Food Safety codes of practice
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is the main retailers’ trading body In the UK. BRC protects all traders irrespective of their business size. The scheme covers standards for food safety, storage and distribution, packaging and packaging materials and consumer products (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The ISO EN NSAI 22000:2005 certificate owned by the Foundation for Food Safety Certification, the FSSC combines the ISO 22000 Food Safety Management Standard and Pre-Requisite Program (PRP) requirements along with some other requirements. A wide range of manufacturing companies can apply these ISO 2200 standards (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The standards also cover food packaging material. The SQF code entails the whole food supply chain; primary production, food manufacturing, ingredient manufacturing, packaging and distribution (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). It was developed in Western Australia, but currently owned by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) in the USA (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). Each of the three standards meets the three key elements requirements through different structures and procedures (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). This paper compares and contrasts three food safety schemes, BRC Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 7, ISO EN NSAI 22000:2005 and Safe Quality Food (SQF) code.
One major similarity between the schemes is that they should all have a competent food safety policy that is regularly evaluated for improvement. The policies should comply with the HACCP requirement for food safety (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). Also, the food safety policy in all the three schemes should cover the business activities scope, comply with the HACCP requirements, regularly audited and well communicated to the entire staff (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The policy should have measurable objectives. However, one point of contrast in this regard is that the BRC scheme requires the policy to have a non-expiry provision for the certification, and the organization should buy a copy of the BRC current issue (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
Another similarity between the three schemes is that a food safety manual is a requirement in all. The manual acts as a reference for the procedures in handling food (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The format of the manual is not specific for any scheme (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
The three schemes emphasize on the management commitment to implementing and monitoring the food safety policy. An organizational chart and job descriptions are important tools in guiding the management commitment (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). However, one major difference is that for BRC, there is no specific leader required, while SQF requires a full-time leader referred to as an ‘SQF practitioner’ who should be trained in line with SQF and HACCP requirements (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The SQF scheme also requires the organizational structure to be communicated to all staff. The BRC scheme specifically requires the presence of most senior production or operations manager during the whole certification audit event (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
Documented procedures are required in all the three schemes for better control. BRC requires an electronic back up of records. All the three schemes require all items and services to have documented specifications that are up to date (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). One point of contrast is that SQF and BRC require the language to be detailed, and the company’s staff be conversant with the language, while for ISO EN NSAI 22000:2005, it is not necessary (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
An internal audit system is a requirement for the three schemes. The audit should be done yearly by external auditors. The BRC scheme requires a review of excessive limits, product recalls, and withdrawals. Also, it requires the factory processing equipment and environment inspections documented. The SQF scheme differs from the ISO EN NSAI 22000:2005 and BRC in that it requires the audit schedule to describe the verification activities, completion frequency and job descriptions (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
With regard to conformity with the food safety standards, all schemes deem it a requirement. Follow-ups should be clearly recorded. The BRC scheme is slightly more detailed than ISO EN NSAI 22000:2005 and SQF in that it has an aspect of assessing raw materials risk (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
The three schemes require monitoring and measuring tools identified recognized standards used to calibrate them (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). They require traceability at all stages. Testing should be done annually and results recorded. The BRC scheme is nore detailed than the rest in this regard. It requires the demonstration and traceability of mass balance in four hours (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
An actionable customer complaint system is a requirement for the three schemes. The system should prevent future occurrence of the same issue. An effective incident management plan should be in place in all the three schemes (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). The three schemes provide for frequent product testing and analysis. Before a product is released to the market, it must conform to the food safety standards (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012). In this regard, the three schemes require companies to have good manufacturing practices (GMPs) and Pre-requisite programs (PRPs) with a regular schedule to monitor the process (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
The SQF code is an all-inclusive scheme that deserves the accreditation of GFSI. It focuses on the whole food supply chain; primary production, food manufacturing, ingredient manufacturing, packaging, and distribution. It satisfies the GFSI elements and customers assured of safe food (Sansawat and Muliyil, 2012).
Reference
Sansawat, S. and Muliyil, V. (2012). Comparing Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Recognised Standards a Discussion About the Similarities and Differences Between the Requirements of the GFSI Benchmarked Food Safety Standards. [online] Sgs.com. Available at: http://www.sgs.com/~/media/Global/Documents/White%20Papers/SGS_GFSI_WP_October%202012%20Update_Web.ashx [Accessed 6 Apr. 2016].
