Challenges moving from BRC to SQF

My company is looking to change our certification from BRC to SQF. Is this a good move? Are there any different programs we should be aware of and are the principles the same? 

Hello Kwollek, 

The company I am with recently made the opposite change and moved from SQF to BRC. 

In my opinion SQF is a bit more lax compared to BRC. With SQF edition 9 they seem to be making changes to be more in line with BRC though. I would highly suggest getting a copy of the applicable code from the SQFI website, PDF copies are free.

The principles are the same for both and the actual codes are very similar but again in my opinion BRC spells things out a bit better where SQF leaves things open for interpretation. Familiarize yourself with the SQF code so you can see but there are not that many different things. I would think at most going from BRC to SQF it will be the wording of documentation that will be the biggest change. If you have all programs set for BRC you should be fine going to SQF. 

I will also say be carful when picking the auditing body, I know there has been some issues with getting enough auditors for the one we had. This resulted in a lot of jerking around when it came time to set a date for audits and last minute changes to who the auditor would be. 

I hope that helps. 

J

kwollek,

That is the route my previous employer went thru. I found the changeover to fairly simple and yes most of the codes are very similar and with only small changes. Is there a reason why they want to change? 

I currently have facilities that are SQF and others that are BRC.   I have worked with both standards for several years.

I agree with jared in that usually there is more freedom in how the SQF code is written.   However, they have done some squirrelly things lately (IMO).   I  don't think its a huge issue to change.

HOWEVER, Why go through the extra work?    What do you hope to gain?      

I agree with above, but every situation is different.

That said, we're FSSC 22k, and at times I think BRC may have been the way to go.

But there's absolutely no way I'm switching anything now...

I would have thought that one major difference is the Scoring Procedure. It is incomprehensible to myself (BRC-familiar) how an auditor can award  99/100 (or perhaps even 100/100) ?

Both Standards have individual peculiarities, eg  BRC's obsession with risk assessments for every item in sight and SQF's interpretation of Codex haccp and related items such as Validation which has had a distinctly rocky history.

I would have thought that one major difference is the Scoring Procedure. It is incomprehensible to myself (BRC-familiar) how an auditor can award  99/100 (or perhaps even 100/100) ?

 

Both Standards have individual peculiarities, eg  BRC's obsession with risk assessments for every item in sight and SQF's interpretation of Codex haccp and related items such as Validation which has had a distinctly rocky history.

Can you clarify your problems with SQF? I don't really understand.

SQF has a hard time understanding the differences between verification and validation and seem to use them interchangeably

PLUS this years ballsey move of amending a brand new version, and not actually notifying anyone has really upset quite a lot of us  - it devalues the program significantly in my view , plus it has done zero to reduce food safety issues

Can you clarify your problems with SQF? I don't really understand.

Hi john,

IMO every FS Standard has skeletons in their closets. Some short term, some long. Some Major, some Minor. A few of the Majors have probably been  "golden geese" to the Consultancy sector.

Just for (SQF) starters, can try looking back through this Forum's history concerning the first paragraph of Scampi's post. This saga, after several years, resulted in an apology on the SQF website concerning auditorial (mis)interpretations.. Occasional Posts on this Forum suggest that the confusion still exists in some locations (old habits die hard).