Many thks for this Jason
I hv never seen the IFS standard but judging from this assistance item, it may be even more obscure than BRC. Nonetheless, one has to admire their effort to explain the primary version, this is only marginally attempted by BRC on their website (I think).
I skipped the middle for fear of sleeping but did notice a few peculiarities, eg
Topic 1: Scoring a KO-requirement with N/A
Clarification:
A KO can not be scored as N/A (non applicable); it shall only be scored as A, B or D. In the IFS
Food, there is one exception to this rule: the KO-requirement 2.1.3.8 about monitoring of CCP
might not be applicable according to the company and the products processed.
The word “clarification” is somewhat ironic – Surely everyone understands N/A but “KO” is as in boxing or what ? Only applies to southpaws perhaps ?
In the IFS Food version 5, risk analysis shall be changed to hazard analysis, for all the 22 requirements.
………
Clarification
This hazard analysis shall be understandable by the auditors. This can be done in written format
e.g. within the HACCP-hazard analysis concerning e.g. personal hygiene, cleaning and
disinfection etc. but also in the form of other evidences which shall be clear for the auditor.
This is a clarification?. I think not. So what was the intention behind the change ? They now require you to state the hazard but not how to prioritise / control it ??
Glossary
Procedure
“Procedure shall be implemented and the elaboration of procedures can be done by documents
or process description”.
In the standard, it is precised when a procedure shall be documented or not.
Confusing. How do you achieve a “process description” without a document ? I guess they mean by “flow charts” or purely textual presentation. If so, this is at least seemingly more precise(d?) than BRC.
I know, one shouldn’t over-nit-pick at these well-intentioned documents but it’s getting near the weekend. I repeat, IFS should to be applauded for the effort.
Rgds / Charles.C
PS - sorry, I forgot to address yr specific query. I think this is discussed elsewhere, somewhere, on this forum in the form of an extended version similar to that referred in Madam A. D-tor's post. If I can find it I will add to this thread as a separate post. Or anybody of course.