Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

SQF Code vs other GFSI standards


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 taw0902

taw0902

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:34 AM

Hi, just interested to hear others opinions of SQF vs other GFSI standards such as BRC? My site is SQF and I wondering if there is any value in changing certification.



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,037 posts
  • 5051 thanks
1,070
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 19 December 2016 - 05:19 AM

Hi, just interested to hear others opinions of SQF vs other GFSI standards such as BRC? My site is SQF and I wondering if there is any value in changing certification.

 

Hi taw,

 

Based on an on-going poll here the majority of members (inc. myself) seem to only have direct experience of 1 GFSI-recognized FS standard. The typical reason is that the choice is often customer-driven.

 

One basic distinction is between fssc22000 and 'the big 3" based on haccp-mode / generic-prescriptive format.

IMO all the GFSI-recognised FS Standards contain various chunks of impenetrable text. Some verging on the incomprehensible. Some possibly intentional.

 

I only hv direct experience of BRCFood. For significant differences between SQF vs BRC i suggest that -

 

(1) SQF is probably overall less textually convoluted (and longer) although it certainly IMO contains its share of unclear/debatable content/interpretations.

(2) SQF's scoring system appears to produce (to a non-user) some improbably high numbers. Whether BRC's system has the same criticism is less clear.

(3) SQF's Code (and website) seems more resistant to revision, eg some, IMO, transparent errors/ambiguities which i have pointed out up to 10 years ago remain. And similarly for the Guidance. (Nonetheless the SQF Guidance is generally an amazingly impressive/comprehensive Document(s). And, unlike BRC, is Free)

(4) SQF auditors seem to exhibit more internal diversity in interpretation of certain aspects of the Code, eg Validation.

(5) SQF's scope is perhaps somewhat different in that BRC's FS Standard, in addition to meeting GFSI benchmarks, attempts to satisfy legal, Due Diligence, requirements as existing within UK.

(6) SQF offers the ability to be certified only to a Standard based on food-safety related content, ie Lvl2. BRC does not, presumably partly due to comment in No.(5)

(7) SQF afaik has not yet copied BRC's infamous characteristic of requesting Risk assessments for all and sundry.

 

Again, the above only my Personal opinions.

.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users