlands = FSSC22000 (designed in the Netherlands, a combination of ISO22000 with added PRP's and some other extras)

USA = SQF (owned by an Amercian organisation - Food Marketing Institiute (FMI) who bought it from the Australians and further developed it)

GlobalGAP = Everywhere really that competes in Livestock/Agricultural/Aquacultural products apart from Canada

CanadaGAP = Massive in Canada, designed by the Canadian Horticulture Council, alernative to GlobalGAP


Thanks,


Simon


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users