What's New Unreplied Topics Membership About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy
[Ad]

SQF Code vs other GFSI standards

Started by , Dec 18 2016 10:34 AM
1 Reply

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.

Share this Topic
Topics you might be interested in
GFSI audit grumbles SQF Code Edition 10 Proposed Timeline Ethylene oxide Testing and Challenge encountered in relation to Deuterated Standards Pesticide Tolerance Limits: Comparing FDA and EU Standards IFS PACsecure v3 Not GFSI-Recognized: Will It Ever Be?
[Ad]

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.

.


Similar Discussion Topics
GFSI audit grumbles SQF Code Edition 10 Proposed Timeline Ethylene oxide Testing and Challenge encountered in relation to Deuterated Standards Pesticide Tolerance Limits: Comparing FDA and EU Standards IFS PACsecure v3 Not GFSI-Recognized: Will It Ever Be? Which GFSI scheme are accepted by Tesco? Costco 2025 Food Safety Supplier Standards Using BRC and IFS Standards as Supporting Documentation for USDA HACCP PRPs? Which GFSI Standard Is Best for a Mixed Fruit and Salad Business? Looking for Updated Study Questions for SQF Code 9.0 Packaging Practitioner Exam