9 replies to this topic

[RRF]

If you manufacture RTE Foods, is it better to be SQF certified vs. BRC based on the products we would produce? Is there a pro or con to doing 1 or the other?

[Lanser]

We produce RTE vegetarian snack foods and use BRC seems to work well  no real experiance of SQF so can't really comment.

 

There have been a couple of other threads on here that ask the same question with out coming to a conclusive answer.

[RRF]

I had heard that BRC is more geared towards the Baking sector but I do not know if that is true.

 

We would be producing RTE meat and poultry products.

[Charles.C]

I had heard that BRC is more geared towards the Baking sector but I do not know if that is true.

 

We would be producing RTE meat and poultry products.

 

Is USDA certified not trusted by customers ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Pizza&Sandwich]

Is USDA certified not trusted by customers ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

USDA doesn't really certify. Ours pops in and out on days that we're producing USDA product. The USDA is not a 3rd party either. The company pays for the inspection service.

[Slab]

Food safety whether RTE or raw is statutory regulation.  Nothing trumps that for a company to legally operate under commerce.  The point of GFSI is to coalesce regional/global regulation unto a "law of the day" so to speak that exceeds said regulation to cover gaps and give the warm and fuzzies to corporate law limiting liability.   

And... The USDC, USDA, USFDA, are indeed certifying bodies, as are many state and municipal authorities.  

 

Having said that, what 3rd party scheme is right for you?  It really depends on your company, structure, market and goods.

[S Maddux]

My plant produces RTE meats, all kinds, and we went with BRC. When we researched SQF and BRC it seemed to us that BRC gave just a little more wiggle room. Don't get me wrong, it isn't easy with either. A lot of our customers are SQF, some like it and some wish they would have went with BRC.

[SQFconsultant]

BRC and SQF are basically the same and both are acceptable by almost 100% of customers. Many times this is dictated by customers of companies because they want one over the other. Since we work with companies that are in process to SQF and BRC or are already certified on one or the other (or both) we find that SQF is the best if you as the supplier are allowed to make that decision.  We find in our consulting business that most USA based companies do not want to have British Real Consortium designations and I don't know who came out some time back and said BRC was easier to put together and roll out and then maintain - most I know find BRC more difficult than SQF.

[Charles.C]

Dear GOC,

 

Thks yr input. In Europe,I would be tempted to equate customers with their location. In USA no idea, I seem to remember certain key "sponsor" factions are also involved, Walmart and the like.

 

most I know find BRC more difficult than SQF.

 

 

Interesting comment but rather begs the question, ie  Why ?

 

Personally i find 4 especially irritating BRC quirks are significant obscurity of text, irrelevance to safety ( inevitable links to "diligence"), ubiquitous insertion of risk assessment, cost. For a food safety "beginner", some of the text is surely almost incomprehensible.

But IMO BRC does well on general technical validity and willingness (albeit pedestrian) to discuss criticisms / modify "errors".

It has sadly IMO evolved from its safety-driven original form (which even included "best practices" in the auditable format !)  into a full-blown business model, eg its Guideline series.

It does seem to me to have generated less fundamental user criticisms, eg relating to audits, on this forum compared to SQF.

 

 

Not myself a user but  SQF is admirably free and generally uses more direct English in its text. It also offers amazingly generous Guideline documents. However it is demonstrably (ie on this forum) unsound/inconsistent  in its handling of certain fundamental safety aspects, both in the Code and Guidance documents.  And despite the use of more clear language it contains a variety of significant ambiguities. Several of the preceding criticisms are clearly scheduled to exist in perpetuity.

It's inclusion of level3 is IMO a significant detriment to a focus on safety.

Based on this forum, there is a feeling (to me) that audits for SQF are likely to be more unpredictable than BRC due to the forementioned ambiguities (both in auditor / auditee)

I am still wondering who actually is responsible for the Code content ?

 

I can understand a newcomer finding SQF more straightforward / easier to get going on than BRC. If it ironed out some of it's technical discrepancies i would probably prefer it also but .......

 

Then again, many QA people have no say in the decision anyway ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Cravin' Cajun?]

We manufacture a RTE product and decided to go with the BRC auditing scheme...not easy by any means, but seems to work well for our purposes.