17 replies to this topic

[rosie]

Hi There

Wasn't sure which forum to post this on.

My question is:
If we have BRC/IOP certification is there any point in having ISO 9000?
Our BRC audit is much more specific to hygiene issues and IMO covers much of what ISO requires.
I'd be interested in what Food Manufacturers think. We make plastic pots for the food industry.
Thanks
Rosie

[Tony-C]

Hi There

Wasn't sure which forum to post this on.

My question is:
If we have BRC/IOP certification is there any point in having ISO 9000?
Our BRC audit is much more specific to hygiene issues and IMO covers much of what ISO requires.
I'd be interested in what Food Manufacturers think. We make plastic pots for the food industry.
Thanks
Rosie

Hi Rosie

In one of my previous roles I worked for a large multi-site food manufacturer who had a policy of having ISO 9001 and BRC Certification at every site although there was no requirement for ISO 9001 Certification from any of our customers. I thought that this was a good idea as the disciplines of ISO 9001 encouraged a focus on Measurement, Analysis and Improvement of the Food Safety/Quality Management System whereas BRC looks for compliance against the standard.

Regards,

Tony

[GMO]

Personally if you had BRC/IOP I wouldn't be that bothered if you didn't have ISO9001. My personal opinion (and I know others disagree) is that ISO9001 is about the ways of doing things which should now be so ingrained within the quality functions of any industry, it seems a bit pedantic to audit, whereas BRC is looking at specific things related to food safety and so more applicable to our industry and also if the basics (which are more ISO9001) aren't there, they'd lead to breakdowns in systems which would be apparent in a BRC audit IMO.

I've also never had an ISO audit where it's not been too paperwork based but it's been some years since I've had an ISO audit if I'm honest.

Also (sorry Tony) I disagree that BRC doesn't look for improvement, I'm sure from memory there is a requirement to demonstrate continuous improvement as one of the sections.

[rosie]

Thanks you guys

Yes our last number of BRC audits have looked at improvement measures and have raised NCs (unfortunately) which were quite justified.
The ISO audits have raised maybe 1 or 2 NCs (never hygiene or food quality issues more paper besd system as you say GMO) The ISO audits look at a small number of clauses each time whereas BRC looks at the whole standard each time.

I personally find the BRC audit much more applicable in terms of our customer requirements. From food packaging point of view we have not considered ISO 22000.

Rosie

[Charles.C]

Dear Rosie,

Thanks for giving the opportunity for a very minor rant.

I have never had to specifically compile an ISO 9001 “manual” so please correct me if wrong but I understand the 9001 use of “Quality” is typically interpreted as not requiring HACCP safety type content, hence the subsequent ISO 22000 et seq.

However I utilised / modified dredged-up-from-the-net model responses for the pre-2000 versions (the intelligible ones) of ISO 9001 to put together a Quality Manual / Procedures for BRC and it seemed to work ok as a basic template. So I guess I agree with you in principle that a very large amount of 9001 system logic is automatically (albeit in stripped down form) contained within a typical BRC document. Presumably that is also where BRC got it from !!

Not so sure I agree with you if you are suggesting that hygiene is primarily non- safety oriented, ie as would conform to 9001’s “Quality” terminology. I’m rather surprised that this aspect represents a significant part of yr 9001 manual as compared to the Production content ? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding yr original post (or displaying my working unfamiliarity with explicit 9001).

And now for my rant. IMO, the original concept of BRC is being gradually corrupted due to the the balance of the content changing, specifically (I suspect) the proportion of Due Diligence (DD) Oriented material progressively increasing in quantity and complexity compared to the original FSMS driven concept. OK, the aspect of continual improvement is a rational core expectation but should have at least a semblance of logicality (eg the injection of random risk requirements). Moreover, the current versioning series / frequencies seems significantly Business and DD biased to me. ( And one could also make the same accusation towards ISO 22000 vis-a-vis PAD.)

Hopefully there is a partial answer to yr post in there somewhere. Surely dinosaurs must be right sometimes?.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tony-C]

1. I've also never had an ISO audit where it's not been too paperwork based but it's been some years since I've had an ISO audit if I'm honest.

2. Also (sorry Tony) I disagree that BRC doesn't look for improvement, I'm sure from memory there is a requirement to demonstrate continuous improvement as one of the sections.

1. I guess it will depend on your certification body and auditor. If the standard is used practically then it is an invaluable tool.

2. Disagreeing again ! There is a bit of token wording in the BRC standard but that is about it. Oh yes continual improvement is covered in Section 1 of BRC right

[GMO]

1. I guess it will depend on your certification body and auditor. If the standard is used practically then it is an invaluable tool.

2. Disagreeing again ! There is a bit of token wording in the BRC standard but that is about it. Oh yes continual improvement is covered in Section 1 of BRC right

I think it depends on your approach. You can do a token effort to pass BRC but also you can have a poorly implemented (but great on paper) system and pass ISO9001 IME. Neither is "right" and in the long term it's actually easier to properly implement, maintain and improve a system than just pay lip service I reckon!

[Tony-C]

Also (sorry Tony) I disagree that BRC doesn't look for improvement, I'm sure from memory there is a requirement to demonstrate continuous improvement as one of the sections.

Having checked BRC IOP there is no mention of improvement

[Simon]

Having checked BRC IOP there is no mention of improvement

It may well do come the next revision early 2011.

In answer to your question I would drop it if all of your customers are in the UK food industry and that is the market you wish to remain. If you export and / or supply to non-food businesses then they may not recognise BRC/IOP.

[kaz]

Hi There

Wasn't sure which forum to post this on.

My question is:
If we have BRC/IOP certification is there any point in having ISO 9000?
Our BRC audit is much more specific to hygiene issues and IMO covers much of what ISO requires.
I'd be interested in what Food Manufacturers think. We make plastic pots for the food industry.
Thanks
Rosie

Hi Rosie
I work for a thermoforming & extrusion company. Last year we decided to survey our top customers for their opinion on our continuning with ISo9000 accreitation. All but one response was that they wherem only interested in BRC/IOP. So as a company the descion waas made to drop ISo9000

[Foodworker]

Having checked BRC IOP there is no mention of improvement

[Simon]

Did you want to say something Foodworker?

Just click "add reply"

[saguym]

It may well do come the next revision early 2011.

In answer to your question I would drop it if all of your customers are in the UK food industry and that is the market you wish to remain. If you export and / or supply to non-food businesses then they may not recognise BRC/IOP.

It is right that the BRC/IOP does not specifically refer to continual improvment, however the corrective actions to non conformities found during tha audit, which are carefully checked by the auditor, and rechecked during the next audit are the way to continual improvment. IMO as the BRC/IOP has not yet achived its "Globalization" the ISO 9001 has its merit as a universal standard.

Moshe

[vonsigler]

If you export and / or supply to non-food businesses then they may not recognise BRC/IOP.

I agree very much with your statement Simon. ISO 9001:2008 will cover any customers you service that are outside of the food industry. If you are specifically in the food only industry ISO 22000:2005 would be sufficent as it covers food safety and HACCP.

[Simon]

I agree very much with your statement Simon. ISO 9001:2008 will cover any customers you service that are outside of the food industry.

If you are specifically in the food only industry ISO 22000:2005 would be sufficient as it covers food safety and HACCP.

in my opinion it's not quite right that statement Vonsigler. Right now for packaging the best standards available are BRC/IOP and SQF 2000 and perhaps AIB as they specify more detailed requirements for the packaging industries.

In the future there may well be an 'add on' set of requirements for packaging developed for ISO 22000, but right now there aren’t any.

Regards,
Simon

[denist]

Hello.
I'm a bit late to answer but better later than never!

Having checked BRC IOP there is no mention of improvement

I have the french version of BRC/IOP issue 3 so the translation might not be exactly the same but in the first paragraph there is "The opportunities of improvement should be identified, implemented and documented comprehensively.
Again in the 3.11.2 point on customer complaint "through continuous improvement" is written.
And as Saguym said, lots of points ask for keeping documents for different reviews.

How does it evolves in the new issue?

[Tony-C]

Hello.
I'm a bit late to answer but better later than never!

Having checked BRC IOP there is no mention of improvement

I have the french version of BRC/IOP issue 3 so the translation might not be exactly the same but in the first paragraph there is "The opportunities of improvement should be identified, implemented and documented comprehensively.
Again in the 3.11.2 point on customer complaint "through continuous improvement" is written.
And as Saguym said, lots of points ask for keeping documents for different reviews.
How does it evolves in the new issue?

You seem to be quoting wording and sections from Issue 4.

[denist]

You seem to be quoting wording and sections from Issue 4.

So I guess it didn't evolve from issue 3 (2008) to 4 (2011)
Thank you.