Why folks prefer ISO 22000 instead of BRC or SQF?

K

Ka Pilo

Why folks prefer ISO 22000 instead of BRC or SQF?

Considering that all of them are stand-alone standards.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Why don't you start out by telling us which one you "prefer", why you prefer it, which one your company actually uses, and why?

My assumption is you yourself are familiar with all 3 standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Why folks prefer ISO 22000 instead of BRC or SQF?

Considering that all of them are stand-alone standards.

In your country, that may be a true statement. It isn't true in the USA. You may wish to rephrase the comment for a global context, which is the reach of the Cove.
 
K

Ka Pilo

Why don't you start out by telling us which one you "prefer", why you prefer it, which one your company actually uses, and why?

My assumption is you yourself are familiar with all 3 standards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a direct user of BRC or SQF. It's just frustrating to note confusion from food sfatey professionals (both users, and auditors).

The following is a quote from Soon Loy and an example of confustion (OPRP vs CP) from standards designed for Food Safety:

Just wish to inform that we have successfully achieved FSSC22000 and BRC-Food (Issue 5) in an integrated audit recently. Although the issue on the interpretation of OPRP was raised by the auditor, all verification activity data/evidence were in place to support the system. So it was kind of anti-climax as we maintain our position that OPRP is CP even though the auditor had other ideas! Thanks to those who participated on this thread.

So, I wish to ask "Is ISO 22000 written in plain English?" Why there are so much confusion with ragard to interpretation?
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
I have not seen a standard yet that is not open to interpretations of its contents. In fact this site was started based upon the problem of the different interpretations of ISO 9001:1994 and what was then QS-9000.

You ask "Is ISO 22000 written in plain English?" I ask, what standard isn't open to interpretation?

As to the differences between ISO 22000, BRC and SQF - That's an entirely different question. Food processing isn't my area of expertise so I have no idea what the differences are.

But let's get back to your original question:
Why folks prefer ISO 22000 instead of BRC or SQF?
It may be more of an issue of the requirements of the specific country you are in and if you sell to foreign countries what their requirements are.

Again I ask of you: Why don't you start out by telling us which one you "prefer", why you prefer it, which one your company actually uses, and why?
 
K

Ka Pilo

I have not seen a standard yet that is not open to interpretations of its contents. In fact this site was started based upon the problem of the different interpretations of ISO 9001:1994 and what was then QS-9000.

You ask "Is ISO 22000 written in plain English?" I ask, what standard isn't open to interpretation?

As to the differences between ISO 22000, BRC and SQF - That's an entirely different question. Food processing isn't my area of expertise so I have no idea what the differences are.

But let's get back to your original question: It may be more of an issue of the requirements of the specific country you are in and if you sell to foreign countries what their requirements are.

Again I ask of you: Why don't you start out by telling us which one you "prefer", why you prefer it, which one your company actually uses, and why?
Our company (the management) prefers ISO 22000. Personally, I prefer BRC or SQF because Global Food Safety Initiative Standards compliant, and therefore accepted everywhere.

The confusion started when OPRP was introduced by ISO 22000, I think.
 
S

Soon Loy

There are many food safety standards that have evolved over the years and each one has their own list of requirements which are basically the same. ISO is making an attempt to "harmonize" ISO22000 as an internationally recognized FSMS standard. IMO, I believe this was not largely achieved but it created a lot of awareness about FSSC22000. And, in the meantime, other standards have also dropped off in the demand ranking ladder as new standards under GFSI come into the fore.

Ultimately, the customers will determine which food safety standard they want you to have and from that stand point, I believe GFSI's recognized schemes will very much be in the forefront. I also agree that we are bound to have interpretation issues no matter which and what standards we have to deal with. That is the sad part of what we have to live with.
 
T

tsmith7858

In your country, that may be a true statement. It isn't true in the USA. You may wish to rephrase the comment for a global context, which is the reach of the Cove.

As Andy indicates preference is dependent on where you are located. Although FSSC 22000 (and by extension ISO 22000) is gaining popularity in the US, SQF is the predominant standard at this point.

It probably has something to do with the fact that most of the large US retailers requested or referenced SQF first. Most now accept any GFSI accepted standard.

From a food producer standpoint in the US, there does seem to be a movement toward FSSC 22000 but I think it is because most of them already have ISO 9001 and the transition is easier.
 
J

JABee

I'm in the US and have worked extensively with ISO 9000, TS 16949 and 13485, written more than my share of manuals, procedures and instructions and been through many an intitial certification and continuing certification audit, and in my latest incarnation I was hired to work on a last minute SQF 2000 certification for a food packaging manufacturer at a company that previously had no defined quality management system at all. It's easy to shine in the darkness, I'll tell you that.

I have found SQF woefully defficient in some very basic quality management concepts, such as not allowing product or process deviations without a CAR, and control of non-conforming materials, for example.

We passed our initial SQF certification and last years recertification audit with flying colors, but I can guarantee we would have failed an ISO audit outright in the first hour. The authors of the SQF standards seemed to assume that companies were already on board with quality management best practices (even if they hold no certificates) and so they left out that framework, and incidentally all of the ISO practices that actually return value to a business whether or not they have the certificate.

SQF: All of the pain of ISO with less actual benefit. (other than keeping your customers that require it)
 
Top Bottom