SQF 2000: Beyond HACCP and ISO 9000

Hi everybody in the SDF!

I'm a new member here :D and I'm wonder why nobody deals with the SQF 2000 certification standard of the FMI (Food Marketing Institute) already working and been implemented in more than 18 countries with a total of more than 4000 companies certified and that has been fully recognized by the GFSI.

It seems to become the leading standard for retailers worlwide more than BRC, IFS and of course ISO 22000. Just to support my last comment, SQF has a number of modules provided as voluntary options to suppliers whose markets require additional assurances for matters in addition to food safety and quality. They include Social Accountability, Environment, Animal Welfare, Organic and Bio-terrorism. All of them could be in the certification scope of one or multi-sites.

Thanks for your comments and I attach the standard, it is completely free.

Luis Saucedo
MEXICO.

Hi Luis,

Thank you for coming to share some of your ideas with us. I guess not being familiar with SQF 2000, I shall like to read the standard first before commenting but it is by and large HACCP based anyway.

Being away for a week this Monday on, look forward to touch base on this subject when possible.

I am sure Simon (quite a knowledgeable chap) would have some thing to pick with you relating to BRC and SQF 2000. Nevertheless, they are all man-made standards anyway and this shows how rediculous it can get when BRC/SQ 2000 can actually be the same thing

Regards
Charles CHew

I am sure Simon (quite a knowledgeable chap) would have some thing to pick with you relating to BRC and SQF 2000.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Luis, welcome to the forums!

I'm not sure whether Charles is paying me a compliment or not up there.

Anyway thanks for attaching the SQF 2000 standard, I will give it a read and provide some comments in a day or so.

When you say the standard has been implemented in more than 18 countries, what are the main countries (percentages)?

Regards,
Simon

Hi Luis,

Trip delayed till tomorrow. A bit of time to kill here.

I have read the SQF 2000 and I find it very interesting and extremely detailed (expandable), pragmatic and progressive in presciptions. Yes, it is beyond HACCP usual requirements and I have in the past/current, already been using some of these prescriptions not required by Codex or HACCP Principles.

Sadly, the Accreditation Body is just ONE - SQF and the Certification Bodies are those registered with SQF. I think this is where the weakness is. It is not quite internationally recognized / accepted yet.

This "standard" comes out of USA from a stand alone institution but there seems to be suggestions of interests to expand elsewhere as suggested by their recent acitivitity in Netherland.

With ISO 22K coming on board soon, I am very sure it will have an impact on standards like BRC/IOP and IFS. However, having said that, requirements are country specifics AND as such, remains to be seen how severe an impact ISO 22K is going to be or for that matter, whether SQF will generate global interest.

My opinion is negative given the need for a wider global acceptance level as well as having to achieve a creditable numer of recognized accreditation bodies and particularly, a set of audit standards.

However, I like the structure and I think it is a great platform for those who wish to take thjeir HACCP Program to a next level.

Thanks Luis, Great Stuff! Have I missed anything

Regards
Charles Chew

Luis,

The SQF 2000 Standard is another clear and easy to read food safety management system standard. It must be easy to read as I managed to read it cover to cover. I quite like it.

The standard contains most of the requirements one would expect to find in a food safety management system standard - and in many ways it's just like the BRC and IFS Standards.

There is almost precise consensus throughout the world on what the requirements for a food safety management system should be, unfortunately it is all the other things that seem to get in the way. And this is what will prevent any of the current standards e.g. BRC / IFS / SQF from becoming ‘The Globally Accepted Standard'.

If this is your objective Luis, it won't happen IMHO. Remember we couldn't even get consensus in the European Union.

To demonstrate this I had an email the other day from a company in Greece, they have a certified (Greek National) HACCP system in place (I can't remember the title). In addition they have just achieved BRC for their UK customers. And now they are looking at IFS for German customers. The HACCP system helped them to produce safe food!

Its unfair, there is no logic to it and it has to change.

Love them or hate them I believe ISO will be the one to crack it. They've done it with Quality and Environmental so why not Food Safety?

Anyway back to SQF 2000. I have one or two comments with regard to the content of the Standard and I hope you don't mind me relating them to you.

I'm a little unsure about Level 1; it seems a bit lightweight without the requirement for a risk analysis. Surely you cannot have a food safety system without addressing process / product specific food safety hazards. Is Level 1 open to all types of supplier?

The other omission I see is there is no requirement for Refresher Hygiene Training. Are you trying to put me out of business? :P

Again I would be interested in hearing about the 18 countries where SQF 2000 has been adopted. I guess the majority are north and South America?

Thanks Luis, I look forward to your comments.

Regards,
Simon

Dear Simon:

First of all, thanks for your answers and quite good comments.

About your observations, I must tell you that I agree on most of them.

I'm sure that ISO 22000 may become "the standard", if not for its approach because of its recognizition by the industry, press and finally consumers. After all, who has a crystal ball to really predict what will happen?

Is Level 1 lightweight? It is. The idea is help the processor to gain ASAP a "fast-easy" certification of the Basic Food Standards that any must complied, then with it cheer up the crew to go for the Level 2 in no more than 6 months, and in another 6 months satisfied the Level 3 requierements for a "full safe-quality food". It's open for any type of supplier.

About putting you out of business It's was without intention Seriously, it is somehow implicit, no explicit to do it, as any system of training new and current employees.

The main country with certifications is Australia, where it was developed by Paul Ryan about 10 years ago. Another countries started looking at SQF for a beyond HACCP system a few years ago, but now everything is going to change with the adquisition of the SQF-Institute by the Food Marketing Institute of the U.S., which all of the main retailers of the world are affiliated and whose look at SQF as their final Food Quality Standard.

It's true, the SQF is a private certification controlled by a private entity, the SQFI of the FMI, and sadly is because of that it may become the main standard requiered by the retailers worldwide. Maybe not by the consumers (they sure will know more about ISO 22000) but sure by the clients.

Well, just a few thoughts... I like this forum!

Regards,

Luis Saucedo.
MEXICO

Thanks Luis, Great Stuff! Have I missed anything

Maybe the fact that one of the SQF Technical Committee Member is a guy from Kraft foods

See SQF Committee for details

Hi Luis,

I'm still to be convinced about level 1. I understand it allows organisations to follow a roadmap on the way to developing a comprehensive food safety management system. However, IMO we should consider and control the ‘critical risks' first through hazard analysis.

After all a food safety management system is not primarily about building internal confidence and getting a badge its about producing safe food.

Anyway Luis I really appreciate you bringing SQF 2000 to our attention. This is an open discussion forum and we have no favourites amongst the standards. If there is more discussion on SQF 2000 I will open up a dedicated forum for the Standard.

We shall have to wait and see how the Food Marketing Institute acquisition of the SQF-Institute helps to develop SQF 2000.

One things for sure - it's a very interesting time for Food Safety Standards!

Thanks for your contribution Luis and I hope you and your colleagues can contribute further to the discussions. :D

Best Wishes,
Simon

Someone told me that SQF 1000 and 2000 was under pressure and was on the process of going bankcrupt. No one want it as Retailers in EU do against the BRC/IFS.
Personally, I still SQF 2000 is very good standard to implement food safety management for developing countries. It is more reallistic. Level 1 -> Level 2 -> Level 3. After all, not all factories, no matter big or small, can establish and implement ISO and HACCP in a day.

Ding,

Really? I think FMI do not let this investment gone. US retailers are during promote this standard for fresh produces. Next phrase will be promoted to the imported food to USA.

NY

Hi Ding / narongchai_y,

Are there any facts and figures available on SQF take up in the USA? Or other countries?

Regards,
Simon

I don't realy get the figure at this moment, but what I know is that FDA in US is so strong that no one push the SQF, except FMI itself, not like the situations in EU.

The BRC, IFS and SQF are all designed as market-driven standard by retiailrs. That means there must be someone who strongly asks for it. I don't think Walmart in US make any effort on this. There probalby are only hundreds of cases of SQF 2000 in US. Compare to BRC and IFS, ..... I need not to say much about this.

I don't realy get the figure at this moment, but what I know is that  FDA in US is so strong that no one push the SQF, except FMI itself, not like the situations in EU. 

The BRC, IFS and SQF are all designed as market-driven standard by retiailrs.  That means there must be someone who strongly asks for it.  I don't think Walmart in US make any effort on this.  There probalby are only hundreds of cases of SQF 2000 in US.  Compare to BRC and IFS, ..... I need not to say much about this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reponse Ding. So what is the situation in the States are the retailers happy with letting the FDA take care of things? Do they carry out their own audits of suppliers? I would be interested to know more about the set-up with regards to food-chain safety in the USA.

Regards,
Simon

Hi All,

As I read through everyones comments about SQF, I come to realize that even though it's been around for along time, not too many people have heard about it.

Point being, I can't find anyone or anything regarding the different registers you're supposed to have, any information on what is to be included in the different manuals that each facility is supposed to have, and hta tnot many meat processing facilities are SQF Certified.

I looked through the lsit provided by Luis and the one at the very bottom that is a beef and pork processor doesn't have a country listed. This would mean that if and when we receive certification, that we would be the only SQF 2000 Certified Pork Processing Facility inthe USA! WOW!

With that said, I am still attemtping to locate information on how to set up the different manuals and registers that we're supposed to have according to the SQF code...does anyone have any idea where I could locate samples to follow???

I would ocmment on my thoughts regarding USDA inspectors and the way they interprete the regulations but to them, any audits we go through really don't matter other than the FSA (Food Safety Assessment) provided by USDA. We've been through one last summer along with a Third party Audit by Cook and Thurber and we are scheduled for another FSA at the end of this month. All while trying to get SQF Certification!!!

Yes, my plate is very full so if anyone can provide me with some help, I would be more than grateful!

Thanks all for your time...

Rey

Dear Rey,

With that said, I am still attemtping to locate information on how to set up the different manuals and registers that we're supposed to have according to the SQF code...does anyone have any idea where I could locate samples to follow???

You seem to be creating 2 rather parallel threads, ie

http://www.ifsqn.com...showtopic=12808

This may get confusing (it usually does .)

I suggest people respond to yr general requests in above thread which contains more current background data.

Rgds / Charles.C