38 replies to this topic

[GMO]

So it's a delay with GFSI?  Why?

 

Also waiting patiently for the successor to Skyrim.  Wonder which will come out first?

[jfrey123]

At this rate we'll see GTA6 before we see SQF 10...

 

I read the press release as if SQF missed the window where GFSI is revisiting their benchmarks, as in GFSI is in their update phase and won't sign off on SQF's revision until GFSI finishes their updates in Mar 2026.  I'm going to boldly predict it takes at least until June 2026 for SQF 10 to be accepted, with a 6-month window for implementation putting us at Jan 2027 for compliance.

[Tony-C]

 

Updating You on Edition 10 

Dear SQF Stakeholders,

 

We are writing to share that the release of SQF Code Edition 10 has been delayed due to an extension in the GFSI benchmarking application timeline, which now runs through March 2026. GFSI is currently reconvening its Benchmarking and Harmonization Working Group to review and potentially revise the benchmarking requirements.

 

Because SQF, like all Certification Program Owners, must submit through this process, this extension has impacted our release plans for SQF Code Edition 10.

 

Edition 9 is the recognized Edition of the SQF Code at this time. Audits will continue with Edition 9. Sites will have a minimum six-month transition period before audits begin under Edition 10.

 

While we had initially targeted a September release, the new benchmarking timeline will depend on the outcome of GFSI’s review, which means that the release date for Edition 10 is undetermined.

 

 

Thanks for the update Marshenko

 

The official press release is here: SQF Updating you on Edition 10

 

At this rate we'll see GTA6 before we see SQF 10...

 

I read the press release as if SQF missed the window where GFSI is revisiting their benchmarks, as in GFSI is in their update phase and won't sign off on SQF's revision until GFSI finishes their updates in Mar 2026.  I'm going to boldly predict it takes at least until June 2026 for SQF 10 to be accepted, with a 6-month window for implementation putting us at Jan 2027 for compliance.

 

It would be ridiculous if it was that late but it is all guesswork* given we were told August and then late fall previously. 

 

* I think closer to closer to January than June 2026. Happy to bet you a whole $ on that given how confident I am 

 

I find it extraordinary given that GFSI Benchmark Requirements were published in December 2024 that they are now planning on revising them without even moving to benchmark the current certification schemes against V2024. 

 

 GFSI Benchmark Requirements 2024.png   621.07KB   0 downloads

 

Would that suggest that publishing V2024 was a waste of money?

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[GMO]

It's all making me wonder "why"?  And also "who"...

[tadelong]

New Digitized Code as a Web Experience  

Edition 10 will be presented on sqfi.com

Well... this is gross.

[509fruit]

It's all making me wonder "why"?  And also "who"...

my $0.02

Sounds like the same song and dance that Global Gap v6.0 had to jump through.

Both GG and GFSI were pointing fingers at each other for the date milestones missed.

Though it sounded more like was at GFSI fault in the end for missing their own deadlines.

 

Who: most likely be the people/retailers that sit on the board for GFSI. 

Why: most likely $ or ego.

 

My guess is late Q3 2026 for v10 release and 2027 Q1 implementation/audit; if its going to follow the same pattern GG had.

 

I giggled at the video game references.

Are you sure we are not just living in a GTA 6 simulation?

[Scampi]

I think the entire scheme from GFSI on down has received monumental push back from stakeholders.  As i have stated many, many times before, this system is never going to achieve the ends they want for but 1 thing and 1 thing only

 

This is driven (and owned) by the retailers, if this was managed, created solely by manufacturers for manufacturers, it would be more likely to achieve improvements in compliance

 

I do not believe a voluntary scheme should ever have more weight than the regulatory world has, but alas, the lobbyists continue to push for less regulation, when the push should be for more

[TimG]

 

 

I do not believe a voluntary scheme should ever have more weight than the regulatory world has, but alas, the lobbyists continue to push for less regulation, when the push should be for more

Et tu, Canada?

I just had my FDA inspection last week, which was done by a person at the state level because FDA no longer has the funding to perform food safety inspections on facilities. I haven't had a regulator inspection for..4 years prior?

The discussion with the state person was that they (Michigan) currently do not have a contract in place. Contract is set to expire in Oct. If it doesn't renew *shrug* who knows? Well besides her possibly being laid off in a week, the audit went well.

So, we're going in the opposite direction in that regard.

[GMO]

I do not believe a voluntary scheme should ever have more weight than the regulatory world has, but alas, the lobbyists continue to push for less regulation, when the push should be for more

 

This is very much the case in the UK and EU.  While EU food law has strength, (and UK retained law based upon it) it also has some limitations apart from hard limits on things like Listeria monocytogenes in market and MRLs.  A lot is down to interpretation and it sort of just defines "don't make food which is injurious to health" without saying a hell of a lot of "how" (except for culture just to really annoy the people who don't buy into that.)

 

GFSI standards set out requirements with varying levels of prescriptive nature.  But you're right, it's optional, albeit in the UK required to supply a reputable retailer.  FDA requirements are far more prescriptive but my last FDA audit, admittedly a while back, was laughable how light touch it was.

 

I don't think you'd get that level of prescription into UK or EU legislation and it would be deemed anti competitive by certain other markets if it was.  Already what is in there is accused of being more about trade than food safety.  What's hilarious though is that it doesn't go far enough for some retailers so they write their own standards and the arms race continues.

 

There's part of me that wonders if, beyond a certain point, standards make food any safer?  People spend so much time internal auditing against a standard (and external auditors do the same) that it almost feels like the food safety risk gets forgotten.

[Scampi]

I wish every nation had the regulation that Canada has..............I get quarterly federal inspections for PRP, they also take samples including on imported product.

CFIA has much sharper teeth than most, I am aware of that 

 

The problem (IMHO) is the folks writing the rules, whether it is a GFSI standard, or from a regulatory stand point, are so far removed from actual manufacturing, that they are unaware of the risks

 

I would also say, that hiring state inspectors to enforce federal law seems counter intuitive from the get go

 

And yes, CFIA's top mandate is trade, but not at the expense of safety

 

Standards do not make food safer, it's the enforcement of the standard that does the heavy lifting--------

[kfromNE]

In the USA - 

 

The FDA visits every 3-5 years. Sometimes it is at the state level inspector. Their level of knowledge of the federal food manufacturing code - varies. 

 

USDA - visits everyday. Samples are determined by the volume produced.

 

For the FDA - we had the auditor show up a year early. The reason being - they were worried about funding. 

 

I don't mind having the USDA inspector here everyday. Some inspectors are better than others but that is to be expected. The nice thing - they know our facility and us. The FDA sees a snapshot. The USDA gets a full picture. 

[GMO]

I cannot honestly remember the last time I saw an Environmental Health Officer (who enforce food law in the UK).  It's a LOOOOONG time ago.

 

The bizarre thing is in the UK they also look after health and safety (although many specialise in one or the other) and have a remit for everything from Mom & Pop local takeaways and vast multinationals.  While they theoretically have teeth, they don't use them.  You can run rings around them to be honest.  Or at least you could back in the dim and distant past when you saw one.  What's more it's a completely closed shop.  You can't become one with industry experience, even if it exceeds their qualification.  You have to have a specific Environmental Health degree.  I think there's a post industry "masters" you can do but f- that...  (I looked into it, can you tell?)

[TimG]

I guess what bugs me about the whole thing is that ask your average citizen what they would like their tax $$ going to and I bet the majority would be ok with increased regulatory oversight on food. They'd probably be ok with teachers and public schools getting a higher budget. I know some teachers, and they are NOT getting paid anywhere near what I personally feel they should. And I have no skin in the game; I have no kids. I still don't want to see a bunch of idiots pushed out into the world because they sat in a class with 80 other kids and never learned how to read but still graduated.

And sure, people will say 'well get out and vote!' but we all know it doesn't work like that. Bills are introduced with tons of crap in there to push through things that it takes a battery of smart legal folks a lot of time to sift through just to understand. The older I get the more jaded on the whole system I get...

Edited by TimG, Today, 06:58 PM.

[GMO]

The older I get the more jaded on the whole system I get...

 

I'm with you there.