FSSC V4.1 – High Risk Supplier Approval Requirements
I am from vietnam.
My company applied FSSC Standard.
The CB audited and had a non-comfomity.
- the supplyer haven't certification ( haccp. Iso. Fssc. Brc)
The FSSC have requirment that all high risk supplyer have to apply certification.is't it?
If yes. Can you show me that clause in FSSC.
Thanh you
Hi Thanhtien,
I'm having trouble understanding the non-conformity, was it that no one on your team has received any sort of HACCP training? If so I think that's required in the ISO22000 portion of the standard.
Can you show me that clause on FSSC Standard?
Because I don't fint it on standard.
I don't own the standard so I can't say. Based on some checklists I"ve seen I assume it's in the ISO 22000 portion (required per FSSC 2.1.1), and ISO has requirements for FST members traiing and education in 7.3.2.b)?
There shall be a defined process for the selection, approval and monitoring of suppliers. The process used shall be justified by hazard assessment, including the potential risk to the final product, and shall include:
a) assessment of the supplier’s ability to meet quality and food safety expectations, requirements and specifications;
b) description of how suppliers are assessed;
NOTE Examples of a description of how suppliers are assessed include: 1) audit of the supplying site prior to accepting materials for production; 2) appropriate third party certification.
Hi Thanhtien,In TS/ISO 22002-1 9.2 Selection and management of suppliers it states:
There shall be a defined process for the selection, approval and monitoring of suppliers. The process used shall be justified by hazard assessment, including the potential risk to the final product, and shall include:
a) assessment of the supplier’s ability to meet quality and food safety expectations, requirements and specifications;
b) description of how suppliers are assessed;
NOTE Examples of a description of how suppliers are assessed include: 1) audit of the supplying site prior to accepting materials for production; 2) appropriate third party certification.So it isn't completely clear that it is a must but implies certification or audit is required, particularly for high risk suppliers.It is clearer in BRC for example and maybe the auditor is used to auditing to BRC, however, personally I would expect high risk suppliers to be audited or be certified to a GFSI benchmarked standard.Kind regards,Tony
Hi Tony,
Thanks for the nice ISO quotation.
However i somewhat disagree yr comment that BRC7 is more clear than ISO. IMO both are "obscure" as to their specific criteria for rating a Low/High Risk Supplier.
IMO one can easily end up with risk rating conundrums, eg -
(a) The supplied "ingredient" is (haccp) rated as "high" risk due to its risk impact on the final production process/final product safety.
(b) The supplier's facility/process is rated as "low" risk if focused on (eg BRC7) "traceability, HACCP review and GMP"(excluded "product safety" since meaning unclear to myself. Perhaps they meant (a)?).
So which one prioritises for the overall Supplier Risk Status ? eg is H/L equivalent to L/H ?
I previously on the Forum decided to use (a) only for BRC while noting the lack of BRC textual clarity (IMO).
(Logically one might argue that "high risk" (b) suppliers should not be "approveable" anyway ?).
The risk assessment shall form the basis for the raw material acceptance and testing procedure and for the processes adopted for supplier approval and monitoring.
BRC Guidance Interpretation 3.5.1.1 Raw material risk assessment
The outcome of this activity must also be considered when assessing the requirements for supplier approval and for monitoring and acceptance procedures (clauses 3.5.1.2 and 3.5.2).
• certification (e.g. to BRC Global Standards or other GFSI-recognised scheme)
• supplier audits, with a scope to include product safety, traceability, HACCP review and good manufacturing practices, undertaken by an experienced and demonstrably competent product safety auditor
or, for suppliers assessed as low risk only, supplier questionnaires.
Hi Tony,
No problem. We can agree to differ. :smile:
addendum
Hi Tony,
If BRC7 had included yr middle quote within the Code then I would have generically agreed with yr comment.
(Or even if the Glossary had included a term like "Low/High Risk Supplier".)
I note that BRC6 (3.5.1.2) contained - "The approval and monitoring procedure shall be based on one or a combination of ........"
IMO the additional text in BRC7 should have "included" the content of the IG.
@Thanhtien - apologies for the slight OT. I think Tony well answered yr query ?