17 replies to this topic

[cbernard]

Can anyone tell me which audit content and depth is closest to FPA? We have one customer who does not accept the FPA audit but will accept


BRC, IFS, SQF, NSF and Silliker.

We have not done an FPA audit yet and had hoped to use one of the above as a pre-FPA primer. The majority of our other customers are pushing for the FPA audit results.

Thanks for any and all feedback

Cheryl

[Simon]

Can anyone tell me which audit content and depth is closest to FPA? We have one customer who does not accept the FPA audit but will accept...

Hi Cheryl,

Having not seen the FPA protocol I can't be categoric with my answer. However, the other standards are pretty much the same. If you chose to base your system on any of them I imagine you would not be far off meeting the requirements of the FPA, Just perhaps for a little finessing. The SQF codes can be downloaded free from the SQF Institute website. So that might just swing it for you.

http://sqfi.com

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Dear Cheryl,

The obvious (presumably stupid) question - what does FPA stand for ?? Not as Google suggests - Fluorescent Polarisation Assay I think

Rgds / Charles.C

[cbernard]

Charles, it stands for Food Processers Association.

[Charles.C]

Dear Cheryl,

Thks yr quick answer. Googling yr input led me to this which I guess is the relevant organisation (or not ??, in which case my apologies and please correct me) although the "P" appears to now be "Product" -

The Food Products Association or FPA (formerly the National Food Processors Association or NFPA) is the principal scientific and technical U.S. trade association representing the food products industry. Since 1907, the food industry has relied on FPA for government and regulatory affairs representation, scientific research, technical assistance, education, communications, and crisis management. FPA is headquartered in Washington, DC, with subsidiaries in Dublin, CA and Seattle, WA.

FPA started in 1907 as the National Canners Association. It became the National Food Processors Association in 1978, and the Food Products Association in 2005.

On January 1, 2007 FPA has merged with the Grocery Manufacturers Association and formed the world's largest trade association representing the food, beverage, and consumer products industry (GMA/FPA). Effective January 1, 2008 the association will use the single name Grocery Manufacturers Association

http://en.wikipedia....cts_Association

If above correct, do they issue a dwlable standard somewhere or is it like BRC needing dollars ?

I suspect this standard is unknown outside US territories (even perhaps including Simon despite his authoritative-sounding comment ) however somebody will probably (hopefully) immediately prove me wrong.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

I suspect this standard is unknown outside US territories (even perhaps including Simon despite his authoritative-sounding comment ) however somebody will probably (hopefully) immediately prove me wrong.

As far as I know FPA is North American, maybe customer required for importers also? If you were building a food safety system one could grab any of the known standards and you wouldn't be too far off the bullseye. Change the packaging, but a thorough HACCP system and the same-old prerequisites are what is needed.

Yours Authoritatively,
Simon

[cbernard]

Thank you everyone. You are right, it is North American and appears to be similar to just about all the other systems. We have decided on a Siliker prep audit that will satisfy our Canadian customers if we pass it.

Cheryl

[Charles.C]

Dear Cheryl,

I can’t say very much regarding “Siliker’s” standard (famous name for sure) since have only ever seen one US standard some time ago (AIB). Presumably there is a similar (to UK) accreditation setup in US.
As you say, many of the basic items in these auditable standards will inevitably be operationally similar (eg evidence of appropriate HACCP set-up, typical GMP features satisfactorily installed etc). However I can still remember thinking how much clearer (IMO anyway) the requirements were stated in the AIB standard. The BRC packaging standard (based on a limited viewing extract) also seemed far less mystifying than the food version. In fact I think EFSIS created a business by making the presentation of the BRC food content more “user-friendly” although they have now seemingly given up this approach. In fact, it sadly seems that nowadays, both BRC standards are attempting to be more like ISO in making the user repeatedly think “What the heck does that mean ?” .(Answer – support yr local consultant ).

Again, as previously commented, an obvious common denominator is that of “customer driven”. However additional agendas may also be involved here - the BRC standard is, (according to one website I visited) well constructed as a methodology to support the existing UK legal scenario of due diligence. In comparison the IFS standard (quoting from memory again) has a less defensive objective (I don’t know how this may relate to the text since have never seen IFS document) reflecting a different statutory environment.
I don’t know if due diligence as such exists in the US where a lawyer seems to be able to create an effective lawsuit out of thin air.

Rgds / Charles.C

[valerie]

Hi Cheryl,
I would say SQF is your best bet to please the masses.
Valerie

[GMO]

Have you ever thought 'which is best'? Had arguments with an ISO-o-phile today. I'm much more familiar with BRC but I'm open to ideas. What do you all think?

[YongYM]

For those who involved in food safety (e.g. governmental enforcement officer etc.) and also the consumer, the strictest standard is the best. Of course we want to purchase and consume safest food, you and me as the consumers, right?

The only thing is the manufacturers will become headache.

Still need to compare among the standards?

[GMO]

But which is the strictest standard? I would say BRC has more applicable stuff in it and more that's actually going to impact on food safety but then ISO audits I believe tend to be longer and more in depth.

[foodmicrochick]

All. Has anyone done/published a technical comparison between the standards? Namely BRC Food (version 5), SQF 2000, ISO 22000, IFS, AIB/GMA-SAFE? Any and or all? Thanks!

[StevoTheDevo]

All. Has anyone done/published a technical comparison between the standards? Namely BRC Food (version 5), SQF 2000, ISO 22000, IFS, AIB/GMA-SAFE? Any and or all? Thanks!

The GFSI Guidance Document does some sort of a comparison..

I think comparisons are only really valid for each organisation. As each place has different needs.
I recently completed a comparison document for my workplace based on crieteria that are important to my situation, which I think are failry unique.
We are not being pushed by customers to have any quality system, we're doing it more to help us through a period of growth from a small family business to a company.

My comparison is attached, and uses data pulled from all over this site and others.

We've ended up going for SQF, it looks to be cheapest, easiest to implement and maintain, and is GFSI recognised. There is also a lot of local experience with it, SQF being probably the most common International Food Quality Standard in Australia.

WQA would be the most common standard, being the oldest required standard (about 10 years old now) but it is an internal standard for one of the dominant Australian Supermarket chains, Woolworths.

As a result you'll probably be seeing a lot of me here for the next 18 months!!

Attached Files

•  GFSI_Guidance_Document_5th_Edition__September_2007.pdf   116.2KB   60 downloads
•  SQF2000_Vs_BRC_Vs_ISO.doc   50KB   100 downloads

Edited by StevoTheDevo, 26 November 2008 - 05:36 AM.

[Jean]

Thanks for sharing Stevo.

[Simon]

Great Stevo thanks for sharing your thoughts.

By the way is the Oz Woolworths the same company as the one here in the UK who went into Administration today. Very sad an old company (99 years old) with 800 stores and thousands of employees.

Woolworths set for administration

Bloody credit crunch.

[StevoTheDevo]

Not quite Simon!!

Woolworths Limited have recorded record profits for the past 5-6 years and will no doubt continue to do so given their dominant market position..They expect to maintain their 2009 profit forecast

They have fingers in:
Supermarkets (high and low end),
Alcohol Retail (High and Low end),
Hotels (Pubs),
Consumer Electronics Stores,
a "Walmart clone" department store
and over the past 5 years have become a very major force in Petroleum Retail, with their own branded sites and 50:50 joint venture sites with Caltex (offering 4c/L discount if you have a docket for $30 or more from other Woolworths stores).

Out of those markets, their brand would be market leader (or very close to) in every segment!!

Their direct competitor, Coles, is similarly positioned in the market, but have been following Woolworths' lead.
To catch up, management headhunted a number of UK Tesco (I think) executives a few years ago and as a result of that, Coles have introduced the requirement for suppliers to be either SQF Level 3 or BRC certified this year.
Lack of qualified auditors in BRC means that most Australian Suppliers have chosen SQF.

Edited by StevoTheDevo, 27 November 2008 - 01:45 AM.

[Simon]

Ah must be a different woolies. Maybe the Oz woolies originated from the original company or perhaps they just share the same name. Whatever they appear to be having better luck than Woolies UK.

The good thing about SQF is it's GFSI approved and free. Why go for anything else if your customers accept it.

Regards,
Simon