Hi Clare,
Yeap, sorry, but I am French, and as you know we have a poor english ;)) . I was meaning men with M...
Apologize.
Take care and thks for the input
Kind 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<mailto: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 15, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Clare Winkel wrote:
Hi All,
Couldn’t agree more with “No system is perfect, no standard is perfect. You will always find higher expectations from certain buyers.”
Yes different retailers (in UK and Aust) defiantly prefer and list certain cert bodies above others. Some list those cert bodies on their websites. I have been witnessed as an auditor by supermarkets in both countries. In one case for the cert body I was working for to be listed in and another case for me as an individual auditor to be listed on top of the cert body I worked for. As I said for a cert body and an auditor to audit against any particular standard there are a lot of hoops to jump thru, procedures to be written, qualifications to get (ie training courses to attend and exams to pass), audits to be witnessed and money to be paid.
I might personally think one standard has better components to it but it doesn’t mean that my clients want or need that standard. Market requirements dictate which standard they will choose to implement and be certified against. In the past I have audited to some systems that I think are complete jokes but they were appropriate for the market sector and were an improvement on doing nothing which was the alternative.
I have never audited against ISO 22 000 because no one asked me to. Some of my former Australian clients may be implementing it now though. And it would be a great standard to implement particularly if you are working in a country where the Government does not have/allocate the resources to implement a regulatory system of the caliber that Francisco works under in New Zealand. It will certainly help your business to get to the stage where you can start to think about individual customer requirements.
It’s all about market access. A standard that gives access to one market won’t be recognized in another. A New York restaurant will not care about BRC and a French retailer will not care about WQA or SQF. An Australian retailer will say about ISO 22 000- “that’s nice but you need….”
And Remy, women are auditors too…..
Should any one be attending the World Seafood Congress in Dublin (http://www.worldseafoodcongress07.com/) in the last week of Sept and want to attend a 4 day external auditors course for the BRC standard the next week (Oct 1-4) in Dublin, our company is running this course. Please email me directly for further information or check out our website http://www.brc-ireland.com/
Thanks
Clare Winkel
________________________________
From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Remi Michalowski
Sent: 15 August 2007 07:52
To: cansalmon@aol.com<mailto:cansalmon@aol.com>
Cc: seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto:seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
Agree the BRC and the IFS are rather similar even if the evaluation scales are different. I was talking on certain "degrees" of expectations.
Abt the ISO, I never stated that the retailers will better accept the ISO. I said that there are issues from the retailers' point of view, such as on the requirements: Means Vs. Results. Means are always preferred by retailers. If I am not wrong, ISO is still reviewed by GFSI, isn't it?
At last, abt the CBs, I insist: UK retailers do not trust all the CBs. After all, a CB is not a non-profit organization, they have a business to run. They follow what customers expect. Furthermore, auditors are only men and they have different ways to interpret the standards and even to appreciate a non-conformity.
As a result, some CBs are more trusted than others and if you are not certified by one of the "approved" CBs, they can request you to be recertified by another CB, part of their "positive list".
However, if you look at the trends, more and more, the retailers have their own expectations (M&S does not even look at the BRC).
We cannot expect for the "best" or the most demanding standard. Nobody can be satisfied 100% by a standard. Look at the ISO, GFSI was a bit disappointed by the results. Some WG members were expecting more from the ISO such as a clear Decision Tree.
No system is perfect, no standard is perfect. You will always find higher expectations from certain buyers. But, to summarize, ISO is very interesting for developing countries, and for the others too, as it offers a systematic approach to analyze your process and fulfill legal requirements. Then, you can move on with the BRC or the IFS, and, maybe, you can satisfy M&S one day.
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<mailto: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 15, 2007, at 12:59 PM, cansalmon@aol.com<mailto:cansalmon@aol.com> wrote:
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<mailto:remi.michalowski@cpp.co.id>>
To: Chingling Tanco <crt@mida-group.com<mailto:crt@mida-group.com>>
Cc: seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:vanessa@baldorfood.com>>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:12:01 -0400
To: <criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com<mailto:criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com>>, <seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto: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<mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu> <owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu>>
To: seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto:seafood@ucdavis.edu> <seafood@ucdavis.edu<mailto: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<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.
--- 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.
--- 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2007 - 23:24:09 PDT