Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Help, Just started a new job at a glass bottle manufacturing plant.


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

#1 lara_80

lara_80

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 43 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 15 October 2018 - 01:43 PM

I just started a new job trying to get a 50yr old glass manufacturing plant up to standard to get a GSFI certification. They currently have an ISO 9001 certification and wanted to get FSSC 22000 but I only have experience in SQF. What are the pros to doing FSSC 22000? Which program do you like better? Also, If anyone works in a food packaging plant (glass, plastic, ect..) could you share some of the documents you use. I appreciate any input.



#2 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,282 posts
  • 895 thanks
485
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 October 2018 - 01:52 PM

We buy glass jars................so this works for me!

 

I've worked with both...........FSSC is supposed to offer some more flexibility than SQF, but in food manufacturing anyway, has some quirks like you have to train the employees are not have pens behind ears (which is weird because that falls under a lot of other areas)

 

As far as my experience so far, I think I would chose FSSC again if the decision was solely mine to make. But from what I can see here, there are less FSSC folks around,so you may have a harder time getting any help on this forum

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...fssc-22000-etc/             This page may be of some more help


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


#3 MsMars

MsMars

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 606 posts
  • 194 thanks
148
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 October 2018 - 05:47 PM

Same as Scampi above.... FSSC Is definitely less rigid that SQF, but less support here on the board.  Personally I would do SQF just because it's more or less in my comfort zone and I like to have things in black and white, but that's just my preference.  



#4 SQFconsultant

SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,544 posts
  • 900 thanks
768
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:American Patriot
    WWG1WGA
    Never give up, never give in
    Vineyard Haven on the island of Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts, USA

Posted 15 October 2018 - 05:55 PM

Oh, gee that must be fun!

 

Glass packaging is the BEST!

 

OK, I am biased, was one of the first SQF Auditors and have been an SQF Consultant for seven years now.  We have dabbled on occaision with FSSC, but it always seems to come back to SQF for the clients.

 

What we see in packaging - it is the biggie companies that went to FSSC 22000 from SQF, etc.  but is the better companies that stayed or go with SQF, just an opinion but FSSC 22000 seems to allow a lot of slacking.


Kind regards,
Glenn Oster
 
GOC Group | +1.800-793-7042 | Serving the Food, Food Packaging & Food Storage Industries
SQF Development, Implementation, Certification and Continuity eConsultants 
Internal Auditor Training | CV Fallout Recovery for Food Companies | Long-Term eConsultant
Serving the American Republic, Centro America and Caribbean Islands

http://www.GlennOster.com

 

Celebrating 13 Years in our SQF Consulting business - Influenced by two & blessed by one!

Read about it here: https://glennosterco...m/ogfc/goc-news


#5 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,282 posts
  • 895 thanks
485
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 October 2018 - 06:13 PM

I forgot to mention; one supplier of mine is FSSC and the other is SQF.....just to add to the general confusion

 

 

I have read from a lot of packaging folks on here that are having a really hard time managing some of the SQF requirements that appear to have been generically kept in packaging, but that may just be because there aren't' as many FSSC folks out there


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


#6 012117

012117

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 227 posts
  • 68 thanks
33
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Validation, basketball, chocolatier

Posted 15 October 2018 - 11:28 PM

Hi, Lauralsiah.

 

Since the plant is IS0 9001 already, some of the documents needed for FSSC clauses are already available, just need to add the "food safety/packaging safety  requirements" in some of the documents. I have no experience in SQF so I cannot really say which is "better" or more flexible during implementation, however, reading both requirements,  I think FSSC is more flexible but SQF provides more guidance or more straightforward. :) 



#7 MsMars

MsMars

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 606 posts
  • 194 thanks
148
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 October 2018 - 01:10 PM

To add to the conversation - I've found that flexibility has both good and bad outcomes.  Sometimes "flexibility" or "ambiguity" in a standard leaves it up to completely different interpretations by auditors and quality personnel, leading to some conflicting opinions come audit time.  Most of the time you will have a knowledgeable auditor that will be able to see and consider different interpretations of an ambiguous standard as long as you provide sufficient evidence and validation.  However, some auditors are trained for the standard to mean only one thing and are not capable of interpreting the standard in any other way than what they were trained or what the standard's guidance documents say. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users