9 replies to this topic

[DaveK]

I am employed at a modestly-sized co-packing enterprise. Currently, we are endeavoring to achieve GFSI Certification. The choice between SQF, BRC, or potentially other certification pathways presents itself as a matter of consideration. Ideally, for our inaugural certification, we aspire to embark upon a trajectory of relative simplicity. Given our status as a compact operation specializing in the production of sauces, dressings, and beverages, I humbly seek your guidance regarding the optimal certification avenue to pursue. Your expert counsel in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

[Brothbro]

Considering that you're a co-packer, you should start by asking your customers what their preferences/requirements are. After that, are there any other firms you'd like to co-pack for as your business expands? Learning their requirements can set you up for success in the future.

[DaveK]

Considering that you're a co-packer, you should start by asking your customers what their preferences/requirements are. After that, are there any other firms you'd like to co-pack for as your business expands? Learning their requirements can set you up for success in the future.

 

Presently, our existing clientele has not articulated any specific requirements. However, it's worth noting that we have encountered missed opportunities with potential collaborators aiming to distribute their products through platforms like Trader Joe's or Walmart. These instances occurred due to our lack of GFSI certification records, apart from a foundational GMP audit and local regulatory inspection reports.

Your suggestion appears to propose a sequential approach—securing the account before pursuing certification. This approach holds merit, yet it's been challenging for us to secure accounts without the requisite certification. The complex issue lies in the uncertainty surrounding the retail destinations of our potential clients' products. The diversity of retail landscapes makes it a daunting task to definitively select the most suitable certification pathway.

My initial perspective revolved around the notion that possessing at least one certification on record could potentially serve as a foundation for establishing a rapport with potential clients. This, in turn, could facilitate our entry into discussions and negotiations.
Considering the complexity of this situation, I would greatly appreciate your insights into the logic of this approach or any alternative strategies you might recommend, given your valuable perspective and experience.

[kfromNE]

This topic has been covered a lot in the forum. I would search through past posts. You should find your answer. 

[DaveK]

Further more which certification agency would you recommended?  We have use AIB in the past for GMP audit.  Looking for the most economic outfit.

[SQFconsultant]

For ease of setting up and implementation I'd go with SQF. Use IFSQN'S templates system and as to a good CB I'd contact Henrietta Comacho at CICS.

[Tony-C]

For ease of setting up and implementation I'd go with SQF. Use IFSQN'S templates system and as to a good CB I'd contact Henrietta Comacho at CICS.

 

Thank you for the recommendation Glenn. I would agree that SQF is more straightforward if you are not familiar with the BRCGS standard.

 

The IFSQN offer a choice of two SQF Food Packages:

 

SQF Implementation Package for Food Manufacturers - Edition 9 (2022 Update)

 

SQF (& FSMA) Implementation Package for Food Manufacturers - Edition 9

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[DaveK]

For ease of setting up and implementation I'd go with SQF. Use IFSQN'S templates system and as to a good CB I'd contact Henrietta Comacho at CICS.

 

Where can I find the template system?

[DaveK]

Ahh i see it - the link that IFSQN Fellow posted. 

[kingstudruler1]

Having created both BRC and SQF compliant programs over the years, I would probably pick SQF for the following reasons.  However, there really isnt much difference.  Either one is fine.  

 

1.  You are located in the USA where SQF is more popular.  It seems like there are more options for auditors, training, employees with knowledge/ community support, etc.   

2.   in general, I find the standard to be less prescriptive.   That may be a benefit to you.   it may not.  

3.  Not all of the guidance docs are free from BRC.  

 

 

I have used several of the certification companies over the years.   I haven't had any serious issues with any of them.   Maybe I have been lucky.   I have recently had several audits quoted.   there didn't seem to be a lot of price difference between them.