10 replies to this topic

[tsmith7858]

AIB has updated standards for 2013. Refer to https://www.aibonlin...datedstandards/ for pdf copies of all standards.

I have attached Consolidated Standards and changes for manufacturing.

Attached Files

•  2013 Food Safety Consolidated Standards English Manual.pdf   328.54KB   152 downloads
•  2013 ChangeDocument_PrerequisiteforFoodSafety.pdf   117.69KB   128 downloads

[Simon]

Thanks TSmith. I don't know a lot about AIB standards.

Do you know how big AIB is in the US compared to the likes of SQF, BRC, FSSC and is it aiming for GFSI status eventually?

Regards,
Simon

[mgourley]

AIB has updated standards for 2013. Refer to https://www.aibonlin...datedstandards/ for pdf copies of all standards.

I have attached Consolidated Standards and changes for manufacturing.

I have gone through the Change Document and noted those things that will affect our facility.
It appears that AIB is aligning closer to GFSI requirements and also requirements from FSMA.

There are some significant changes that will catch people out, especially if they are not doing things the GFSI way.
This Standard becomes effective at the beginning of the year, leaving very little time for facilities to incorporate the changes into their Food Safety Management Systems.

There are several things in the update that we will not be able to put in place prior to January 1. Then again, we are due for our AIB audit any week now. Hopefully it will be before the end of the year, which will buy us 6 months or so to implement the new requirements.

Thanks for the heads up. I got the email saying the Standard was being updated, but had not heard that it was published yet.

Marshall

[mgourley]

Thanks TSmith. I don't know a lot about AIB standards.

Do you know how big AIB is in the US compared to the likes of SQF, BRC, FSSC and is it aiming for GFSI status eventually?

Regards,
Simon

Simon,
I don't have any quantitative data on how "big" AIB is in comparison to established GFSI schemes. They are everywhere, though.
AIB has gotten a lot of bad press in recent years, what with the Peanut Corporation of America debacle. It's obvious that they are trying to align more closely with established GFSI standards.
I have dealt with them for 20 years and find their auditing services to be very professional and thorough. Some may not have had similar experiences.
As a large chunk of their revenue comes from auditing services, I'm sure they are working toward a standard that can be GFSI compliant.

Marshall

[George @ Safefood 360°]

I think AIB's main activity has been in the 2nd party audit space i.e. an audit by one party on another. Given that Walmart now require GFSI and the clear intent of FSMA to have certification it makes sense for AIB to be shifting in the direction of 3rd party certification audits.


I was at the SQF conference last week and there was a great key note speech on the whole area of Certification in relation to GFSI and FSMA. I will do up a blog on the subject shortly but it really is going to be a period of significant change in the US regarding this whole area.

[mgourley]

One of the new requirements in the AIB standard is as follows:

"The facility follows the Seven Principles of HACCP:
1. The facility has conducted and documented a Hazard Analysis for each raw material and process step. In the case of facilities producing or exporting to the USA or other countries with regulations, regulatory (FDA) requirements for HARPC (Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls) will be evaluated taking into consideration the defined hazard categories or country-defined requirements."

So, the way I read this, you don't have to comply, yet, with HARPC. You just have to evaluate it and take into consideration the defined hazard categories.

From the text of FSMA:

"(b) Hazard Analysis.--The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility shall--
"(1) identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility, including--
"(A) biological, chemical, physical, and radiological hazards, natural toxins, pesticides, drug residues, decomposition, parasites, allergens, and unapproved food and color additives; and
"(B) hazards that occur naturally, or may be unintentionally introduced; and
"(2) identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism; and
"(3) develop a written analysis of the hazards."

Does anyone have any idea how you are supposed to "identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism"? Seems to me that list could be pretty long.

Marshall

[chip]

Does anyone for sure if AIB are looking at GFSI approval and to what timescale are they working. If they are then my organization may not need to go for SQF Certification.

Chip.

[tsmith7858]

Does anyone for sure if AIB are looking at GFSI approval and to what timescale are they working. If they are then my organization may not need to go for SQF Certification.

Chip.

No, I do not believe AIB meets the criteria nor has any interest in having their standard benchmarked to GFSI. They have started conducted audits for BRC, SQF and FSSC separately from their own standard.

[tsmith7858]

I have gone through the Change Document and noted those things that will affect our facility.
It appears that AIB is aligning closer to GFSI requirements and also requirements from FSMA.

There are some significant changes that will catch people out, especially if they are not doing things the GFSI way.
This Standard becomes effective at the beginning of the year, leaving very little time for facilities to incorporate the changes into their Food Safety Management Systems.

There are several things in the update that we will not be able to put in place prior to January 1. Then again, we are due for our AIB audit any week now. Hopefully it will be before the end of the year, which will buy us 6 months or so to implement the new requirements.

Thanks for the heads up. I got the email saying the Standard was being updated, but had not heard that it was published yet.

Marshall

I would agree. They seem to be moving towards GFSI. They also picked up a lot from FSMA.

We are waiting for our 4th Quarter Unannounced audit as well. Good Luck!

[tsmith7858]

One of the new requirements in the AIB standard is as follows:

"The facility follows the Seven Principles of HACCP:
1. The facility has conducted and documented a Hazard Analysis for each raw material and process step. In the case of facilities producing or exporting to the USA or other countries with regulations, regulatory (FDA) requirements for HARPC (Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls) will be evaluated taking into consideration the defined hazard categories or country-defined requirements."

So, the way I read this, you don't have to comply, yet, with HARPC. You just have to evaluate it and take into consideration the defined hazard categories.

From the text of FSMA:

"(b) Hazard Analysis.--The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility shall--
"(1) identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility, including--
"(A) biological, chemical, physical, and radiological hazards, natural toxins, pesticides, drug residues, decomposition, parasites, allergens, and unapproved food and color additives; and
"(B) hazards that occur naturally, or may be unintentionally introduced; and
"(2) identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism; and
"(3) develop a written analysis of the hazards."

Does anyone have any idea how you are supposed to "identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism"? Seems to me that list could be pretty long.

Marshall

It seems like they wanted to mention HARPC in order to align with FSMA but since FSMA has not released any official information they had to leave it broad.
FSMA is also pushing Food Defense which is why the "act of terrorism" is noted. It is my understanding from a recent seminar that a Food Defense Plan will be required and the use of some sort of food defense evaluation will be needed (C-TPAT, Carver-Shock, etc).

FSMA will expand the typical biological, chemical and physical hazards to include the others noted dependant on your products.

Again, until the government makes the rules, no one can follow them. We can only try to anticipate what they are thinking.

[mgourley]

It seems like they wanted to mention HARPC in order to align with FSMA but since FSMA has not released any official information they had to leave it broad.
FSMA is also pushing Food Defense which is why the "act of terrorism" is noted. It is my understanding from a recent seminar that a Food Defense Plan will be required and the use of some sort of food defense evaluation will be needed (C-TPAT, Carver-Shock, etc).

FSMA will expand the typical biological, chemical and physical hazards to include the others noted dependant on your products.

Again, until the government makes the rules, no one can follow them. We can only try to anticipate what they are thinking.

I use the FDA self assessment tool. One would think that would be sufficient. I have played around with Carver-Shock and it's a nightmare.
Our current Food Defense program has worked just fine in past AIB audits. However I just attended a Food Defense Coordinator Level 2 seminar and really do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling about our plan. As it fits into Food Safety, it's fine, but strictly on a Food Defense level, it's inadequate.

Marshall