35 replies to this topic

[sadean]

In Canada, I have mostly heard of companies using BRC or SQF, the odd one using ISO. Many are choosing based on where they ship (SQF if shipping to US, and BRC if shipping to Europe).

[Simon]

In Canada, I have mostly heard of companies using BRC or SQF, the odd one using ISO. Many are choosing based on where they ship (SQF if shipping to US, and BRC if shipping to Europe).

Hi Sadean, thanks for your input. It will be great if the GFSI "one standard fits all" or "once certified accepted everywhere" goal ever comes to fruition. My experience is the same as yours meaning BRC and SQF are the popular choices. There was a recent post here in our ISO 22000 forum showing ISO statistics which confirm the slowing growth or decline in the ISO 22000 standard. I guess in favour of GFSI standards.

Regards,
Simon

[RG3]

This would be great if there was a layout of where, who, what, when, trend on a MAP. I gave this poll/post 5 stars!

 

My boss seems to think that the world is turning to SQF. I told him he's crazy.

[Snookie]

This would be great if there was a layout of where, who, what, when, trend on a MAP. I gave this poll/post 5 stars!

 

My boss seems to think that the world is turning to SQF. I told him he's crazy.

 

That's funny, because a peer recently told me that SQF is dying a rapid death as the world turns to BRC.  Think it depends on the company, the location, customer base and product.

Edited by Snookie, 30 October 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[RG3]

HaHa  Rapid Death

 

Yes, when I was hired on, I was asked the following question knowing they were looking for an SQF Practitioner because it was on the job description, so you know what my reply SHOULD BE.

 

What Standard is better, SQF or BRC?

 

I said BRC.

 

Of course I explained my view, and somehow I still got the job.

[Simon]

HaHa  Rapid Death

 

Yes, when I was hired on, I was asked the following question knowing they were looking for an SQF Practitioner because it was on the job description, so you know what my reply SHOULD BE.

 

What Standard is better, SQF or BRC?

 

I said BRC.

 

Of course I explained my view, and somehow I still got the job.

 

Hey you must have been very persuasive.

What did you tell them in a nutshell?

[RG3]

Here's the disclaimer:

One of the most important questions to ask before researching and deciding upon a standard for GFSI certification is, " Do any of my company's current or prospective customers require GFSI certification to a particular standard?"

Some customers do require their suppliers to achieve certification to a particular GFSI benchmarked standard and it is worth investigating customer requirements upfront before investing time and resources in the development of a standard specific food safety management system, which is not recognized by a particular customer. While GFSI benchmarked standard are similar to each other in the core criteria of a suppliers food safety management system, there are subtle differences with respect to the level of prescriptiveness and certification cycles required by each standard.

While GFSI's motto is "once certified, accepted everywhere", the reality is that retailers and manufacturers have unique requirements for their suppliers to support organizational initiatives and it is in the best interest of suppliers to understand such requirements for increased market access of their company's food products.

http://www.cert-id.c...ght-for-Me.aspx

[RG3]

In a nutshell.

 

Financially: If you have multiple plants (which we do), it cost less [However I remember a post not too long ago that BRC hiked up their costs] price breaks. SQF likes to charge for everything, to the point where your QA/FS Manager has to go to a special class to become a practitioner, and for some auditors you need to take a class for internal auditing. Now they have an advanced practitioner course.

 

Scheme: Eliminate the different levels GAP/GMP's/GDP, Food Safety, and Quality and see the standard as one for a food company. BRC has more of a handle on High Risk Low Risk High Care Low Care.

 

Auditing: BRC or at least the CB I was using began to spend more time on the floor rather than spending the majority of the time looking through documents. This is the way I think it should be. Are your CCP's/PRP's just paper or is it actually happening on the shop floor?

 

Trend: The world is moving towards BRC.

 

Note: SQF is making good strides now with the 7.2 version and "unannounced audits". Unannounced but you know FOR SURE you must be ready at least within those 3 months. 3 out of 12 I like those odds. 

 

This would be a good subject to debate.

[Snookie]

 

In a nutshell.

 

Financially: If you have multiple plants (which we do), it cost less [However I remember a post not too long ago that BRC hiked up their costs] price breaks. SQF likes to charge for everything, to the point where your QA/FS Manager has to go to a special class to become a practitioner, and for some auditors you need to take a class for internal auditing. Now they have an advanced practitioner course.

 

 

I thought this comment interesting because IMO BRC is so much worse.  You can't even look at the BRC standard without forking out major dollars and the only way to get certification is to attend a class and take an exam usually near 2K without the travel costs.  And if you pay for the electronic download you are only allowed to print it out once.   If you need copies plan to go stand at the copy machine. 

 

With SQF you can download the standard free, and I took my tests online without ever attending a course.  Being able to print as much as you want is a huge advantage when you need copies for the team. 

 

Each system whether you are talking BRC, SQF, FSSC 22000 has different advantages and disadvantages, in the end when deciding what scheme to use needs to be decided by the product line, the customer base just to name a few factors.   

[Kelly S]

SQF and HACCP are the 2 I see the most of here in Australia

[Rehman R.]

Well here in Bahrain and back in Pakistan FSSC 22000 was most common followed by BRC.