11 replies to this topic

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

The rise of PVSs seems to be generating increased debate over a variety of issues such as the relevance to the titled aspects and the status of Codex. The attached paper / report is fairly readable and looked interesting.

 private_food_safety_standards.pdf   375.38KB   102 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[muffin]

IMO these private safety standards should be in line with the International food safety standards. They shouldn't deviate much to reduce the risk of health and safety issues

[cosmo]

In my experience private standards (EG: WQA (Woolworths Quality Assurance)) often have a tighter specification than regulatory standards. They almost always include topics such as safe disposal of their branded packaging, production records sent to their QA department etc.
Another aspect I often encounter is that private standards increase the scope of the audit parameters.... 2 days versus 1 day for regulatory standards...

[Charles.C]

Dear muffin / cosmo,

Ths yr comments.

To further illustrate some of the global issues / concerns, here are a few more attachments preceding the FAO document -

 private_food_standards_gfsi___tradoc_127969.pdf   1.41MB   60 downloads
 fao_oecd_report_on_private_food_standards_2006___JT03212398.pdf   492.65KB   46 downloads
 private_food_standards___A_private_standards.pdf   374.85KB   54 downloads
 private_food_standards___PrivatestandardsandSPSAgreement.doc   49.5KB   34 downloads
 private_food_standards_global_gap___front_content.php.htm   13.09KB   35 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

For the very lazy like me – taken from the conclusions.

Evidently, Codex needs to respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by private food safety standards. There is certainly a need for an informed debate within the Commission about the implications for its mandate and work programme; it is unlikely that Codex can move forward substantively on this issue unless there is broad agreement on the part of its membership. In the meantime, ways need to be found for Codex, and also FAO and WHO, to engage more effectively with the organisations involved in setting and/or adopting private food safety standards in order to build trust and mutual understanding. There would appear to be much to gain from a cooperative relationship between international standards organisations such as Codex and private standards organisations.

Codex do all of the legwork that others adapt, adopt and sell. Codex can do nothing about this and private standards are already too big to stop, so Codex need to jump on the bus with GFSI, BRC, SQF et al.

Thanks for the great document Charles and for the subsequent other attachments.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

Thks comments.

I will add one more. This is a very much faster read but nonetheless quite thought-provoking in places. Picks out some (perceived) relative pros and cons of iso 22000 / brc / sqf in addition to global implications. A substantial amount of info/data condensed into a small package. Reasonably up-to-date (just inc. PAS).

 crit.comparison_iso_22000___BRC___SQF___world.pdf   471.89KB   91 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

For the very lazy like me – taken from the conclusions.

Regards,
Simon

I guess I'm lazy too because I did the same. I still believe the CODEX standard to be extremely useful but needs updating.

Regards,

Tony

[Dale P]

Dear Simon,

Thks comments.

I will add one more. This is a very much faster read but nonetheless quite thought-provoking in places. Picks out some (perceived) relative pros and cons of iso 22000 / brc / sqf in addition to global implications. A substantial amount of info/data condensed into a small package. Reasonably up-to-date (just inc. PAS).

 crit.comparison_iso_22000___BRC___SQF___world.pdf   471.89KB   91 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Thanks for this information. Although I did notice a page in this document that is incorrect (I believe). Page 11 states SQF level 3 is GFSI recognized. I am pretty sure that level 2 (at least for SQF 2000) is the GFSI recognized. Level 3 is the addition of food quality management systems based off of the HACCP principals whereas the Level 2 is HACCP based food safety. GFSI is not intended to address food quality management systems.
This was disscussed at the SQF practitioners course I attended and again at the Food Safety Summit in Washington this year.

Thanks,

Dale

[Charles.C]

Dear DaleP,

Thks for this and yr comments elsewhere.
I haven't checked but my memory agrees with yr comment on SQF 2000. The only thing I am not quite certain of is as to whether the food safety material in levels 2 and 3 is identical.

Based on the repetitive questions received in this forum, one other characteristic which reviews such as the the ones in this thread shud also address is "intelligibility" of the textual standard. for example, the conceptual basis of the claimed innovatory HACCP scheme in ISO 22000 is almost incomprehensible as presented IMO and only begins to be clarified in ISO 22004. (the total absence of examples simply exacerbates the confusion). Similarly the latest obsession of BRC Food to attach "risk-based" to all their required procedures has the air of being purely diligence defence driven rather than science motivated. SQF is from memory much more user-friendly although i recall not agreeing with some of their HACCP logics when I reviewed it here a few years back. I have never read IFS but my guess is that it is more clear than BRC since I understand it utilises a sectional scoring system.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Dale P]

Dear DaleP,

Thks for this and yr comments elsewhere.
I haven't checked but my memory agrees with yr comment on SQF 2000. The only thing I am not quite certain of is as to whether the food safety material in levels 2 and 3 is identical.

Rgds / Charles.C

The food safety aspects of level 2 and 3 for SQF 2000 are identical, with the only addition being Food quality management systems for level 3. This is one of the main reasons I was confused/disappointed that you must obtain level 3 for the ability to use the SQF logo on product packaging and publicity materials after obtaining certification.

[Tony-C]

The food safety aspects of level 2 and 3 for SQF 2000 are identical, with the only addition being Food quality management systems for level 3. This is one of the main reasons I was confused/disappointed that you must obtain level 3 for the ability to use the SQF logo on product packaging and publicity materials after obtaining certification.

Absolutely:
SQF Level 3: Comprehensive Quality Management Systems Development
A producer is required to complete and document a food quality assessment of the product and its associated process to identify the controls needed to ensure a consistent level of quality.

The GFSI benchmarks existing food standards against food safety criteria so it would not be appropriate to approve level 3.

You would have thought that SQF would have a food safety approved logo as well that you could use.

Regards,

Tony

[Dale P]

Absolutely:
SQF Level 3: Comprehensive Quality Management Systems Development
A producer is required to complete and document a food quality assessment of the product and its associated process to identify the controls needed to ensure a consistent level of quality.

The GFSI benchmarks existing food standards against food safety criteria so it would not be appropriate to approve level 3.

You would have thought that SQF would have a food safety approved logo as well that you could use.

Regards,

Tony

I think that having a Food safety logo would be appropriate. Especially given SQF's (FMI) status as a GFSI standard.