22 replies to this topic

[cazyncymru]

I'm interested to see who does ISO22k instead of BRC

 

Caz x

[Mr. Incognito]

My former plant went FSSC 22000.

[RosieMolly]

We are looking at both, is one better than the other? I would appreciate any comments for and against.

[Charles.C]

We are looking at both, is one better than the other? I would appreciate any comments for and against.

Dear RosieMolly,

 

Thank you for yr query.

 

Do you have any preferred criteria for evaluating "better" ? eg Vintage, cost, type of applicable product, GFSI approval, locational acceptance [NZ?} ?

 

If not, i suggest you try reading the basic intro on the ISO website /  perhaps this comparison thread (just one amongst many possibilities).

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ard/#entry22111

 

(actually i think yr specific question has been asked before here [somewhere] )

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[dk636]

What is BRC?

[Simon]

From the BRC website

 

The BRC Global Standards are a leading global safety and quality certification programme, used throughout the world by over 17,000 certificated suppliers in 90 countries through a network of over 80 accredited and BRC recognised Certification Bodies. The BRC Global Standards are widely used by suppliers and global retailers. They facilitate standardization of quality, safety, operational criteria and manufacturers’ fulfillment of legal obligations. They also help provide protection to the consumer.

[luna_blue]

Our plant has been certified for ISO 22000 since 2010. Currently we are preparing for FSSC certification.

[Azhar Sayyed]

Nobody

[Mr. Incognito]

Seeing as this post resurfaced I am amending my previous statement with:

 

The factory I moved to went FSSC 22000.  When I asked the consultant that was helping adjust their system to meet the requirements he told me that they decided on FSSC or SQF but he figured it would be easier to get them FSSC compliant in the time frame they were looking for.

 

Honestly I haven't heard anything good about BRC however, I will admit, that everything I have heard was from an outside 3rd party that wasn't certified in it.  But because of that I would probably pitch SQF to a potential supplier because I also don't like the FSSC code that much.  I think that SQF's is easier to understand at face value.

[Snookie]

To me they are variations on a theme.  Each has its own quirks.  I am used to SQF because that is what most companies in the US are leaning to.  However it also appears that FSSC is starting to gain in popularity. 

[Simon]

ISO 22000 was first published in 2005 and in my experience never made any inroads into UK/Europe or latterly USA/Canada as they already had and/or are heading firmly down the GFSI route.  ISO 22000 did much better in other areas, but peaked a couple of years back and has started to decline.  FSSC 22000 has made ISO 22000 (base) with ISO 22003 and technical specifications for sector PRPs (add on's) more of a realistic competitor to the likes of BRC, SQF, IFS et al.  

 

I have heard that ISOTC34/SC17, the subcommittee responsible for the ISO 22000 family of FSMS standards decided to launch a Systematic Review of ISO 22000:2005 in 2014. 

[KevinB]

Seeing as this post resurfaced I am amending my previous statement with:

 

The factory I moved to went FSSC 22000.  When I asked the consultant that was helping adjust their system to meet the requirements he told me that they decided on FSSC or SQF but he figured it would be easier to get them FSSC compliant in the time frame they were looking for.

 

Honestly I haven't heard anything good about BRC however, I will admit, that everything I have heard was from an outside 3rd party that wasn't certified in it.  But because of that I would probably pitch SQF to a potential supplier because I also don't like the FSSC code that much.  I think that SQF's is easier to understand at face value.

I was SQF trained then the company was sold. our new parent company uses BRC. I agre with MerleW. SQF is much easier to follow and is more structured and contains more shalls than shoulds IMO. BRC leaves a lot more open to interpretation.

 

Kevin

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

 

I suggest ISO22000  fills a (generic) niche similar to ISO 9000 series. The (often) customer-related hole in the niche requires FSSC22000. Maybe both have a natural appeal for routine 9000 users.

 

i suspect it has by now also acquired a similar status to ISO9000.-, eg A Jack-of-All-Trades.

 

It is so far unchanged in 9 years so must be value for money.

 

It's approach  on some safety/haccp aspects is so ambiguous/flexible that any "logical" solution is likely to be auditably usable. A good feature for many users after they have absorbed their initial mystification / incredulity / wasted time.

 

The preceding confusion / generic style may make it unacceptable to many customers / locations, eg for diligence requirements.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[cazyncymru]

Well, I'm going to do my BRC for probably the last time next week. I'm disillusioned with it and feel that other schemes will be more pragmatic.

 

Caz x

[zmtomako]

I am in the food service (catering/restaurant) industry and our customers are basically the actual people that eat the food

Senior management has only heard of ISO

 

Is there actual value in getting ISO (22000 preferably)?

Alternatively, is there value in going for a GFSI (BRC) certification?

[Charles.C]

I am in the food service (catering/restaurant) industry and our customers are basically the actual people that eat the food

Senior management has only heard of ISO

 

Is there actual value in getting ISO (22000 preferably)?

Alternatively, is there value in going for a GFSI (BRC) certification?

 

Dear zmtomako,

 

Value may depend on the level  of  yr Senior Management's interest in Food Safety. ?

 

Choices of FS standard may depend on yr own / the restaurant's FS objectives. ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[zmtomako]

Sr. Mgmt wants to add value to the existing food safety program... not so much in the actual food safety aspect, but mainly to promote the brand/restaraunts

... and they have only heard of ISO

 

me on the other hand, see no true added value to either an ISO22000 nor GFSI certification besides a certificate on the wall and thousands of dollars down the drain

(seeing there is no actual customer requirement since my customers are the restaurant patrons, ie. the common joe)

 

to me, as long as I continue to be updated with the general food safety requirements and GFSI developments/requirements and incorporate into my FSQA program, its fine, no need for actual certification

 

however if sr. mgmt. pushes for a certification process, is there still value in an ISO22000 certification (since its more or less on a decline) or should I work to convince them onto moving towards a GFSI certification?

 

side question is, again, food service/restaurants, is there really a point?

[Charles.C]

Semi - 

 

and they have only heard of ISO

 

Do you mean iso9001 or iso22000 ? Or both ??

 

(I'm unsure BRC is even available for restaurants ?)

 

Please note there is no such thing as a GFSI certification. GFSI only benchmarks existing standards. This includes iso22000 inasmuch as it is a part of fssc22000.

 

One potential benefit of a benchmarked standard is it assures compliance with respect to certain FS factors. Whether yr own FSMS system does likewise i wouldn't know. Whether it needs to match all the included factors for your industry is also a subjective opinion of course. Promotional value within restaurant business I wouldn't know (i assume this is a standalone restaurant).

 

There are significant differences between all the "popular" FS standards which are discussed in numerous threads here. the most common reason for choice is dependent on customer but which i presume not relevant in yr case. very briefly, BRC is relatively abstract in comprehensibility but also relatively concise except that certain sections are irrelevant to FS, eg weight control. ISO22000 is typically generic in style as per ISO and requires you to understand a new, extended, version of  haccp. SQF is semantically simplest but occasionally simply wrong / confusing over some basic FS items. The costs of implementation also vary.

 

Above is my own opinion of course.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[KevinB]

zmtomako,

 

I had 15+ years in the restaurant industry before I switched to food processing. I have  experience with both BRC and SQF, none with ISO and I am also a  Servsafe certified  instructor and proctor.  We are currently working towards GSFI certification under the BRC platform.  I see no benefit to you from being certified to GSFI. I see a tremendous amount of benefit for you to take aspects of these systems that apply to your operation/industry and work them into your current food safety plan. There are a number of courses offered by the University of Guelph that will provide useful and valuable training for your staff and provide the requested  wall dressing certificates that sr mgt is looking for . hope this helps.

 

  https://www.uoguelph...aining-programs

 

Kevin

[Charles.C]

 

Dear Kevin,

 

If you can attach/post a copy of a (genuine) certificate for anyone/anywhere/anytime stating that the related company has "GFSI certification", you deserve a round of applause.

 

I'm curious as to the what you consider are the particular lackings in a typical GFSI recognised scheme as compared to an offering from University of Guelph (not that I have any objection to the latter, particularly in respect to its [past?] association with this, at least IMO, FS superstar -

 

http://barfblog.com/author/DougPowell/

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[KevinB]

Charles,

 

I see nothing lacking. I just do not see the ROI for this kind of establishment to be certified to the GFSI benchmark. 

 

Kevin

[Charles.C]

Hi Kevin,

 

Fair enough. I almost always get the acronyms wrong but i guess this was return on investment ?

 

Seems that yr link is broken. I tried separating it but I guess the problem is with missing text.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[KevinB]

Hi Charles,  You are correct. I was also unable to fix the link.