Many thanks for this clarifications.
I am quite fustrated and discouraged these days as my head of department (who is a quality manager and I am a quality officer) doesnot seem to undertand ISO 22000 principles. She is stuck only to few clauses and doesnot progress (no continual improvement)!. We get many issues regarding this during audits. I can't reply because she always disagree with me.
I do a lot of research concerning different requirements for my knowledge and then try to apply them in context of feed safety:-)
Thanks guys for your support!
I daresay yr QM had limited iso background prior iso22000 which was same case for me. Result is a tendency while reading the standard to be continually thinking “what the heck does that mean ?”. If familiar with iso 9001, the basic approach is much easier to follow; from my experience anyway. (As illustrated in the cross-matrices within the iso22000 standard)
In comparison BRC/SQF’s format makes it easier (in principle) to pinpoint an omission, eg “you’ve forgotten to respond to para. A.x.y”. > less chance of argument. (I am generalizing a bit since BRC/SQF also have their ambiguities but they tend to be more well defined/workable around. And some official guidelines are available, albeit often at a cost for BRC).
On the other hand, people who persevere with ISO-FSSC22000, I think, find that (so far) less re-thinking/re-writing is involved over time, eg every 2 years. One benefit of ISO’s generic concept (+ ISO's own reluctance to change). And particularly so for FSSC22000 perhaps in view of its GFSI benchmarked capability.
Swings and roundabouts.
Rgds / Charles.C