Dear Mr. Michalowski,
I was interested to read your comments concerning the relative merits of the BRC, ISO 22000 and the IFS. I find it hard to believe that British retailers trust ISO over the BRC. Remember BRC stands for British Retail Consortium and the standard has been developed and updated by British Retailers. In fact I am aware of several British Retailers who approve plants having only a BRC certificate, but do not accept only an ISO certification.
Likewise I am puzzled by your comment that the IFS is better than the BRC because it has requirements for traceability, GMO and allergens. I don't know who has provided information that the BRC standard does not address those requirements. Traceability is one of the 10 Fundamental Clause requirements of the standard (Section 2.13) as are Allergens and GMO products (Section 4.2). Failure to have systems to meet any of those requirements results in no certificate being issued.
Finally, I don't understand the notation concerning Certification Bodies. Any third party standard scheme requires an auditing body to determine compliance. ISO 22000 is no exception and many of the CBs conducting audits for ISO 22000 also audit for BRC or IFS certifications as well.
It is fine to debate the relative merits of participating in Quality System audit programs and what benefit one receives from them, but be careful of statements that misrepresent the various standards.
Sincerely,
John Clemence
President
Clemence Technical Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Remi Michalowski <remi.michalowski@cpp.co.id>
To: Chingling Tanco <crt@mida-group.com>
Cc: seafood@ucdavis.edu
Sent: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
ISO 22000 is a management system, international standard to support your FSMS. It pushes companies to provide results e.g. the main issue for retailers is that the company can select and implement the control measures they want, once they manage the risks identified and that the system meets the targets established.
Private standards such BRC and IFS, all is means e.g. investments. BUT, more and more nowadays, this "prerequisite" to be able to sold to retailers becomes less "trusted" by the retailers: they have a list of "approved" CB and some have their own requirements much more demanding !!
In conclusion, ISO 22000 very good for developing countries and to meet legal requirements but demanding on results and also on money (audit, competence). BRC very demanding on means and facilities but less trusted by the UK retailers.
Please note that IFS is a bit "better" than BRC as it integrates legal requirements such as traceability, GMO and allergens. but the standard is still a private one and only valuable if you process retailers' branded products.
Rgds,
Dipl. Ing. Rémi Michalowski
Senior Manager QA Food Processing
PT. Centralpertiwi Bahari - Lampung, Indonesia
HP + 62 815 4040 484
Yahoo Messenger ID: michalowski_rmi@yahoo.fr
Skype ID: remi_michalowski
CPB - Integrated Shrimp Farming. "From Pond to Plate"
A CPP Company. Part of Charoen Pokphand Group
On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Chingling Tanco wrote:
I agree it's getting crazy - in Europe for example - the UK wants the BRC
(British Retail Consortium) standard while France and Germany want the IFS
International Food Standard system and they are almost the same but called
different names. Suggestion for those plants going for BRC certification -
ask for IFS certification to be done at the same time as this shouldn't cost
you much more.
Chingling Tanco
Mida Trade
Manila, Philippines
From: Vanessa Broadnax <vanessa@baldorfood.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:12:01 -0400
To: <criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com>, <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Conversation: Auditing Quality Systems
Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
Sometimes more is good. We need to keep food safety in the forefront. We can
not afford not to look at different points of view. Different views keeps us
on our toes. We must manage our time and efforts wisely.
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu <owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu>
To: seafood@ucdavis.edu <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Thu Aug 09 19:57:07 2007
Subject: Auditing Quality Systems
I seem to spend a lot of time being accredited to one quality system or
another and then meeting with Processors who complain that there are so many
systems that they have to become documenters for each system with differing
needs.
Any comments on relative merits of the differing systems ?
(without especially trashing systems by name)
My two cents, for what it is worth, is that ISO 22000 will probably replace
everything else eventually. ( it has HACCP components so is on-topic)
Other views anyone?
--- The information contained in this communication (including any attachments) is privileged and confidential, and may be legally exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended only for the specific purpose of being used by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or are responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you must not disclose, disseminate, distribute, deliver, copy, circulate, rely on or use any of the information contained in this transmission.We apologize if you have received this communication in error; kindly inform the sender accordingly. Please also ensure that this original message and any record of it is permanently deleted from your computer system. We do not give or endorse any opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to our official business.
________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 14 2007 - 23:02:53 PDT