6 replies to this topic

[Charles Chew]

Hi Simon,
I have to admit while I was at one time extremely exuberant about ISO22000, I do feel that with the emergence of FSSC22000 and PAS220-2008 including the continually strong influence of BRC-Food as a global standard, I get this feeling that ISO22000 is set to become a fundamental baseline for future standards just like Codex-Haccp (which I believe is inadequate and to some degree, marginally reduced in relevance)

I also like the standard set-up of Synergy 22000 which in my opinion is going to be very much in the forefront. While I have already implemented projects base on most standards, I would love to do one under the guidelines of Synergy 220000. Evolution of food safety standards will continue to happen. I do find it hard to see a harmonized global standard but IMO, I like the approach that GFSI has taken.

Cheers
Charles Chew

[Simon]

Hi Simon,

I have to admit while I was at one time extremely exuberant about ISO22000, I do feel that with the emergence of FSSC22000 and PAS220-2008 including the continually strong influence of BRC-Food as a global standard, I get this feeling that ISO22000 is set to become a fundamental baseline for future standards just like Codex-Haccp (which I believe is inadequate and to some degree, marginally reduced in relevance)

I also like the standard set-up of Synergy 22000 which in my opinion is going to be very much in the forefront. While I have already implemented projects base on most standards, I would love to do one under the guidelines of Synergy 220000. Evolution of food safety standards will continue to happen. I do find it hard to see a harmonized global standard but IMO, I like the approach that GFSI has taken.

Cheers
Charles Chew

Hi Charles, I’ve split your comment into its own topic as it wasn’t really relevant to that question and I thought that it does warrant some attention.

I remember way back (5 years?) when ISO 22000 was in development there was huge excitement and as you say exuberance, at the time there was BRC and some other fragmented private standards and some thought with ISO 22000 being International it would sweep them all away.

It will be interesting to see ISO statistics on the number of ISO 22000 certified organisations when they are produced, but I think it has probably peaked and may actually drop away as GFSI seem to have hit on the blue print - they have the USA on board which helps. By the way the US appear to be interested in two of the GFSI standards SQF followed closely by BRC.

What do other members think?

Regards,
Simon

[Charles Chew]

Well, from my end, it appears that most US clients are comfortable with BRC-Food or FSSC22000 or any of the GFSI recognized schemes. It does appear too that the push for ISO22K may have peaked and I am told that even China is very much into BRC-Food but Taiwan is ISO22k ...
Regards
Charles Chew

[Charles.C]

Dear Charles Chew,

I wouldn’t know about the current relative take-up of the various standards but I would like to make a few overviewed comments.

I can see a few possible viewpoints related to yr query –

1. For food manufacturers who have a “traditional” running HACCP system and are happy with it, BRC / clones is surely a more direct solution to achieving the magic GFSI star of approval despite all their linguistic peculiarities / increasingly complex requirements such as the “risk assessed” family.

2. For food manufacturers in 1. above who consider the ISO 22000 concept has benefits to them (???!), they may be willing to invest (thinking) implementation time in the OPRP variants which are associated with GFSI approval. In this respect it is possible that through lack of business acumen, ISO have simply missed the boat as compared to FSSC etc.

3. New food manufacturers may regard the “ISO 22000” based approach as attractive due its independence + offering GFSI approval in some formulations.

The obvious common denominator in above is GFSI approval. Someone must be smiling at their HQ these days despite, IMHO, the fragility of their claimed uniformisation methodology, when put under a microscope.

I have yet to see any accessible published work demonstrating practical benefit in going the 22000-way to FSMS for a food manufacturer, ie a comparative data-based document. Although statements like “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” or “no need to re-invent the wheel” are cliches, the phrase “time=money” is a more measurable parameter.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

I liked the philosophy of Henry Ford.

"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

A black car will do fine, but customers are people and people have preferences that are influenced by marketing.

Business and marketing is shaping the future geography of food safety management system standards. As a user you have to try and back a winner and I believe GFSI gives users a better chance of doing that.

[Charles Chew]

The obvious common denominator in above is GFSI approval. Someone must be smiling at their HQ these days despite, IMHO, the fragility of their claimed uniformisation methodology, when put under a microscope.

It is true that current GFSI recognized schemes have different methodology approach in addressing food safety system structures, one would wonder how the slogan "once certified recognized by all" can indeed be applied when the degree of system implementation differ from a standard to another.

Up to now, I do not see a set of common denominators in determining what meets GFSI's recognized scheme except of course, the board meets to review and approve on a close-door policy approach. Would we one day see a single GFSI standard after all said and done?

[Simon]

Not exactly closed door and seceret handshakes Charles; you do know GFSI have a Guidance document to benchmark standards against before approval.

GFSI Guidance Document