15 replies to this topic

[GMO]

I "grew up" with BRCGS, since version 4 in fact so it "makes sense" to me.  In most plants who aren't mature, the prescriptive nature of it, yet the willingness to accept a risk assessment is pragmatic.

 

BUT, I don't like the way it's audited.  The standard owners have tried with the "audit this bit in the factory" sections of it.  After you go through some other retailer or AIB style audits, the amount of time you spend at a desk with BRCGS is too long.  It ends up being an audit of the competence of the technical team in recording stuff in policies not actually what's happening.  And in fact, if you make sure that your systems are tip top, you are almost guaranteed an AA in my experience as I've not had an auditor yet who has either taken their blinkers off or spent long enough in a factory to get >5 non cons without some of them being system related.

 

I have limited experience with FSSC but kept looking for more standard content I'm not sure existed.  For the site I was in, I ended up taking the FSSC requirements and BRCGS because while we weren't accredited to the latter, we were so culturally immature, I didn't feel what we'd assessed as minimum standards was enough.  SQF seems a lot like BRCGS.

 

So what is your favourite (or not) standard.  Why?  Do you think GFSI works?  If not why not?

[Scampi]

Everyone on here probably knows my stance at this point

 

GFSI do not work, and will never work under the current manifestation  (and on principal I object---the grocery business created these in hopes their bottom line wouldn't be affected)

 

Any bad actor can dance their way through an audit and say all the right things and show all the correct records, and be doing something else the other 362 days of the year

 

Auditors shouldn't be able to be independent contractors and the requirements to become an auditor will only ever attract 2 general types of people (IMHO)

1. very young, inexperienced

2. Masochists

 

You cannot possibly tell me that an auditor who's 30 has enough working experience in more than 1 commodity to be an effective auditor 

 

grumble grumble grumble 

[qa_maddy]

I'm also BRCGS person, but did work in a plant that used SQF and they both seem so similar that I don't have a strong preference. 

I've looked into more product specific schemes but that's because I live in the world of seafood and even then it's hard to state a strong preference. 

 

I like that GFSI provides an outline - and I think that's where it basically stops haha.

 

I agree with Scampi that everyone can put on the song and dance for a few days, and if your CAPA is strong enough then it doesn't ever feel like there's really much of a consequence for discrepancies found during an audit. Especially when you can get Majors/ Critical on things that don't even apply to the safety of the food (Hello misused logo). In the end it all feels like a cash grab with a questionable ROI, but then again it does help keep me employed. 

[GMO]

It's probably a different thing in different countries.  We have legislation in the UK, mostly hung over from the EU if we're honest but it's not strong.  It's pretty vague and leaves it very much up to the sites on how to comply.  So to have a GFSI standard which (especially BRCGS) is pretty prescriptive was as much for the retailers in the UK to set a higher standard and, yes, ok, to cover asses.  But in the UK at least, while BRCGS can be something you can stage manage on the day, trust me, the sites who don't have it are much, much worse.

[Killian]

SQF is so ubiquitous where I am that for the first few years I was in the industry I thought it was a unified global standard. Every SQF audit I've seen or been a part of has had about an 80:20 ratio of desk to floor, which isn't great for an actual audit of a facility but I know the technical team is always keen to get them off the floor since the desk portion is so much easier to prep for and to contest NCs (harder to argue with objective deficiencies we can all see with our own eyes).

 

The game plan always feels like it's to survive until lunch on the first day with as few floor NCs as possible and from there the audit feels like it's more under our control.

 

Not endorsing this mindset or audit type or anything, but that's been my experience.

[jfrey123]

I'm with everyone who says they like the scheme they "grew up with".  That's SQF for me, though I think SQF 10 is going down a series of stupid rabbit holes on topics that aren't likely to actually improve food safety.  I tend to be a really cut and dry black-and-white type guy, and being documentation heavy it takes a lot of guesswork or wiggleroom out of my bosses.  Either we documented it or we didn't; and if we didn't, I probably have a note telling you we needed it documented, so the finding is not my fault.

 

 

Auditors shouldn't be able to be independent contractors and the requirements to become an auditor will only ever attract 2 general types of people (IMHO)

1. very young, inexperienced

2. Masochists

       

Edited by jfrey123, 12 August 2025 - 08:23 PM.

[Mariann]

I have worked in various companies that operated under the FSSC 22000, BRCGS, or IFS Food standards.

In my opinion, FSSC 22000 is quite unclear because it requires referencing multiple different guidelines. BRCGS is relatively straightforward, but it is very prescriptive and leaves little room for flexibility—as long as you meet the requirements of the standard. However, I find some of those requirements somewhat unusual.

Currently, I work in a company that follows the IFS Food standard. I like IFS Food because it allows for more flexibility through risk assessment. You can apply your own common sense, and it is not as rigid as BRCGS.

Based on my experience with audits for all three GFSI standards, I have noticed that a significant amount of time is spent reviewing documentation in the office, while the actual operations are observed to a lesser extent. I haven’t seen major differences between the audits themselves

[GMO]

However, I find some of those requirements somewhat unusual.

 

Which ones do you find unusual?  (BRCGS also allows for risk assessment if it's nonsensical to comply with a clause or genuinely not a risk.)

[MDaleDDF]

I'm with everyone who says they like the scheme they "grew up with".  That's SQF for me, though I think SQF 10 is going down a series of stupid rabbit holes on topics that aren't likely to actually improve food safety.  I tend to be a really cut and dry black-and-white type guy, and being documentation heavy it takes a lot of guesswork or wiggleroom out of my bosses.  Either we documented it or we didn't; and if we didn't, I probably have a note telling you we needed it documented, so the finding is not my fault.

 

 

       

Yes, that literally made me laugh out loud as well.   It's funny cause it's true....lol    Food science comedy gold right there by Scampi...

To echo the sentiments put forth, my favorite GFSI is no GFSI.   GFSI sux.

Edited by MDaleDDF, 13 August 2025 - 12:09 PM.

[GMO]

Yes, that literally made me laugh out loud as well.   It's funny cause it's true....lol    Food science comedy gold right there by Scampi...

To echo the sentiments put forth, my favorite GFSI is no GFSI.   GFSI sux.

 

So take the case of the UK.  We don't have FSMA.  We have some level of legislation, most via the EU before we left but it's not prescriptive like FSMA is in the most part.  It's more outcome based.  And that makes it hard for sites which do not have strong leadership.

 

Would you beef up the legislation and make it more prescriptive, bearing in mind that might take decades and would have to have UK and EU alignment or our exports are REALLY shot to bu****ry or is there a place for a standard that goes above legislation?   At least in the meantime?

[MDaleDDF]

So take the case of the UK.  We don't have FSMA.  We have some level of legislation, most via the EU before we left but it's not prescriptive like FSMA is in the most part.  It's more outcome based.  And that makes it hard for sites which do not have strong leadership.

 

Would you beef up the legislation and make it more prescriptive, bearing in mind that might take decades and would have to have UK and EU alignment or our exports are REALLY shot to bu****ry or is there a place for a standard that goes above legislation?   At least in the meantime?

I dunno....  I'm not sure what the answer is.   Obviously there has to be something in place to police this stuff, but the current actually seems like a step back not a step forward.   I think everyone on the IFSQN has similar thoughts on their GFSI experiences, from what they post here anyway. 

 

We did AIB inspections back in the day and they actually tore the plant apart looking for stuff that was more 'where the rubber hits the road' on food safety.  They went thru all our production machinery, etc.    Nowadays the inspector checks our paperwork, does a walk thru real quick, collects their check, and that's it.   Our write ups in the last five years have been based mostly on silly nit picky paperwork stuff.   Not that I don't want my paperwork perfect, it just isn't the same as a deep dig into the facility like they did back in the old days.    

 

Beefing up legislation is pointless without someone keeping an eye on it obviously, and currently the manpower for that doesn't exist.   Honestly I'd like to see more personal responsibility and accountability onsite than massive oversight by the government, but that won't happen at some places.   Look at Boar's Head.    I'm lucky enough to work at a place that's smaller and has safe product, so much of the stuff all you other food folks go thru is more difficult than what I do, so.... 

I believe Scampi just said in another thread that it's pretty easy to pretty up the operation for a day or two while you're being inspected.   Agreed, and I think a lot of places probably do that.

 

I wish there was a simple answer and I had it.   I do not.

[GMO]

You can use AIB as a CB for GFSI audits and in my opinion, they're pretty good as they take that deep dive mindset.

 

Ultimately though, doesn't some of the accountability sit with the auditee?  If you have a weak ass auditor, ask for a tougher one next time?  Or change CB?

 

You're right, legislation in the UK would be pointless anyway.  Our EHOs are seen in factories once in a blue moon as they also have to audit takeaways, restaurants, shops etc and there are too few of them anyway.  Adding more to to for them when they have more experience in kebab shops and no time isn't the answer.  Perhaps sub contracting those visits and charging them back to the auditee is one suggestion but that will take you into the same CBs auditing GFSI.

 

Of course you can stage manage an audit.  But that's the point of unannounced and the culture and behaviours side.  Yep at the moment this is easy to pull the wool over an auditor's eyes on that but again, who's fault is that?  You could stop.  That is an option?

 

There isn't a simple answer, I agree, so sorry if this comes over as a bit rough; but if we have no answers, man or woman up, as complaining will get you nowhere apart from irritated.  If we have answers, propose them?

[jfrey123]

To echo the sentiments put forth, my favorite GFSI is no GFSI.   GFSI sux.

 

I agree GFSI has flaws, but as I entered food safety in the post-GFSI world I've heard horror stories of the numerous customer audits to varying standards creating patchwork of SOP's within plants to meet specific customer standards.  My first job at the 3PL spice plant achieved their first SQF with me on board, and we had merely blended the existing mishap of SOP's into a coherent FSQMS to fulfill the "Say what you do, do what you say."  Lot of auditor questions about SOP's were answered by the owner and plant manager with "This program was made to fulfill a prior customer requirement", leading us to later revamp many programs to make something that satisfied SQF first, customers second.

 

Despite GFSI, the first two years there still saw about 9 on-site customer audits per year.  If we were lucky they'd send us their audit standard ahead of time, but mostly they did not.  One gal showed up from a company that makes fruit squeezers and informed us they'd downloaded the Campbell's Food Safety Standard and were holding us to that, then constantly argued that we weren't making the powders safe enough for use in baby formulas.  I've mentioned in the past a guy argued with me that we needed to be monitoring our employee lunch refrigerator on a checklist multiple times a day.  More than a few auditors tried to force us to change our EMP frequency to meet their perceived wants instead of acknowledging our validation.

 

I could go on and on, but what I can say now is that GFSI certification now gives you something to fall back on when a customer's request sounds absurd.  They have a problem with your EMP?  "Our EMP meets GFSI standards, but we can note your observation for our annual review."  They don't like your pest control?  "Our pest control records have been reviewed and meet GFSI standards."  Now maybe when the Fortune One company or some other major, major retailer wants something that'll help your company secure millions in sales, then sure, you make the change.  But when that podunk rag-tag B2B customer wants a 2-day onsite audit to hold 1% of your book of business over your head?  "Nah, here's our GFSI cert and audit, you have a good day now."

 

Some of us rightfully complain about a lack of common sense in the 'certified' auditors the CB's are sometimes sending.  But does anyone remember being audited by some 20 something college grad hired by a customer who was merely the only employee willing to travel?

[Killian]

If we have answers, propose them?

 

One thing I think would be worth trying before we abandon the GFSI ship is to increase auditor compensation. If the field was more attractive to experienced technical personnel (something I know has been discussed on here a lot) then the quality of audits would be higher overall. I generally like trying to fix things from the ground up, and to me this seems like the most sensible place to start. I don't think most of us actually dislike GFSI as a concept, we dislike lazy, nitpicking desk audits by underpaid, burned out (or unqualified) auditors.

[Scampi]

 

Some of us rightfully complain about a lack of common sense in the 'certified' auditors the CB's are sometimes sending.  But does anyone remember being audited by some 20 something college grad hired by a customer who was merely the only employee willing to travel?

 

 

This has NOT changed-------cause who wants a life on the road 51 weeks/year

[TimG]

One thing I think would be worth trying before we abandon the GFSI ship is to increase auditor compensation. If the field was more attractive to experienced technical personnel (something I know has been discussed on here a lot) then the quality of audits would be higher overall. 

Every single audit we get has increased in price this year, on TOP OF the cost increases for certification. Some have increased pretty substantially. SURELY that money is going to find better skilled talent to perform audits!! Right guys...? Right?