Why IFS...instead of the other packaging standards?
We are starting in the process of certification...initially choosing SQF. A colleague suggested the possibility of using IFS as we are a food packaging supplier with no direct food contact within our plant. What makes IFS more appropriate / desirable than any of the others? Or is it just another option with different words?
Thanks...leet222
I believe SQF corrective actions must be performed within 30 days after audit. With IFS, a corrective action plan must be submitted within 2 weeks, stating corrective actions and reasonable deadlines by which each will be completed. This provides for the possibility of longer time to correct if the correction needed is extensive.
However, IFS requires complete desk audit be performed each year.
Marti
Dear Leet,
It is possible there is some specific content of IFS which is particularly convenient for packaging applications but i don't recall seeing such mentioned on this forum (yet).
Most standards have individual +/- characteristics, often relating to their origin IMO (somehow), eg BRC delights in risk assessment, probably in part due due legal due diligence aspects. SQF claims to follow specific haccp sources but in some key features obviously doesn't. Reason unknown. Unfortunately the seemingly limited food usage by forum posters here for IFS has tended to highlight that some features are rather incomprehensible but i'm maybe being unfair (small sample). If you wish to follow up i suggest you study some of the threads in the specific category here although i think most are for food and also have a look at the webinar.
Rgds / Charles.C
We are a flexible packaging supplier registered to the IFS PACsecure standard. We have been registered since it was developed by PAC in Canada, and have continued through the process of benchmarking with IFS.
Overall, personally speaking, I find it useful. It is definitely targeted towards food packaging manufacturers (glass, metal, paperboard, flexibles), so the standards themselves are, for the most part, reasonable and useful. It has definitely helped us focus on GMP areas that ordinarily don't get enough attention (our business is split between food/medical, industrial and geomembrane environmental containment).
New (or relatively new) with the IFS benchmarking is a much greater emphasis on risk assessment, which can be a big hurdle if you're not used to that level of documentation. As mentioned, the annual full system audits are a bit of a drag (although our auditor is great).
It will be interesting to see how well it's adopted. I think there's only a relative handful of adopters in Canada so far, and a half-dozen or so in EU.
Sean
Hi Leet,
I would consider consulting your customers to see if they have any preferences and consider future markets. There is also BRC & FSSC 22000 certification as options.
Regards,
Tony
Here is a list of all of the GFSI recognized schemes. If you click on them it pops up a window that shows you what food sector areas they are certified to certify... I hope that makes a much sense to read as it did in my head.
oh cool on this new page you can click what food sector you are in and it removes all of the standards that aren't applicable.
I agree with Charles they all have their pluses and minuses. You need to choose based on what works for your company and customers. You can ask customers but if you do they may have a preference that is not the best choice for your company. If you choose, then most customers will accept your choice. Fait Accompli.
BRC standards are very specific and clear which can be great but also leaves no room for any interpretation and usually very high standards.
I've experienced one FSSC audit for food manufacturing. FSSC 22000 is like ISO, very general. They were tough on the Supplier portion.
I've witnessed an IFS PAC secure audit. IFS PACsecure was very thorough, full 2 day audit.