IFS Product Fraud Guideline
bsechet,
Hi. The link does not seem to be working for me
Hi bsechet,
Thks for the link. It's an interesting and IMO generally well-readable document.
I'm not personally familiar with IFS Code so will only comment on, IMO, the usefulness in a generic sense. I note the intro to Guide states the IFS Code is flexible with respect to chosen methodology.
The scope (~EMA?) appears to cover safety/non-safety related food vulnerabilities and includes(?) on-site process/transport vulnerabilities. No discussion/examples concerning last-mentioned items were seen(?).
Vulnerability Assessment (VA) procedure for raw materials looks analogous to the (matrix) methodology previously proposed by BRC.
Overall Risk/Vulnerability Assessment/Decision (see Fig6/Pg25) is determined by combining results of 3 evaluations - (a) Product (VA) risk score, (b) Supplier (VA) risk score, (c) current control measure rating.
Regarding (a) The proposed Product Risk Scoring method (matrix) is detailed and numerically straightforward since only the maximum individual value (1-25) is used. Simple but crude. Several useful examples are given. The separation of risk sub-factors into "Occurrence" and "Detection" is perhaps debatable, eg "supply chain complexity" > "Detection" (exactly opposite to BRC's matrix).
Regarding (b.c) I think a lot of the content is located differently in other VA schemes, eg within their (a) (eg geopolitical aspects) or a terminology such as "Supplier Approval" (eg audit statuses).
It is unclear to me how the eventual Supplier Risk score (1-5) is determined. Intuitive ?. No example is given.
(c) Similar to last comment for (b,c).
Overall risk score is arbitrarily(?) defined as = (a)score x (b)score. Quantitative analysis/interpretation of the resulting number is absent.
Based on comparing the results of (a,b,c), action regarding the supplier/control measure program is implemented. Several quite detailed examples are given. The decision procedure in examples shown appears semi-quantitative/intuitive but only the conclusions are listed (eg Appendix1).
The format presented for Overall Assessment-Mitigation Plan (eg Appendix1) is well-done/compact IMO but I anticipate that auditors will enquire as to the basis of the conclusions shown.
bsechet,
Hi. The link does not seem to be working for me
Can you try this one?
The first link seemed OK to me. And looks identical to the 2nd one.
Recently, the food's fraud guidelines are in english language only. Other language will follow soon. All guidelines you can check online which will be valid.
Thanks for the updation Bsechet.
Kind regards
H.Reds