16 replies to this topic

[Inverse]

Hi all,

 

We are small company based in the UK. We have SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Approval) certificate but I think sooner or later we will need to achieve other (higher) certificate because we are going to ship our products to the USA. Would you be so kind and share your opinion on which standard to follow? I am the only one with technical knowledge in the company of less than 10people, so I know that BRC would be really challenging. Other option would be ISO but I am not sure if that would be enough? 

 

All recommendations/ suggestions will be much appreciated!

 

Thank you!

 

[Watanka]

Inverse,

 

We use SQF and are very happy with that program, but I think that you will be best served by researching each of the GFSI approved schemes to find the one that is likely to fit your enterprise.  Don't like the word "schemes" but it is what GFSI uses.  

 

If possible talk with others in your industry who are certified by the differing schemes to see how they like them.  We selected SQF because it has an additional level of certification aimed strictly at product quality.  It also allows for companies to work within the code to find a path that suits them best.  Some of the schemes are very rigid - SQF has a more flexible approach based upon the type of business conducted.  Hope this helps.

[Inverse]

Hi Watanka,

 

Thank you very much! I will have a look at both of them. I feel quite lost because I'm not sure we should go straight for BRC. I think it's too much for a small company but I'm not sure, so any help/suggestion is much appreciated! 

 

Thanks

[QAGB]

Hi Watanka,

 

Thank you very much! I will have a look at both of them. I feel quite lost because I'm not sure we should go straight for BRC. I think it's too much for a small company but I'm not sure, so any help/suggestion is much appreciated! 

 

Thanks

 

 

Hi Inverse,

 

As Watanka said, you should take a look at each one and figure out what fits. Also as stated, some of the schemes are more rigid than others. If I had to say, BRC is pretty rigid as to what is expected of you (we are currently certified BRC). I feel that some of the aspects of BRC are hard to implement even for a company of 100-200 people. You have to have sufficient resources to meet the standards; people, money, management commitment, etc. If I worked for a company of your size, I don't think I'd honestly go after BRC.

 

QAGB

[Charles.C]

It always depends on the situation but I suspect if you feel there are large requirements of the BRC standard, eg for HACCP, that you cannot match, you will have a problem with all the GFSI recognised schemes. That's why they are equally GFSI recognised. (ISO is also difficult IMO but in a different way).

 

And perhaps the above is why SALSA works (no offence intended because no knowledge of the differences) ?.

[SQFconsultant]

I may have bias, but I really love SQF. It has always been our own stock in trade, however with that said I would also take a close look at the IFS (international Feature Standards) program for food as well. 

 

SQF and IFS are pretty close side-by-side (SQF Level II vs. IFS) but the neat thing about IFS is that there is a lee-way of upwards of one year to do non-food-safety-impact improvements that may need to be done to the facility.  On SQF each infraction would come off the report and even a number of minors could sink an audit, however if you have some non-impacts that will cost $$$ you'll be able to pass the audit with them and will then have about a year to get everything together to ensure that at the next audit these items would be checked and you'll be good to go.

 

If you have no major cap expenses to do, then I would go with SQF - best all around.

[Inverse]

Hi Inverse,

 

As Watanka said, you should take a look at each one and figure out what fits. Also as stated, some of the schemes are more rigid than others. If I had to say, BRC is pretty rigid as to what is expected of you (we are currently certified BRC). I feel that some of the aspects of BRC are hard to implement even for a company of 100-200 people. You have to have sufficient resources to meet the standards; people, money, management commitment, etc. If I worked for a company of your size, I don't think I'd honestly go after BRC.

 

QAGB

QAGB,

 

I wouldn't like to go after BRC either, so that's why I'm trying to find more approachable way to achieve required standards. The only thing is that management team is not quite aware of other schemes, such as SQF or IFS, and neither I am, so I don't feel confident suggesting them. I definitely need to do more research!

Thanks for your opinion, I feel more confident now that I should try to find an alternative option!

[Inverse]

It always depends on the situation but I suspect if you feel there are large requirements of the BRC standard, eg for HACCP, that you cannot match, you will have a problem with all the GFSI recognised schemes. That's why they are equally GFSI recognised. (ISO is also difficult IMO but in a different way).

 

And perhaps the above is why SALSA works (no offence intended because no knowledge of the differences) ?.

Charles,

 

We don't really have any issues with HACCP or other standards. The only and most important issue is our customer's audits. Most of them approve suppliers that have BRC or equivalent certification (SALSA in this case is not enough), so we need to go though longer approval process. It's very time consuming, so we thought it would be easier to get another certification..

[Gilles]

Some great advice has already been given but what I can add is: What does your customer want. Where I previously worked we had BRC and IFS because some customer do not accept BRC and some do not accept IFS. Even though the standards are the same for 90%.

[Charles.C]

Hi Inverse,

 

Please refer back to yr self-assessment OP.

 

From BRC website -

 

SALSA: Standards for small producers 

As a small food producer, you may feel full certification to the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety is not appropriate. With that in mind, we have developed SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Approval), a food safety standard developed specifically for small food producers, and recognised and accepted across the industry.  The SALSA Standard was written by experienced food safety experts and includes the legal requirements of manufacturers and the expectations of 'best practice'. Certification is only granted to suppliers who are able to demonstrate to a SALSA auditor they are able to produce safe and legal food and are committed to continually meeting the requirements of the SALSA standard.

 

 

i had a brief look at the SALSA audit standard 4 (2015) -

http://www.salsafood...k/about.php?p=3

 

IMO the SALSA Standard is a useful document (apparently operated by IFST)  but the difference as compared to BRC7 seems (to me) to be massive, particularly in respect to "difficult"  topics.

 

For example -

 

(a) The SALSA text appears to require that the number of obligatory "risk-based" assessments is one (for hazard analysis [which was apparently added in 2015]).

 

(b) The words "validation/validate" do not occur in the SALSA audit 4 standard.

 

I suggest that certification to BRC7 will necessitate an advanced technical knowledge of various aspects of FS compared to SALSA. SALSA appears to accept that technical resources are concentrated in one person. i anticipate that BRC7 will require it in a more team-like context.

 

Another UK-specific factor is that, afaik, the BRC7 standard is formulated such that certification implicitly assures the likelihood of "due diligence" competence. I am unaware that other GFSI-recognised Standards function in a similar way(?)

 

PS - inasmuch as exporting to USA is concerned, i daresay BRC do not have the same "power" as for UK

[BrummyJim]

Hi Inverse,

 

I would definitely talk to your potential customers in the US about their requirements. We purchase from around the globe and meet the full range of GFSI and other standards. We are not averse to buying from a SALSA supplier, but may chose to audit them first based on a risk assessment. We also have suppliers that are ISO9001 only. SQF seems popular with our US & Canada suppliers, IFS is mainland Europe with some FSSC22000. Rest of the world is generally BRC - it's the empire of course!

[Inverse]

Thank you all for very valued response! I'm amazed by this community of really smart people!

 

Charles,

 

Thanks for all the research! I'm not that familiar with BRC, so you really helped me.

As you mentioned, BRC requires team-like context and it's more complex, so I think it would be really challenging for me to cope with all of that (I'm the only one with some technical knowledge).. That's why I'm trying to find the easier option (something in between SALSA and BRC) 

 

BrummyJim,

 

Thanks for that! Would you still audit your suppliers that have only ISO 9001? Or it really depends on the product and process? 

[BrummyJim]

Hi Inverse,

 

We use a supplier risk assessment based on level of food safety certification, volume purchased/year, location, country position in the Global Transparency index and feedback from any audit visit. We assign points to all risks, apply weights and then audit those above a certain level of risk. It is set so that any new supplier that does not have GFSI equivalent will be audited asap, but the feedback from the audit may show that they are actually running a GFSI equivalent shop and can fit into the regular audit schedule (3-4 years). It may also show that we shouldn't touch them with a bargepole!

 

Our initial questionnaire includes a paper examination of their HACCP to give a feel of the company.

[Maltus]

Some great advice has already been given but what I can add is: What does your customer want. Where I previously worked we had BRC and IFS because some customer do not accept BRC and some do not accept IFS. Even though the standards are the same for 90%.

 

I agree, that's the most important point, your customer requirement, And from my experience, BRC is prefer than IFS at USA.

[Maltus]

Hi Inverse,

 

We use a supplier risk assessment based on level of food safety certification, volume purchased/year, location, country position in the Global Transparency index and feedback from any audit visit. We assign points to all risks, apply weights and then audit those above a certain level of risk. It is set so that any new supplier that does not have GFSI equivalent will be audited asap, but the feedback from the audit may show that they are actually running a GFSI equivalent shop and can fit into the regular audit schedule (3-4 years). It may also show that we shouldn't touch them with a bargepole!

 

Our initial questionnaire includes a paper examination of their HACCP to give a feel of the company.

 

BrummyJim, I must say that your supplier approval program looks great. 

[BrummyJim]

Thank you Maltus

[Charles.C]

It might be worth noting that ISO9001 as conventionally implemented does not involve  HACCP/Food Safety. Hence the invention of ISO-HACCP.

 

"Certification" IMO usually means from a recognised Authority. IMEX as a manufacturer, receivers needing FS Certification from a supplier will not accept a ISO9001 certificate. Maybe it depends on the product business but IMEX customer approval based only on self-audits used to be the norm. but the costs/potential consequences from error seem to me to have relegated this option to cases where product (profit) need outweigh the risk as compared to demanding Certification to one of the many recognised FS Standards.

 

I also assume that if export to USA is under consideration, the FDA launched FSMA/HARPC ("new" HACCP) may be relevant to external FS planning. Relevance presumably depends on things like the Product (and Quantity/Location?)